The purpose of copyright law is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Such a goal presumably serves the public interest because copyright protection encourages creativity and learning and thus benefits the progression of society. The First Amendment intends to protect freedom of expression and freedom of speech, including political speech. These rights also serve the public interest, as political speech allows the public to make educated and informed decisions when partaking in the democratic process held so sacred in the United States Constitution. There must be a delicate balance between copyright law and First Amendment rights, as copyright somewhat limits these rights. For example, political campaigns employ copyrighted material in ads, speeches, and videos for the purpose of (free) political speech. It can be argued that to treat such acts of political campaigns as copyright infringement limits the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. If such action of political campaigns is copyright infringement and thus eliminated or censored, it can be said that copyright severely hurts the public interest. When examining the role of copyright, it must then be addressed, does copyright help or harm the public interest?

This article focuses on trademark law opposed to copyright law. While trademark and copyright are distinct, the argument for the protection of one has significant bearing on the argument for the protection of the other. Since this article argues against the protection of trademarks in political speech, it will have an impact on the topic of copyright in political speech, which contributes to the larger picture of copyright and the public interest.

Smith argues that the First Amendment should protect the use of trademarks in political campaigns. Trademark owners argue that use of slogans diminish the product's selling power by way of multiple associations. While such an argument is valid in holding a commercial organization responsible for infringment, it does not apply to political campaigns. This article holds that "the First Amendment should shield politicians' use of commercial slogans in speech that promotes their candidacies or conveys their positions on issues of public importance." In the discussion of campaign speech, Smith notes that the Supreme Court consistently supports the First Amendment's purpose to protect "free discussion of governmental affairs," which includes discussion of candidates. She also notes that political advertisements cannot be censored. Smith acknowledges the view that "the First Amendment does not protect all political speech; the theft of or trespass onto the mark constitutes a harm that should trump First Amendment protection even of political speakers; and a strong public interest in protecting trademarks exists." She rebuts this, however, by arguing that candidate speech deserves the most protection because it is imperative to the democratic process of self government. The article's ultimate conclusion is clear; trademark law trumps First Amendment protection if commercial use of a mark causes confusion or deception in the market, but First Amendment rights win when a mark is used for what should be highly valued and protected political speech.

As mentioned above, this article deals with trademark law opposed to copyright law. However, the argument against trademark law trumping First Amendment rights can transfer to the realm of copyright. It provides strong affirmative support for the position that copyright law should serve the public interest. This line of support focuses on the specific level of political campaigns, through which the public receives important information and can then partake in self government, a highly valued Constitutional right. Protecting speech, and limiting copyright, in such a realm as politics benefits the public interest.

Copyright (c) 1999 Publications Council of the College of William and Mary
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
December, 1999
8 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 241

The ACLU blog fights for online service providers and content owners to safeguard free speech, as record amounts of individuals are using the "publically accessive but privately owned" arenas to discuss matters of governmental and political importance. The public, then, relies on service providers etc. to protect such free speech, which lately has been threatened for violating a site's terms of use or infringing copyright. The blog lists recent examples, such as YouTube's removal of a video about John McCain that used images necessary for commentary on the canditates support of the war in Iraq. The blog implies that such a video is fair use and as political commentary it should be permitted, but the video was taken down regardless. The authors of the entry, Nicole Ozer and Corynne McSherry, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), push content owners and providers to assess whether such speech is fair use before "pulling the plug on political speech." Further, they acknowledge that those who wish to restrict others' free speech can instead exercise their own constitutional rights and respond with more free speech, thus serving the democratic process.

This post in the ACLU blog supports the notion that, at least in some circumstances, copyright protection can hurt the public interest. The constitution protects free speech, and exercising this right in the political realm is certainly protected. To suppress this right hurts not only the First Amendment, but also the public interest. By censoring political speech and opinions, copyright protection does not foster a fully free election in which, throughout the campaign, the public has appropriate access to information necessary to make a decision on who to elect and what policies are best. The policies and the people making them are crucial to the interests on the country, hence the public interest, and, according to this argument, copyright does not serve the public interest by restricting individuals' First Amendment rights.