# Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973)/Addendum

SUPPLEMENTARY PRACTICES TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Number | Title | Page |
| 1 | COMMERICAL PRINTS AND LABELS | S-2 |
| 2 | PATENT APPLICATIONS | S-5 |
| 3 | UNPUBLISHED COLLECTIONS | S-6 |
| 4 | INSIGNIA | S-7 |
| 5 | SINGLE APPLICATION FOR SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE SAME WORK | S-8 |
| 6 | OBSCENE WORKS | S-9 |
| 7 | CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL | S-10 |
| 8 | WORKS OF ART (Withdrawn, July 1913) | S-11 |
| 9 | GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS | S-16 |
| 10 | MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION OF TEXT MATTER | S-20 |
| 11 | PRACTICES CONCERNING "REFERRALS" | S-21 |
| 12 | PRACTICES: VARIANCE IN CLAIM INVOLVING FOREIGN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION TERMINOLOGY | S-42 |
| 13 | REFERRAL OF CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING PUBLISHED WORKS FROM THE EXAMINING DIVISION TO THE COMPLIANCE SECTION, REFERENCE DIVISION | S-45 |
| 14 | MUSIC EXAMINING: NEW MATTER MINIMAL OR NOT CLEARLY STATED | S-47 |
| 15 | CANCELLATION CASES | S-48 |
| 16 | DETERMINATION 0F EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR UNPUBLISHED WORKS WHERE THE MATERIAL SUB­MITTED FOR REGISTRATION CONTAINS A CLEAR DISCREPANCY WHICH THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE SHOULD HAVE OBSERVED BEFORE COMPLETING THE ENTRY | S-50 ​ |
| 17 | UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT RELATIONS AND ACCEPTABLE STATEMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP (Withdrawn, July 1973) | S-52 |
| 18 | NOTICE CONTAINING THE YEAR DATE IN WHICH COPYRIGHT WAS SECURED PLUS AN EARLIER DATE OR DATES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE WORK | S-73 |
| 19 | ANNOTATION IN ANTEDATED NOTICE CASES WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR DATE IN THE NOTICE | S-74 |
| 20 | REVISED PROCDURE FOR APPEAL CASES | S-75 |
| 21 | PRACTICE CONCERNING THE FEE TO BE CHARGED IN CASES PENDING IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEE INCREASE [November 26, 1965] | S-78 |
| 22 | DATES OF RECEIPT APPEARING ON THE APPLICATION AND COPIES OR COPY | S-81 |
| 23 | RETURN OF DEPOSIT COPIES IN CASES WHERE NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO COPYRIGHT OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE | S-84 |
| 24 | RIDERS TO APPLICATIONS | S-85 |
| 25 | INQUIRIES CONCERNING THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE LIBRARY | S-87 |
| 26 | CORRESPONDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING REPRINT MATERIAL | S-88 |
| 27 | USE OF PSEUDONYMS IN THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE | S-89 |
| 28 | SINGLE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE SAME PUBLISHED OR UNPUBLISHED WORK | S-92 |
| 29 | SINGLE PAGE RULE FOR COPYRIGHT NOTICE | S-96 |
| 30 | REFUNDING OF EXCESS FEES | S-98 ​ |
| 31 | REQUEST FOR CORRECTION IN, ADDITION TO, OR CANCELLATION OF A COMPLETED RECORD | S-99 |
| 32 | ORAL ADVISORY OPINIONS CONCERNING REGISTRABILITY | S-121 |
| 33 | RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE STATUTORY FEE | S-122 |
| 34 | PROPER "APPLICATION RECEIVED II DATE ON APPLICATIONS FOR UNPUBLISHED WORKS | S-123 |
| 35 | POSITION OF THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE ON COMPUTER PROGRAMS OF DOMESTIC ORIGIN FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE FORM OF MACHINE READABLE TAPE OR MACHINE PUNCHED CARDS | S-125 |
| 36 | REFLECTION IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE RECORDS OF LIMITING STATEMENTS APPEARING NEAR THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE | S-127 |
| 37 | THE USE OF A SURNAME ONLY IN THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE | S-129 |
| 38 | STANDARD REFERENCE DATA ACT CLAIMS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT: REGISTRATION WITH OUT A FEE | S-132 |
| 39 | CITIZENSHIP OF CLAIMANT IN POSTHUMOUS WORKS | S-134 |
No. 1
COMMERCIAL PRINTS AND LABELS
Where a multi-page work has an abbreviated notice, or where the notice is not in book position but does appear at the front or
Extra copies of commercial prints and labels. When the Patent Office was registering commercial prints and labels (Prior to July 1, 1940) it required the deposit of extra copies which are now held by the Copyright Office. The Office will use the extra deposit copies (those in excess of two) in fulfilling requests for a copy of the print or label. Such extra copies may be furnished to anyone upon written request. A copy
No.2
PATENT APPLICATIONS
Patent applications. Under the Patent Law, the material contained in a patent application goes into the public domain when a patent is issued; and a patent application must be filed in the Patent Office within one year after the invention has been described in any printed publication.
A copyright claim in the text description or in the drawings or photographs in a patent application will not be registered after the patent has been issued.
Before a patent application has been filed or while it is pending in the Patent Office, a copy­right claim in the text description or in the drawings or photographs may be registered for copyright; but we will warn the applicant (1) that copyright will not protect the idea or invention, (2) if the patent application has not been filed, that the time for filing it in the Patent Office may expire one year after publication or (if the work has not been published) one year after registration, and (3) that if he obtains a patent, copyright on the material in the patent application may cease when the patent is issued.
When a patent application has been rejected by the Patent Office, a copyright claim in the material in the application may be registered. The filing of the application in the Patent Office will not be considered publication in the copyright sense. [December 1952]
No. 3
UNPUBLISHED COLLECTIONS
Unpublished collections. An unpublished collection of works copyrightable under section 12 of the Copyright Law may be registered on one application when all the following conditions are met:
(1) The collection is assembled in an orderly arrangement;
(2) The collection bears a single title identifying the collection as a Whole;
(3) The collection as a whole is the subject of single claim of copyright;
(4) All the component works are by the same author, or (if the component works are by different authors) the collection as a whole represents the work of a single author in its compilation; and
(5) The component works are all of the same class, or the component works are principally of the class in which the collection is to be registered. [March 1953]
No. 4
INSIGNIA
Insignia. The Office will not attempt to determine whether an emblem appearing in a deposited work is one which some person or organization other than the applicant has the exclusive right to use. However, where the emblem is readily recognized as the well­ known emblem authorized by Federal statute for exclusive use by a particular organization (e.g., the Red Cross or Smokey Bear), the Office may make inquiry as to the applicant 's right to use it in the deposited work. [July 1953]
No. 5
SINGLE APPLICATION FOR SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE SAME WORK
Single Application for Several Versions of the Same Work.
Where several versions of the same work (e.g., different arrangements of the same song; or English, French, and Spanish versions of the same book) are separately bound but are submitted with one application:
1. If the applicant states, or if we have other reason to believe, that the several versions were published together as a single work, they may be registered together on the one application.
2. If there is nothing (other than the single date of publication given in the application) to indicate that the several versions were published together as a single work, we will inquire whether such was the case.
3. If we are informed that the several versions were published separately, we will ask for separate applications. [July 1954]
No.6
OBSCENE WORKS
Obscene Works.
a. The Office will not ordinarily attempt to examine a work to determine whether it contains material that might be considered obscene.
b. If the examiner believes, upon an ordinary examination, that a work is obscene, the Chief of the Examining Division will determine whether the work should be referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution. If the work is not so referred, the copyright claim may be registered.
c. When a work is referred to the Department of Justice, registration will be held up pending action by that Department. [September 1954]
No. 7
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL
Confidential Material.
a. Classified security material. If a work appears likely to contain material classified by the Government as security information (usually identified by the marking "Top Secret," "Secret," or "Confidential", and sometimes bearing a notation that the material contains information affecting the national defense), the copies should immediately be turned over to the Security Officer, and we will ask the applicant to explain the confidential character of the material. A work containing classified security information will not be registered.
b. Other confidential material. When an appli­cant requests that the deposit copies be withheld from inspection by the public, we will inform him that registration cannot be made with such a restriction. [September 1954]
No. 8
WORKS OF ART
(pp. 8-11 through 8-15)
Withdrawn as Supplemental Practice and incorporated in Chapter 2, July 1973.
No. 9
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Where a work of private authorship was first published with notice of copyright in the name of a private person and was
State governments.
District of Columbia.
Incorporated territories.
Unincorporated territories.
Foreign governments.
International governmental organizations.
Periodicals.
A disclaimer is not requested or a periodical despite the presence of some Government material in it. However, where an entire periodical appears to be an official publication of a Government agency, it will be questioned.
No. 10
MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION OF TEXT MATTER
A claim to copyright in the mere mechanical reproduction of text and allied matter is not registrable. The Office will, therefore, reject applications where it is apparent that a photograph, microfilm or similar reproduction of text and allied matter, was produced by a mere mechanical procedure, and that no intellectual labor was involved in the composition.
The present practice of accepting photographs which are not mere mechanical reproductions of existing texts or allied matter remains unaffected.
[November 1956]
No. 11
PRACTICES CONCERNING "REFERRALS"
The existence of a double standard should be observed in these cases: The fact that the Examining Division should have written about a problem before registration is completed does not necessarily mean that the case will be handled as a referral after registration. On the other hand, the fact that a problem is not sufficiently serious to cause a referral should not be regarded by the examiner as a license to
Exception: Where registration was made for a work bearing a postdated notice but published within the year immediately pre­
In notice: The Meretricious Music Co.
A case should not be referred Where, on the
In notice: H. C. Enderby
The law (17 U.S.C. 209) requires that the
The fact that no address is given in
Title on copies: THE ROMANCE OF NAME SEARCHING
Title on copies: LET'S ALL SING A SONG
Title on application: SLUMBER TIME SONNETS NO. 21
Title on copies:THE LIFE AND WORK OF JOHN SMYTH
Title on copies: LOSE UGLY POUNDS IN MINUTES . . . .USE BLASTO
Title on copies: NO. ZT 721B SUMMER STORM
None of the photographs or drawings in the set
The problem has not been resolved by an­
An apparent varience in authorship may not be one in fact, since the work may have been written for hire; the copies may contain the name of the actual ​individual who wrote the work, the the application is correct it it gives only the name of the employer for hire. There is no legal requirement that the variance be resolved on the application in such cases.
On copies: By Conrad Van Damm Author on application: Committee on Historical Continuity, Inc.
On copies: By Cunnigham Macomber Author on application: Martin Maguire (Cunningham Macomber)
On copies: Ernest Hemmingway Author on application: Anna Liva Flurabelle
On copies: Words and music by Donald L. Dixon and Henry Horner On application: Words by Donald L. Dixon and music by Ben Horner
On copies: By Maria LaPiana. On application: Arrangement by Mildred F. Thomas
A case should be referred if, when it reaches the cataloger, the application states a date of publica­tion that is still in the future. It should not be referred when the date is in the past, even though the application stated an advanced date when it was
A case should not be referred even though the statement of the claimant's name may contain errors in spelling or
On application:Son of The Volt Man, I Love You
On application:Speryville, Va., Northwest Quarter
On application:The Islands Laagerhans
On application:Rondo Capprichisio.
When, from the face of the renewal application, it is clear that the work in question is a separate contribution to a periodical or other composite work, the ​case should be referred unless the application adequately identifies the periodical or composite work. In the case of a periodical, referral should be made unless the particular issue in which the contribution was first published is identified.
Renewal Claimant: Manny Baldwin as author of words Author of Renewable Matter:Manny Baldwin as author of music.
Renewal Claimant:Samuel Shadwell as arranger
No. 12
PRACTICAL VARIANCE IN CLAIM INVOLVING FOREIGN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION TERMINOLOGY
In notice: Johann Bost, Verleger In application: Johann Bost Practice: Annotate
In notice: Kreuz-Verlag GmbH In application: Kreuz-Verlag Practice: Annotate
In notice: Melodie Ton Verlag
In notice: Posaune Musikverlag
Question the variance in this
In notice: Librairie Gallimard In application: Felix Gallimard Practice: Question the variance
In notice: Springer Verlag OHG In application: Springer Verlag GmbH Practice: Question the variance
In notice: Etablissements Casterman S.A. In application: Etablissements Casterrnan S.r.1. Practice: Question the variance
No. 13
REFERRAL OF CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING PUBLISHED WORKS FROM THE EXAMINING DIVISION TO THE COMPLIANCE SECTION, REFERENCE DIVISION
Cases where no compliance action is appropriate. The following cases should not be referred to the
There is any real doubt as to the registrability
No. 14
MUSIC EXAMINING: NEW MATTER MINIMAL OR NOT CLEARLY STATED
The following practices apply to all cases involving the registration of claims to copyright in new versions or new editions of previously registered or published material, but especially to claims based on musical editing and new versions of "folk songs."
1) Where the new matter is stated simply as "editing" or "arrangement," and the copy clearly shows the presence of substantial editing or arrangement and its nature, registration should be made without further question.
2) Where the new matter is stated simply as "editing" or "arrangement" and it is not clear from the copy whether any substantial and original editing or arrangement is present, or what it consists of, the Examining Division should request a clearer statement of new matter. If it seems clear that no such editing or arrangement is, in fact, present, or if a satisfactory statement cannot be obtained, the claim may be rejected for lack of new matter.
3) In all cases where it is clear that the basic musical composition is in the public domain, registration should be made only if an acceptable statement of new matter appears in the space provided for that purpose on the application. Moreover, it is not sufficient for the new matter merely to be suggested indirectly in the statement of authorship on the application.
4) Where it is clear to the examiner from the face of the copy that no new copyrightable words or music are present, but the application appears to assert a claim in the words and music (either alone or in combination with arrangement or editing) the claim should be rejected or a new application should be requested in which the basis of claim is clearly stated.
No. 15
CANCELLATION CASES
Under no circumstances will the Office issue an additional certificate for a cancelled registration. However, since the cancelled application is part of the records of the Copyright Office, its existence may be reported in search reports, and photocopies may be prepared and furnished to the public. Certificates of such photocopies, if requested, may be furnished, but should be specifically drawn, and should be furnished
No. 16
DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR UNPUBLISHED WORKS WHERE THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR REGISTRATION CONTAINED A CLEAR DISCREPANCY WHICH THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE SHOULD HAVE OBSERVED BEFORE COMPLETING THE ENTRY
1. The following hypothetical case illustrates the problem: an application Form E, resitration fee, and one copy of an unpublished musical work are received in the Copyright Office on May 15, 1967. Registration of the claim is made and a registration number assigned to the work on May 22, 1967. On May 26th an error is discovered sub­stantially affecting the registration which the Copyright Office should have observed prior to making the entry on May 22nd. The Copyright Office requests a new application Form B which E received on June 5, 1967, and which bears the latter date of receipt. The effective date of registration for an unpublished work is the date on which the last of the three elements required for registration, that is, the application, copy, and fee, is received in acceptable form in the Copyright Office.
2. In cases of this kind involving unpublished works, the date of registration should ordinarily be the date which would have been used it the registration had not involved an error which the Copyright Office should have observed prior to making the entry. In the above mentioned example, the effective date of the registration would be May 15, 1967. Accordingly, the later date of receipt would be removed from the new application Form E and replaced by the earlier date, namely, May 15, 1967.
3. In cases where the error necessitates requesting a new copy of an unpublished. work, determination of the effective date of registration will depend upon the nature of the new copy. Thus, for example, assuming the sequence of dates given in the first paragraph of this memorandum:
4. In any post registration case involving deposit of a new copy, the date of receipt appearing on the new copy and in the "copy received" box on the appllication must be made to correspond.
5. The above mentioned procedures are not applicable to published works because the term of copyright protection for published works is computed from the date of first publication rather than from the effective date of registration.
UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT RELATIONS AND ACCEPTABLE STATEMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP
(pp. S-52 through S-72)
Withdrawn as Supplemental Practice July 1973.
No. 18
NOTICE CONTAINING THE YEAR DATE IN WHICH COPYRIGHT WAS SECURED PLUS AN EARLIER DATE OR DATES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE WORK
This memorandum concerns our procedure in cases where there are two or more year dates in the copyright notice and we have ascertained that the earlier date or dates do not refer to anything. In this situation, copyright in the entire work has been secured in the last year named in the notice, and there is no previous registration or publication to which the earlier dates might refer. The question raised by such a notice, of course, is whether the earlier dates have any effect on the term of copyright.
Since this question has apparently not been decided by the courts, no "antedated notice" warning letter or circular should be sent. On the other hand, the question is not wholly free from doubt. Therefore, the application and certificate should be annotated in all such cases to show the dates in the notice.
No. 19
ANNOTATION IN ANTEDATED NOTICE CASES WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YEAR DATE IN THE NOTICE
Frequently we have antedated notice cases where there is more than one date in the notice. For example, a work published in 1966 with new matter may bear a notice containing a 1961 and 1965 year date. The 1961 year date refers to a previous unpublished registration or to an earlier published edition and the 1965 year date is intended to cover the version published with new matter in 1966. The question then arises whether the antedated notice annotation should read "In notice: 1961, 1965" or "In notice: 1965."
It is our general policy to include all of the year dates in the annotation. The inclusion of only one of the year dates when several are in the notice creates a false picture of the notice and under certain circum­stances Gould have serious consequences.
No. 20
REVISED PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL CASES
A. What is an "appeal"? An appeal, in Copyright Office terminology, is a request for reconsideration following the taking of some final action. The final action involved is usually a "rejection" (that is, the refusal to register a claim on grounds of uncopyrightability or failure to meet statutory requirements). A request for reconsideration ~f an action such as refusal to record a document in a particular form, refusal to register a renewal claim in a particular class, etc., is not considered an appeal until the applicant has refused to accept the alternative suggested by the Office and the case has been closed.
B. Correspondence in appeal cases.
1. First appeal. The first letter of appeal is referred to the member of the Examining Division staff who was responsible for approving the "final action" mentioned in Section A above. The letter of reply is typed for the personal signature of the Head (or Assistant Head) of the Section.
a. In the event the "final action" being appealed was taken by the Section Head in a letter bearing his personal signature, the letter of reply is typed for the personal signature of the Assistant Chief, Examining Division.
2. Second appeal. An appeal from a second rejection or other final action taken on the first appeal is referred to the person who was responsible for approving the action in question. Ordinarily, the letter of reply is typed for the personal signature of the Assistant Chief of the Division.
​a. In cases where the answer to the first appeal was signed personally the Assistant Chief, the letter of reply is typed for the personal signature of the Chief, Examining Division.
3. Third and later appeals. All appeals after the second go directly to the Chief, Examining Division, for decision. Unless a fourth and subsequent appeal presents new grounds for reversing the decision, the Chiet of the Division may deny them without extended consideration.
C. Personal contacts in appeal cases.
1. As a rule, efforts should be made to discourage personal discussions in appeal cases until a written letter of appeal has been filed. However, there may be circumstances (e .g., where an attorney has made a special trip from another city without first requesting an appointment) where it would be 1mpolite not to listen to the applicant's arguments and to try to clarity the Copyright Office's reasons for its action. No commitments of any kind may be made in such a discussion, and the applicant should be requested to put his arguments in writing before any further action can be taken.
2. Once a letter of appeal has been received, the Copyright Office will neither encourage nor discourage personal discussions of the case. In such discussions the Copyright Office should be represented by the person who has responsibility for acting on the appeal--the Section Bead. (or Assistant Bead) in first appeals, the Assistant Chief in second appeals, and the Chief of the Examining Division in subsequent appeals. He may call in others to attend the conference or to represent him, it appropriate. In certain very unusual or important cases, the Register of Copyrights may represent the Office in the discussion of an appeal.
​3. It is usally the purpose of the discussion of all appeal merely to elicit information and clarify positions, rather than to settle the case once and for all. However, where facts are brought out in the discussion which completely change the complexion of a case (e.a., a work by a Turkish citizen is found to have been first published in a U.C.C. country), it may be appropriate to indicate what action the office will take. In any case, a brief written report of the conference should be added to the correspondence file, and the final action of the office should be stated or confirmed in a letter to the applicant.
No. 21
PRACTICE CONCERNING THE FEE TO BE CHARGED IN CASES PENDING IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEE INCREASE [November 26, 1965]
A. Public Law 89-2517, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., which provides for increases in most fees for copyright registrations and other services, was approved on October 21, 1965. Section 3 provides that "this Act shall take effect 30 days after its enactment." Under this provision, a copyright claim may be registered at the lower rate if properly filed in the Copyright Office on or before November 26, 1965, but the new higher fee will be charged for registration of claims submitted thereafter.
B. With respect to cases pending in the Copyright Office at the time of the fee increase, the following practices will be adopted:
1. In registration cases, Whether registration can be made for the lower fee will ordinarily depend upon whether a claim to copyright was presented to the Copyright Office on or before November 26, 1965. The lower fee will be charged if, on or before that date, the Copyright Office has received:
a. The full fee at the lower rate, either as a separate remittance or as part of a deposit account. In deposit account cases there is no requirement that the examiner check to make certain that the account had funds sufficient to cover a particular registration on or before November 26. ​b. An application (or equivalent infor­mation in a letter, for example) sufficient to identify the work and to state that a claim in it exists, even if the information is incomplete or incorrect.
(1) In the case of published works, registration at the lower fee should not be made for any work published after November 26, 1965.
(2) In the case of renewals, regis­tration at the $2.00 fee should not be made unless the application is timely and states either the correct claimant or basis of claim.
c. The required number of copies of the particular work, even if not the copy or copies eventually used for the registration. For example, the copies may be incomplete, defective, or editions of different quality, but should not be entirely different versions containing substantially different copyrightable material.
2. In cases of recording assignments, etc., notices of use, or notices of intention to use, the lower fee will be charged if, on or before November 26, 1965, the Copyright Office has received:
a. The basic fee at the lower rate ($3.00 for assignments, etc., $2.00 for notices of use, or nothing for a notice of intention), either as a separate remittance or as part of a deposit account, even if a higher fee is eventually required because of extra pages or titles. However, if extra titles are later added to a pending notice of intention, the full new fee should be required.
​b. In the case of assignments, etc., and notices of intention to use, a copy of the particular document to be recorded, even if another, non-identical copy is later substituted for purposes of recordation. In the case of notices of use, 8 copy of the notice containing the name of the copyright claimant and at least one of the titles in the notice as eventually recorded. For example, if before November Z7, 1965, the only notice of use received contained the names of different copyright claimants for several different compositions, the fee for the notices of use eventually recorded should be computed at the new rate.
C. Where, before November Z7, 1965, we find that the higher fee will be necessary unless there is a satis­factory compliance before that date, we will call attention to the fee increase in the correspondence in a manner calcu­lated to avoid the necessity of writing later for an additional fee.
D. Where the applicant, at his own initiative, indicates that he prefers to pay the higher fee for a registration in a case that was pending in the Copyright Office at the time of the fee increase, the higher fee will not be refused even though the circumstances would not make it mandatory.
No. 22
DATES OF RECEIPT APPEARING ON THE APPLICATION AND COPIES OR COPY
It is not uncommon for an application to have acquired several dates of receipt by the time it is ready to be passed for registration. The same is true for the copies or copy and the dates in the boxes indicating the receipt of copies or copy. In order to standardize the practice in the Examining Division the following practices will be adopted in all Sections with the exception of the Renewal and Assignment Section. In the latter Section the date ot receipt of the application usually determines the vesting date of the renewal. The rigid adherence to these practices by the Renewal and Assignment Section could frequently result in the loss of rights.
A. Date of Receipt of the Application.
I. If registration is being made on the basis of the original application and there has been no correspondence, or if registration is being made on the basis of a new application received after correspondence, only the one date of receipt of that application should appear in the "Application received" box.
II. If the original application was returned for the addition of certain information and it is resub­mitted with the information added, two dates will appear in the "Application received" box when it reaches the Examining Division. In such cases, the examiner will add the later date of receipt to the certificate so the information on the application and certificate will be uniform. It the work is unpublished, the examiner will lightly cross through the earlier date on both the application and certificate in red pencil, thus:
There is no necessity for crossing through the earlier date in the case of published works.
​B. Date of Receipt of the Copies or Copy.
I. In the case of published works, if each of two complete copies is received on a different date, stamp the date of receipt of each copy in the "Two copies received" box. Thus:
1 c rec'd (first date)
1 c rec'd (later date)
II. In the case of either an unpublished or a published work, if one or both of the copies received is incomplete, the examiner will write for a complete copy or copies. In some cases it will be sufficient for the applicant to deposit the missing material, resulting in parts of one or both copies bearing different dates of receipt. The date of receipt of a particular copy in such cases will be the date the material making the copy complete was received in the Copyright Office. All earlier dates that appear on either the copy or in the "Copy received" or "Copies received" box should be crossed through lightly in red pencil.
For example, an application on Form E for an unpublished work may indicate that the claim is in both words and music, but only the music has been deposited. The copy is not complete until the words have been received. The date of receipt of the words, therefore, will be stamped on the application and certificate, and the date the music only was received will be crossed through lightly in red pencil on the application, certificate, and copy.
III. It sometimes happens in the case of unpublished works that the copy originally deposited is returned for correction, and is resubmitted at a ​later date. Where this occurs the later date should be stamped on the application, certificate, and copy, with the earlier date being lightly crossed through in red pencil on the application, certificate, and copy.
NOTE: In each of the situations described in this memorandum where it is necessary to cross through an earlier date, it is important that it is done in such a way that the date will remain legible.
No. 23
RETURN OF DEPOSIT COPIES IN CASES WHERE NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO COPYRIGHT OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
As a general rule, when no reply is received to Copyright Office correspondence and the case is closed, the deposit copies will be retained in the Copyright Office files. This rule applies to both published and unpublished material.
If the applicant later requests the return of his published copy or copies and we have two copies in our file, one copy will be returned. The applicant will be advised that the second copy has been retained as a part of the Copyright Office file in the cue in accordance with our usal practice. If there is one copy in our files, we will not return that copy unless it reasonably appears that the work may not have been published, or the Section Head or Assistant Section Head approves its return after considering all of the circumstances.
In the case of unpublished material, the deposit copy will be returned if the applicant requests it.
No. 24
RIDERS TO APPLICATIONS
The following outline of procedures should be followed when an application with a rider attachment is received for registration and the application is otherwise acceptable.
No. 25
INQUIRIES CONCERNING THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE LIBRARY
Occasionally we receive a letter of inquiry asking questions concerning both copyright matters and matters which might refer to other departments of the Library, such as, for example, processing of catalog cards, dissemination of the copyright deposits once they have reached the shelves of the Library, etc. We, of course, should not attempt to answer any inquiries pertaining to the operating procedure in other than our own Division. However, steps must be taken to see that the other inquiries are answered.
Where a letter of inquiry relates to matters not entirely within the jurisdiction of the Copyright Office, our replies will be directed solely to the copyright matters, and the writer of the letter of inquiry will be told that his other inquiries have been referred to the appropriate department in the Library for reply.
No. 26
CORRESPONDENCE IN CASES INVOLVING REPRINT MATERIAL
Two related problems involving reprint material arise quite frequently.
In both cases it is clear that the work contains material that has been published or copyrighted previously. Likewise, in both cases, the copyright notice contains only the later date of publication of this edition, and does not include any date covering the earlier material. The year date appearing in the notice is acre than one year later than the year in which copyright in the earlier material was secured.
In the first situation, there is a question as to whether there is sufficient new matter to support a new reg­istration, and we must write to find this out. It has sometimes been our practice merely to pose the question, without explaining the possible consequences--that unless there is new matter, reg­istration cannot be made and copyright has doubtless been lost. In this case, and in all cases where the copyright status of a work hinges on an applicant's answer to our question, an ex­planation of the possible consequences should be included in our letter.
In the second situation, it is clear that there is no new matter, and that the work is a mere reprint. In many of our rejection letters, we have gone no further than to explain that registration must be refused because there is not enough new matter to support a new entry. If this is true, however, the copyright mq have been 10Bt by use of a postdated notice. We wUl point this out to the applicant to avoid telling him only halt of the story and leaving him with a wrong impression as to future publications. This should be pointed out only as a possibility or as a general proposition; we cannot decide this question in an individual case.
These problems usually arise with respect to the year date. However, it should be noted that the same situation can arise when the name in the copyright notice is changed on a reprint without first recording the assignment.
No. 27
USE OF PUSEDONYMS IN THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
One of the essential elements of the required statutory notice on a published work is the name of the copyright owner or proprietor, that is, the name of the person or organization legally entitled to the copyright at the time of first publication. Generally, unless the name in the notice identities someone who is entitled to secure the copyright, registration of the claim to copy­right would not be authorized.
Whether the use of a pseudonym in the notice satisties the statutory requirements is not altogether clear. The problem arises from the tact that one of the principal purposes ot the copyright notice is to identity the copyright owner to the public, whereas a pseudonyms may be used to conceal that identity. Since it is desirable that our actions be consistent throughout the Division, the tollowing practices will be adopted.
1) If the work is unpublished and bears a copyright notice containing a pseudonym or other fictitious name, the use of such a notice at the time otfpublication will be dis­couraged unless the pseudonym actually discloses the identity of the person or organization legally entitled to claim caw­ right. Since one ot the principal purposes of the notice is to identity the copyright owner to the general public, a name associated with the owner in the mind of the public is always desirable.
2) It the work has been published with a pseudonym or other fictitious name in the copyright notice, our action will depend upon whether the name in the notice is capable of identifying the copyright proprietor to the public.
a) Where the owner's. identity is well known under the pseudonym or other fictitious name the application will not be questioned, even though the relationship between the two names is not disclosed on the application.
​However, if the relationship between the two names is not disclosed on the appli­cation, the name of the copyright claimant given in the application must agree with the name appearing in the copyright notice. Ex­ample: in the case of a work copyrighted by Mark Twain, the application will not be questioned merely because it names Mark Twain as copyright claimant and author, since the author was as well known under his pseudonym as by his real name, Samuel Clemens.
b) Where the pseudonym or other fictitious name is incapable of identifying the copyright proprietor to the public, the claim will be rejected. Examples: John Doe, pseudonym of ________; or, Any Man, U.S.A., pseudonym of ______;
c) In all other cases where we have knowledge that the name in the copyright notice is pseudonymous or fictitious, we will inquire whether the name in the notice is capable of identifying the copy­right proprietor to the public. Our letter should inform the applicant of the desirability of using the owner's real name in the notice since the use of a pseudonymous or fictitious name name may create some doubt affecting the validity of the copyright claim. Ordinarily, we will not question an appli­cant's assertion that the public associates the pseudonym or other fictitious name with the true copyright owner.
3) When the copyright notice contains a pseudonym or other fictitious name, except for those cases described under 2) a) above, the relationship between the pseudonym or the fictitious name and the recognized name of the person or organi­zation legally entitled to claim the copyright should be disclosed on the application. The disclosure should be explicit, and may ​appear in connection with the name of the copyright claimant or the name of the author shown on the application, or, preferably, both. For example, assuming that the name in the notice contains the pseudonym "WILLS DREIGH," the claimant should be identified on the application as follows: "WELLS, DREIGH, pseudonym of Eli Winthrop." The name of the author on the application should be accompanied by his pseudonym within parentheses: "Eli Winthrop (WILLS DREIGH)." Whenever there is a difference be­tween the name in the notice on the copies and the name of the copyright claimant given on the application, the discrepancy may be resolved by adding an annotation to both the application and certificate, provided, of course, the relationship between the two names is explicitly disclosed elsewhere on the application.
NOTE: It is clear that nothing in the law prevents the author from writing under a pseudonym or remaining anonymous. No problem arises unless the pseudonym or fictitious name appears in the copyright notice. When an author wishes to conceal his identity, he may wish to arrange with his publisher so that at the time of first publication his publisher (or another) will be "the person or organization legally entitled to the copyright."
No. 28
SINGLE APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE SAME PUBLISHED OR UN-PUBLISHED WORK
Arrangements for Horn Quartet and Trombone Quartet where the only difference is the transposition
Editions for High, Medium and Low Voices where the only difference is the transposition
Catalogs where the only differences are in the localities where they are published.
One book containing the words to a Kiwanis Song Book, the other containing the same words plus the music
Teacher's edition and student's edition of a book, the former containing the latter plus other text.
Arrangements of a composition for piano solo for dance orchestra
Two versions of a script for a TV commerical for Luzianne Coffee, one 30-seonds and the other 60-seconds
A play with alternate endings
The same music in different keys
No. 29
SINGLE PAGE RULE FOR COPYRIGHT NOTICES
The following practices should be observed in examining claims to copyright in single page works.
A copyright notice appearing anywhere on a single folded sheet may be accepted in Classes A, B, D, E, and F through K. This rule applies only if the folded sheet may, unopposed by any mechanical device (such as stitching, stapling, etc.), be opened out into one single sheet.
The basis for this rule is that in many cases involving folded material the "faces" or "pages" are not paginated and the folds are such that it may be difficult to ascertain which portion of the folded sheet is the title page, the page immediately following the title page, or the first page of text, etc. Thus, the Office considers that the title page can be ascertained only when the sheet is entirely unfolded. If it then appears that an adequate notice is on one side or the other of the unfolded single sheet, registration will not be denied on the grounds of a misplaced notice.
Where registrations are being made on this basis inClasses A, D, and F through K, it will not be necessary to write a warning letter. The rationale here is that since the notice for a book or a dramatic work should appear either "upon its title page or the page immediately following," a notice either on the side of the single sheet containing the title or on the other side would meet this requirement. In the case of works registrable in Classes F through K, the law does not specify any exact pod tion :for the notice; consequently, a notice on any accessible portion of the work is acceptable.
No. 30
REFUNDING OF EXCESS FEES
According to the Regulations of the Copyright Office excess fees in the amount of $1.00 or less will not be returned unless specifically requested by the remitter. If a refund is requested, the amount will be refunded by postage stamps.
Excess fees in the amount of $1.01 or more will be refunded by check.
No. 31
REQUEST FOR CORRECTION IN, ADDITION TO, OR CANCELLATION OF A COMPLETED RECORD
PART I
Basic procedures for handling requests for corrections in, additions to, or cancellation of, our completed records
If an error is found, the case will be handled
If, upon searching, they find anything indicating either that "referral" action should be taken, or that a "corrective entry" or entirely new registration should be made in lieu of
Where the insert or other copy is to be substituted for or added to the deposit copy of an unpublished work, and the changes could constitute copyrightable new matter, the case should be referred to the appropriate section to be handled as a possible new registration for a
PART II
Error Made by Applicant in Application or Copy at Time of Registration
This part outlines the procedures which should be followed in handling cases where the applicant himself made a mistake on the application or copy at the time of registration which he feels is important enough to correct. The mistake is such that the examiner could not be held responsible for failing to note the error. The following are examples of this type of mistake: incorrect date of publication; incorrect or incomplete authorship given; incorrect citizenship; incorrect affidavit information; error in spelling of author's name.
These procedures are not appropriate where some fact on the original application has changed since regis­ tration was completed, or where the error is one that the Examining Division should have discovered at the time of registration.
Authorized publication. If it seems likely that the original publication was authorized by the author or his assignee, but the application contains an error, ​the action to be taken depends upon the nature of the error.
If the error is not so serious that registration would have been refused if the original application had reflected the true facts at the time it was submitted, the applicant may apply for a completely new registration, or he may, either as an addition or as an alternative to a new registration, submit a formal, signed statement or affidavit for recordation in
Name in notice on deposit copies and in original application is Artmore Publishing Co., whereas name in notice on bulk of published edition is Beechnut Publishing Co. (Both firms are owned by the same parent cor­
Application and deposit copies name John Kerry as author of words and music whereas on the ​bulk of the published edition he is named as author of music only.
Line 1 contains the name of someone who was not the author or the assignee of the author,
Change in authorship. If the error involves a change in authorship, a formal, signed statement
Line 1 contains a minor error in the name of the claimant but the claimant is unmistakably
Oakland Publishing Co. should be Oakland
Barnaby Music Inc. should be Barnaby
Line 2 contains an error in the title. (Do not confuse with a change of title made AFTER
Error made in stating the facts of previous registration or previous publication (e.g.,
Part III
Corrective Entries
NOTE: A "corrective entry" is not appropriate to correct an error appearing in the copyrightable content of the original deposit copy or copies. In such cases, if the corrections involve substantial, new, copyrightable authorship, a new registration may be considered on the basis of the new matter. If the corrections or changes are not substantial, and the work is published, the corrected copy should be treated as an errata sheet (See Part I, Section II.B.).
"Substitute Entry" distinguished from "Corrective Entry:"
Since the term of copyright in a published work is computed from the date of publication, regardless of when registration is completed, the presence of two registrations in our records covering the same published work does not raise problems as to the length ​of the term, However, the possibility of making a "corrective entry" should not be suggested indis­criminately.
PART IV
Two Registrations Made for the Same Unpublished or Published Work
Occasionally a remitter will inform us that, through error, two registrations were made for the same unpublished or published work, and he will ask that we "disregard" or "cancel" the later registration or "change our records so that only the original registration will be on file." Sometimes he asks that we cancel the original registration. In any case, we now have on record two registrations for the same work. The situation may arise where the applicant himself has erroneously made two registrations (e.g., he may have lost his original cer­tificate and as a result forgotten that he already registered the claim). Or it may happen that the publisher applies for registration not knowing that the author has already registered a claim in the work.
In either type situation, since the registrations were made at different times, there would, ordinarily, be no way for the Office to know that a second registration was being made for the same work. Consequently, no Office error is involved, and we cannot cancel either registration; However, the presence in our records of two registrations for the same work can raise questions, particularly if the work involved is an unpublished work.
When we are informed that two registrations have been made for the same work, the following procedures should be followed:
Duplicate Registrations. Where two registrations are on record and they ​are exact duplicates, the possibility of making a correction in the Copyright Office records will ordinarily depend upon whether the work is published or unpublished. In any case where the original numbered certificate is enclosed with the remitter's letter, the certificate should be returned.
No. 32
ORAL DELIVERY OPINIONS CONCERNING REGISTRABILITY
Occasionally members of the public seek oral advice concerning the registrability of their works in advance of filing an application for registration. Such opinions are ordinarily solicited in the course of a visit to the Public Information Office of the Copyright Office. As a general rule, unless registration is unquestionably impossible, we will advise that an application should be filed to enable us to give the case thorough consideration. Usually visitors are seen by Section Heads, Assistant Section Heads, or Senior Examiners. These persons should refrain from giving opinions either for or against registration and should not commit the Office to a certain course of action, particularly where registrablity is unclear or doubtful for any reason.
Occasionally, the visitor may inadvertently bypass the Public Information Office and may come directly to the Division work area for oral opinions. Such visitors should be referred to the appropriate Section Head, Assistant Section Bead or a Senior Examiner and the above policy concerning visits to the Public Information Office should be followed. Examiners other than Senior Examiners should not discuss the registrabliity of a work, nor take any other action with respect to it, before an application has been filed for registration of the clam to copyright. For this purpose an application is not considered to have been filed until it has been deposited in the custody of authorized personnel in the Service Division or in the Public Infor­mation Office. Examining Division personnel should ask members of the public to take applications to the Public Information Office for filing.
No. 33
RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE STATUTORY FEE
According to an opinion of the Comptroller General dated July 18, 1951 (90 USPQ 194), there is no legal objection to the recordation of an assignment submitted by an agency of the United States government without requiring that agency to pay the statutory fee.
However, if a fee is received with a document, it will be applied toward the recordation.
No. 34
PROPER APPLICATIONS RECBIVED" DATE ON APPLICATIONS FOR UNPUBLISHED WORKS
It is important to have accurate dates stamped in the boxes on pages 2 and 4 of the application for the registration of a claim in an unpublished work since they play a vital role in computing the term of copyright.
When an application lacks necessary information but is otherwise acceptable, we usually return it for amendment and-filing. The date we receive the application again with the added statement is stamped on it. Sometimes, we request a completely new application with the additional information instead of returning the original application tor amendment. In response to this request, we may receive a new appli­cation with the requested information but the application may be otherwise unacceptable. For example, the wrong form may have been submitted. Depending upon the circumstances and in accordance with established practices, we may transfer the new information from the second application to the original application with an annotation. The following practice should govern the proper "application received" date in these cases:
or:
Cases where necessary information is missing from the appli­cation should be distinguished from those where there is an ambiguity which is later clarified by correspondence and annotation. For example, instead of sending a new application clarifying an authorship variance, the applicant may state in a letter that the person listed at the author­ship line is an employer for hire of the person named on the copy. We may add this clarification to the application. The annotation will usual1y show the date of receipt of the letter. We should not, however, add this date to the "application received" boxes because the application was correct and contained all the required information when it was first filed.
No. 35
POSITION OF THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE ON COMPUTER PROGRAMS OF DOMESTIC ORIGIN FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE FORM OF MACHINE READABLE TAPE OR MACHINE PUNCHED CARD
In accordance with a decision made in April 1964, the Copyright Office will accept computer programs for registration as "books" in Class A, provided they contain the requisite amount of authorship and meet the other registration requirements.
Where a program is first published in the form of punched cards or on magnetic tape, the work does not have "pages; II this raises the question of compliance with the requirement that the notice on a "book" appear either on the title page or the page immediately following the title page. While this provision cannot be ignored, it should not be given an unreasonably strict construction. The following general guidelines should govern these cases.
Our present practice requires a print-out of the entire program to accompany the deposit copies where first publication was in a form that cannot be perceived visually or read by humans. As a general rule, the position of the notice should be considered acceptable if it appears on the same page or fold of the print-out as the title of the work. It the notice appears on a page or fold other than that on which the title appears, the nature of the material intervening between the title and the notice should be taken into con­sideration in determining whether the position of the notice is acceptable. If all, or a part of the substantive body of the work intervenes so that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the notice appeared "on the title page immediately following," registration should be refused.
Where the deposit copies consist of a set of :machine punched cards that also bear printed material, a single copyright notice located in an acceptable position will suffice to permit registration of the set. A single card contains only a few words and should not necessarily be equated with a "page." Consequently, registration should not be refused if the copyright notice does not appear on the same card or the card immediately following the one bearing the title. Where several cards intervene between the title card and the card containing the notice, again the nature of the material reproduced on the intervening cards ​should be taken into consideration in determining whether the position of the notice is acceptable. If all, or a part of the substantive body of the work is reproduced on the intervening cards so that it would be unreasonable to conclude that the notice appeared "on the title page of the page immediately following," registration should be refused.
Where a work is reproduced on machine punched cards that are packaged in a box or other container intended as a permanent receptacle for the cards, a notice located on the box or other con­tainer may suffice if the title also appears on the box or container, notwithstanding the fact that none of the cards themselves bear a notice [See Copyright Office Regulations § 202.2(b)(10)].
No. 36
REFLECTION OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE RECORDS OF LIMITING STATEMENTS APPEARING NEAR THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The Office of Education has adopted a regulation which contemplates that, for same works prepared under its contracts, the contractor will be permitted to claim copyright for a limited time only. The Office of Education will require the contractor in such cases to add to the copyright notice a statement that copyright is claimed only until a certain time, after which the work. will be in the public domain, according to the contractual agreement.
In this context, we have considered the question whether statements appearing near the copyright notice that limit the rights that the copyright claimant is asserting should be required to be reflected in the application and referred to in the Catalog of Copy­right Entries. Examples of such statements would be those that permit certain uses of the work, or, as in the cases under the Office of Education regulation, limit the duration of the copyright claim.The following policy has been formulated:
We have informed the Office of Education that:
If in the future we learn of any other governmental regulation requiring a limitation, we will give the same information to the agency concerned.
The above policy does not concern disclaimers, i.e., statements of exclusion or limitation which indicate that some portions of the work are not covered by the claim of copyright. The present practices of the Office in this regard are not being changed.
S-129
No. 37
THE USE OF A SURNAME ONLY IN COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Generally the presence of only the surname of the copyright owner in the notice of copyright is sufficient for registra­tion purposes, unless the names of one or more other individuals with the same surname appear in a position on the copy that might mislead the public as to the identity of the copyright proprietor.
In those instances where the general practice is followed and registration is made, a cautionary letter should be sent to the applicant explaining that while registration is being made, one purpose of the copyright notice is to identify the copyright proprietor, and that the use of the surname only in the notice may be of doubtful validity.
The following hypothetical cases illustrate this general rule, and set out the practices to be followed in each case.
Register with a warning letter and an annotation showing that only the sur­name appears in the notice. Where it is necessary that we request an application, our letter should instruct the applicant to state the relationship ​between the surname and the claimant's name given at line 1. For example, line 1 could read: "Smith, surname of John Smith. If An annot.atdon should not be placed on an application showing the relationship at line 1.
No. 38
STANDARD REFERENCE DATA ACT CLAIMS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT: REGISTRATION WITHOUT A FEE
The Standard Reference Data Act, Public Law 90-396 (15 U.S.C. 290), provides that the Secretary of Commerce may secure copy­right and renewal thereof on behalf of the United States as author or proprietor in standard reference data prepared or made available under the Act.
This Office has concluded that the registration fee will be waived for works submitted in accordance with the Standard Reference Data Act.
In registering works under the Standard Reference Data Act without a registration fee two annotations should be made on both the application and the certificate.
The first annotation involves placing an asterisk at both lines 1 and 3, generally. The asterisk should be placed at both lines 1 and 3 of the application and certificate to indicate that registration of the claim is authorized on the basis of the Standard Reference Data Act, even though the Government is the proprietor and author, and the asterisk should be keyed to the comment in the annotation box. If the Government is the proprietor, but not the author, the asterisk should be placed at line 1 only.
Example:
*Claim registered under the Standard Reference Data Act, P.L. 90-396 (15 U.S.C. 290). (Cert.)
The statement on the certificate would read: *Claim registered under the Standard Reference Data Act, P.L. 90-396 (15 U.S.C. 290).
​The second annotation involves placing two asterisks in the fee box on both the application and certificate, and the two asterisks should be keyed to the comment in the annota­tion box. The fee box must be annotated in order to indicate that in this particular case the fee is being waived.
Example:
   The statement on the application would read: **Fee waived (Cert.)
   The statement on the certificate would read: ** Fee waived
No. 39
CITIZENSHIP OF CLAIMANT IN POSTHUMOUS WORKS
Topic 7.1.3.III of the Compendium states the basic policy with respect to posthumous works, which is to request the citizenship of the deceased author and the citizenship of the copyright claimant. It is our position that the law is unclear whether the citizenship of the deceased author or of the claimant controls in posthumous work cases. 1he Compendium contains no exceptions for cases where the name of the deceased author appears in the notice and registration is made with either "Estate of X" or "Y, executor of the estate of X" given in the claimant line on the application. In this situation, as well as where the estate or the executor is named as the copyright owner in the notice, we should ask for the citizenship of the copyright claimant, if the work is posthumous. This practice applies in all cases except where the work is eligible under the Universal Copyright Convention by virtue of the place of publication.
Please note that we are not taking the position that an "estate" as such necessarily has a citizenship. There are doubts about the propriety of using "Estate of X" in the notice (or at the claimant line of the application) since the estate per se is not usually regarded as a legal entity capable of holding property. Consequently, we should not literally ask for the "citizenship of the Estate of X;" we should ask for the citizenship of the claimant. The true legal holder of the literary property interest (who is presumably represented by the phrase "Estate of X") does have a citizenship, and this is the information needed at line 1. Title to personalty such as copyright usually vests in the personal representative of the deceased author in the case of a will. In case of intestacy the court would usually appoint an administrator (depending upon the size of the estate).
​Since eligibility to claim copyright is one of the fundamental requirements of our law, the citizenship of the claimant, as well as that of the deceased author, is required in the posthumous work situation to assure a complete legal record, except where the work is eligible under the U.C.C. because of first publication in a U.C.C. country other than the United States.