The government argues on appeal that Section 514 is narrowly tailored to advancing three important governmental interests: (1) attaining indisputable compliance with international treaties and multilateral agreements, (2) obtaining legal protections for American copyright holders’ interests abroad, and (3) remedying past inequities of foreign authors who lost or never obtained copyrights in the United States. We hold that the government has demonstrated a substantial interest in protecting American copyright holders’ interests abroad, and Section 514 is narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Consequently, the district court erred in concluding that Section 514 violates plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.(footnote omitted). The government had defended the statute at issue largely on the ground that it was necessary in order to comply with TRIPS and the Berne Convention, under which signatories "must provide copyright protection to preexisting foreign works even when those works were previously in the public domain in that country."
This is a big win for the government, and for the large group of copyright owners who filed amicus briefs urging reversal. The plaintiffs can seek rehearing en banc, and may petition for cert., but I think any First Amendment challenge to a copyright statute is a real longshot in light of Eldred v. Ashcroft.