Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52213 

1 17 U.S.C. 205. 

2A ‘‘notice of termination’’ is a notice that 

terminates a grant to a third party of a copyright in 

a work or any rights under a copyright. Only certain 

grants may be terminated, and only in certain 

circumstances. Termination is governed by three 

separate provisions of the Copyright Act, with the 

relevant one depending on a number of factors, 

including when the grant was made, who executed 

it, and when copyright was originally secured for 

the work. See 17 U.S.C. 203, 304(c), 304(d). 

3 82 FR 22771 (May 18, 2017). 

4 Id. at 22771. 

5 Id. at 22771–72. 6The commenters are Author Services, Inc., 

Authors Alliance, Copyright Alliance, CSC, Dale 

Adams, Entertainment Software Association 

(‘‘ESA’’), Intellectual Property Owners Association, 

Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts 

(‘‘Kernochan’’), Motion Picture Association of 

America, Inc. (‘‘MPAA’’), ‘‘Music Parties’’ (joint 

comment by American Association of Independent 

Music, Recording Industry Association of America, 

Inc., and National Music Publishers’ Association), 

Music Reports, Inc. (‘‘MRI’’); Sergey Vernyuk, and 

Software and Information Industry Association 

(‘‘SIIA’’). 

7See generally 82 FR 22771. 

8See id. at 22772, 22776. 

will be used from November 6, 2017, 

until November 13, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, 

Waterways Management Branch, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Delaware bay; 

telephone (215) 271–4814, email 

Edmund.J.Ofalt@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

2017–24068, appearing at 82 FR 51347 

on Monday, November 6, 2017, 

§ 165.T05–1011(c) incorrectly references 

‘‘SHELBY’’ instead of ‘‘GRAPE APE.’’ 

This document corrects that error. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard corrects 33 

CFR part 165 by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 165.T05–1011 [Corrected] 

■ 2. In § 165.T05–1011(c), remove 

‘‘SHELBY’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘GRAPE APE’’. 

Dated: November 6, 2017. 

Scott E. Anderson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24508 Filed 11–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2017–7] 

Modernizing Copyright Recordation 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is issuing an interim rule 

amending its regulations governing 

recordation of transfers of copyright 

ownership, other documents pertaining 

to a copyright, and notices of 

termination. The interim rule adopts a 

number of the regulatory updates 

proposed in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking published on May 18, 2017. 

DATES: Effective December 18, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and 

Associate Register of Copyrights, by 

email at sdam@loc.gov, or Jason E. 

Sloan, Attorney-Advisor, by email at 

jslo@loc.gov. Each can be contacted by 

telephone by calling (202) 707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, the 

U.S. Copyright Office is responsible for 

recording documents pertaining to 

works under copyright, such as 

assignments, licenses, and grants of 

security interests.1 The Office is also 

responsible for recording notices of 

termination.2 As discussed in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register on May 18, 2017 

(‘‘NPRM’’),3 the current recordation 

process is a time-consuming and laborintensive paper-based one, requiring 

remitters to submit their documents in 

hard copy. 

The Office is engaged in an effort to 

modernize the recordation process in 

coming years by developing a fully 

electronic, online system through which 

remitters will be able to submit their 

documents and all applicable indexing 

information to the Office for 

recordation. In conjunction with the 

anticipated development effort, the 

Office issued the NPRM to propose 

updates to the Office’s current 

regulations to govern the submission of 

documents to the Office for recordation 

once the new electronic system is 

developed and launched. The NPRM 

explained that while the Office could 

not estimate when the new system 

would be completed, public comments 

were being sought because the Office 

needed to make a number of policy 

decisions critical to the design of the tobe-developed system.4

In addition, as most relevant here, the 

NPRM further stated that while the 

proposed amendments were designed 

with a new electronic submission 

system in mind, at least some of the 

proposed changes could be 

implemented in the near future, without 

the new system. Thus, the Office noted 

that, to the extent possible under the 

Office’s current paper system, the Office 

intended to adopt some aspects of the 

proposed rule on an interim basis until 

such time as the electronic system is 

complete and a final rule is enacted.5

II. Interim Rule 

As indicated in the NPRM, this 

interim rule adopts those provisions 

described in the NPRM that the Office 

believes will help streamline the 

recordation process prior to completion 

of the new electronic recordation 

system. 

Unlike a typical interim rule, this one 

is being promulgated following a notice 

of proposed rulemaking and a period for 

public comment. In response to the 

NPRM, the Office received thirteen 

comments from a variety of 

stakeholders.6 As this interim rule does 

not cover every issue raised by the 

NPRM or the commenters, the Office 

reserves judgment on any matters not 

expressly discussed herein and no 

inference should be drawn from the 

Office’s silence on any particular point. 

Additionally, the Office reserves the 

right to issue other interim rules during 

the course of developing the system. 

The comments received in response to 

the NPRM not addressed by this interim 

rule will continue to be evaluated by the 

Office as system development 

progresses. The Office intends to issue 

a final rule under this same rulemaking 

docket in connection with the public 

release of the new system. 

While some discrete aspects of the 

proposed rule were opposed, most were 

either unopposed or affirmatively 

supported. As such, except as otherwise 

discussed below, the proposed rule is 

being adopted largely for the reasons 

discussed in the NPRM.7 As stated in 

the NPRM, the general mechanics of the 

new regulations are essentially the same 

as under the Office’s current rules and 

policies.8 To be eligible for recordation, 

the document or notice of termination 

must satisfy certain requirements, be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
52214 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

9 17 U.S.C. 203(a)(4)(A), 304(c)(4)(A), 304(d)(1). 

10 82 FR at 22772. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 22772–74. 

13 Id. at 22772–73. 

14 Id. at 22773. 

15 Id. The E-Sign Act defines ‘‘electronic 

signature’’ as ‘‘an electronic sound, symbol, or 

process, attached to or logically associated with a 

contract or other record and executed or adopted by 

a person with the intent to sign the record.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 7006(5). While Copyright Alliance and 

MPAA supported this proposed definition, they 

asked that the Office not create any requirements 

above and beyond what is required in the E-Sign 

Act. See Copyright Alliance Comments at 2; MPAA 

Comments at 2. The interim rule adopts the very 

broad definition of ‘‘any legally binding signature’’ 

and merely refers to the E-Sign Act as an example 

of something that would be included within that 

definition. The Office did not mean to imply that 

the various requirements applicable to the E-Sign 

Act were being imported into the Office’s new 

definition of ‘‘actual signature.’’ 

16 82 FR at 22773 (quoting Robert Brauneis, 

Transforming Document Recordation at the U.S. 

Copyright Office 66 (Dec. 2014), https://

www.copyright.gov/docs/recordation/recordationreport.pdf. [hereinafter Brauneis Report]). 

17 82 FR at 22773 (quoting Brauneis Report at 66). 

18 Id. at 22773. 

19See Copyright Alliance Comments at 2; MPAA 

Comments at 2; Music Parties Comments at 4; 

Sergey Vernyuk Comments. 

20SIIA Comments at 2–5. 

21 Id. at 4. 

submitted properly, and be 

accompanied by the applicable fee. As 

before, the date of recordation will be 

the date when all of the required 

elements are received by the Office, and 

the Office may reject any document or 

notice submitted for recordation that 

fails to comply with the statute or the 

Office’s rules or instructions. While 

recordation of section 205 documents is 

optional, pursuant to statute, notices of 

termination must be recorded with the 

Office ‘‘as a condition to its taking 

effect.’’ 9

A. Transfers of Copyright Ownership 

and Other Documents Pertaining to a 

Copyright 

Cover Sheet and Electronic Title Lists. 

As was proposed,10 the interim rule 

requires paper submissions to be 

accompanied by a cover sheet that is 

similar to the current Form DCS. In 

addition to the information currently 

collected, the new Form DCS asks for 

some minor additional indexing 

information and has some additional 

checkboxes to help with the document 

examination process. Additionally, the 

various required certifications discussed 

below can also be made using Form 

DCS. Having all of this information in 

one place will benefit remitters by 

aiding them in confirming that their 

submissions are complete and comply 

with the requirements for recordation. It 

should also benefit the Office by making 

the examination process more efficient, 

as examiners will no longer need to 

search through the document itself to 

find this indexing information. 

Also as proposed,11 remitters may 

continue to provide electronic lists of 

certain indexing information about the 

works to which the document pertains. 

As the NPRM discussed, much of the 

current regulation’s details surrounding 

the formatting of electronic title lists are 

being removed. Instead, the interim rule 

states that such lists must be prepared 

and submitted in the manner specified 

by the Office in instructions it will post 

on its Web site. This change will allow 

the Office to develop more flexible 

instructions for remitters that can be 

updated and modified as needed 

without resorting to a rulemaking. No 

commenter objected to this proposed 

change. 

Originals, Copies, and Actual 

Signatures. One of the more significant 

proposals the Office made in the NPRM 

dealt with the treatment of original 

documents versus copies, and the 

definition of ‘‘actual signature.’’ 12 The 

Office proposed to continue requiring, 

in accordance with section 205(a), that 

to record a document, remitters must 

submit either the original document 

‘‘bear[ing] the actual signature of the 

person who executed it’’ or a ‘‘true copy 

of the original, signed document’’ 

accompanied by a ‘‘sworn or official 

certification.’’ In discussing the 

application of the statute to electronic 

documents and electronic signatures, 

the NPRM proposed that to avoid any 

doubt about the sufficiency of a 

recordation on the basis of whether or 

not the submitted document is an 

original or a copy, the Office would 

consider any document either submitted 

electronically through the new system, 

or lacking a handwritten, wet signature 

(e.g., any document bearing an 

electronic signature) to be a ‘‘copy’’ 

within the meaning of section 205.13

The Office noted that, in practice, this 

would be unlikely to significantly affect 

remitters, as the only consequence is 

that each such submission would need 

to be accompanied by a sworn or official 

certification. As no commenter objected, 

the Office is adopting this as part of the 

interim rule, to the extent applicable to 

the current paper-based submission 

process. 

The NPRM also proposed a definition 

of the statutory term ‘‘actual 

signature.’’ 14 As discussed in the 

NPRM, that term has been undefined in 

the Office’s regulations, but in practice, 

the Office has required original 

documents to bear handwritten, wet 

signatures and copies of documents to 

reproduce such handwritten, wet 

signatures. Electronic signatures have 

not been permitted. After analyzing the 

issue, the Office concluded that its 

regulations and processes should be 

flexible enough to permit any document 

that may constitute a transfer of 

copyright ownership under section 204 

of the Copyright Act to be recordable 

under section 205. Thus, the Office 

proposed defining ‘‘actual signature’’ as 

any legally binding signature, including 

an electronic signature as defined by the 

E-Sign Act.15

In connection with this proposal, the 

Office explained that it disagreed with 

the suggestion from Professor Brauneis’s 

report, Transforming Document 

Recordation at the United States 

Copyright Office, that the signature be in 

a ‘‘discrete and identifiable form’’ on the 

remitted document.16 Instead, the Office 

proposed resolving in another way 

Professor Brauneis’s concern that having 

too broad a definition could potentially 

include ‘‘acts that do not generate a 

trace that is easily remitted as ‘a 

signature’ on ‘a document.’ ’’ 17 The 

Office proposed that rather than restrict 

the definition of signature, the rule 

should require that where an actual 

signature is not a handwritten or 

typewritten name, such as when an 

individual clicks a button on a Web site 

or application to indicate agreement to 

contractual terms, the remitter should 

be required to submit evidence 

demonstrating the existence of the 

signature, such as by appending a 

database entry or confirmation email to 

a copy of the terms showing that a 

particular user agreed to them by 

clicking ‘‘yes’’ on a particular date.18

To the extent discussed by 

commenters, the Office’s proposal on 

these issues was largely supported.19

One commenter, however, took issue 

with the Office’s proposal not to limit 

signatures to those in a ‘‘discrete and 

identifiable form’’ on the remitted 

document.20 That commenter stated that 

the text of sections 204 and 205 contain 

materially different requirements and 

that, while in section 204, Congress 

adopted a more flexible writing 

requirement that would ultimately be 

tested in an adversarial environment, in 

section 205, Congress was narrower to 

create more certainty that if the 

requirements are met one would receive 

the enumerated benefits of 

recordation.21 The commenter 

contended that the result of the 

proposed rule would be that the scope 

of section 205 would be improperly 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52215 

22 Id. at 5. 

23See 17 U.S.C. 204, 205. 

24See Report of the Register of Copyrights on the 

General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law 95–96 

(Comm. Print. 1961) (in recommending that what 

would become the current Copyright Act ‘‘require 

explicitly that any instrument filed for recordation 

bear the actual signature of the person executing it 

or a sworn or official certification that it is a true 

copy of the original signed instrument’’—which 

closely resembles the current text of section 

205(a)—the report makes clear that the original 

intent was that ‘‘the recordation system should 

embrace all instruments by which the ownership of 

a copyright is transferred in whole or in part’’). 

25See 82 FR at 22773–74; see also Report of the 

Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of 

the U.S. Copyright Law 96 (Comm. Print. 1961) 

(explaining that the reason for requiring an ‘‘actual 

signature’’ is because ‘‘[t]here should be practical 

assurance that the instrument recorded is precisely 

the same as the one executed’’). 

26See 82 FR at 22774. 27While the proposed rule did not specifically 

include a certification concerning the signature, the 

Office believes that having one will aid the Office’s 

examination just as much as the other proposed 

certifications, especially in light of the adopted 

definition of ‘‘actual signature.’’ 28The interim rule does not substantively alter 

the definition of ‘‘official certification,’’ but clarifies 

that it can be signed electronically. The interim rule 

does, however, simplify the definition of ‘‘sworn 

certification,’’ as was proposed, 82 FR at 22774, 

while also making the same clarification regarding 

electronic signatures. 

29Commenters affirmatively supported having 

pre-printed certifications. See Authors Alliance 

Comments at 5; Sergey Vernyuk Comments. They 

also supported allowing a sworn certification to be 

made to the best of the certifier’s knowledge. See 

Authors Alliance Comments at 5; Sergey Vernyuk 

Comments; see also 82 FR at 22774. 

30Music Parties Comments at 4. 

31 Id. 32 Id. 33See 82 FR at 22774. 34See Brauneis Report at 67 (providing examples 

of wills where the testator is deceased and 

documents in the current owner’s chain of title but 

which were executed by predecessors-in-interest). 

While one commenter voiced support for the 

proposed rule, third-party beneficiaries were not 

specifically discussed. See Authors Alliance 

Comments at 5. 35 82 FR at 22774–75. 

subsumed by section 204 (and vice 

versa).22

The Office disagrees. Section 204 

describes what is necessary for a 

transfer of copyright ownership to be 

valid and section 205 states explicitly 

that ‘‘[a]ny transfer of copyright 

ownership . . . may be recorded.’’ 23

Thus, any transfer that is valid under 

section 204 should be recordable under 

section 205.24 As explained in the 

NPRM, the recordation requirement of 

an ‘‘actual signature’’ merely 

distinguishes the signature on the 

original document from the 

reproduction of that signature on a copy 

of the document, and is not meant to 

limit the type of signature a document 

must have in order to be recorded.25

Accordingly the Office’s interim rule 

essentially adopts the approach set forth 

in the NPRM, including the definition of 

‘‘actual signature’’ as proposed. The 

interim rule provides that where a 

signature is not a handwritten or 

typewritten name, to be recordable, the 

remitter must provide a description of 

the nature of the signature and whatever 

evidence is necessary to demonstrate 

the existence of the signature. At the 

same time, the Office recognizes that, in 

the case of signatures that are not 

discrete and identifiable, it may prove 

difficult in practice for recordation 

examiners to determine on a case-bycase basis whether a document has been 

actually signed. Thus, the Office will 

not evaluate the evidence submitted in 

such cases, but will presume that the 

signature requirement has been satisfied 

and record the document (if all other 

requirements for recordation have been 

met). The Office will also make any of 

the ancillary material submitted 

available for public inspection. The 

interim rule makes clear, however, that 

this presumption is without prejudice to 

any party claiming that the document 

was not signed, including in court. 

Certifications. Given the general lack 

of opposition to the proposed rule’s 

various certification requirements, they 

are being adopted for the reasons 

provided in the NPRM, except as noted 

below.26 Thus, under the interim rule, 

remitters are required to provide 

essentially two sets of certifications. 

First, the remitter must personally 

certify that he or she has appropriate 

authority to submit the document for 

recordation and that the indexing and 

other information submitted to the 

Office by the remitter is true, accurate, 

and complete to the best of the 

remitter’s knowledge. These remitterrelated certifications concern the 

remitter’s authority to make the 

recordation and the veracity of the 

indexing and other information 

provided as a part of the submission; the 

certifications do not pertain to the 

actual document being submitted for 

recordation. The remitter can make 

these certifications by signing, either 

electronically or by hand, the required 

cover sheet. 

Second, the interim rule requires 

certifications related to the document 

itself: That the actual document being 

submitted for recordation conforms to 

the Office’s signature,27 completeness, 

legibility, and redaction rules and, 

where the document is a copy, that it be 

accompanied by an official or sworn 

certification.28 These document-related 

certifications generally can be made by 

either the remitter or another individual 

on the cover sheet submitted with the 

document to the Office.29 An official 

certification, however, would need to be 

attached separately. 

While one commenter voiced 

concerns that having two sets of 

certifications that can be made by 

different individuals could be confusing 

and burdensome,30 the Office believes 

the commenter may have 

misunderstood the Office’s proposed 

approach. The commenter asked that 

the Office allow a single representative 

to make both sets of certifications.31

That is exactly what the Office 

intended. Where a single person is in a 

position to make both the remitterrelated and document-related 

certifications, he or she can make them 

all on the document cover sheet 

submitted with the document to the 

Office. The Office’s rules permit 

different people to make the two sets of 

certifications simply to provide more 

flexibility to parties in the event, for 

example, the person filling out the 

document cover sheet and remitting the 

document is not in a position to make 

the document-related certifications (e.g., 

if the remitter is a paralegal or an 

administrative assistant without 

knowledge of the underlying 

document). Only in that case would two 

individuals be making the separate 

certifications. And even in that case, the 

remitter would still sign the document 

cover sheet for the remitter-related 

certifications; the other individual 

would make the document-related 

certifications on a separate page of the 

cover sheet. 

As to the Office’s proposed expansion 

of the categories of people who can 

make a sworn certification to include 

any person having an interest in a 

copyright to which the document 

pertains, as well as such person’s 

authorized representative, one 

commenter partially objected. The 

commenter agreed that successors-ininterest to the original parties and their 

representatives should be permitted, but 

took issue with permitting third-party 

beneficiaries to make the certification, 

voicing concerns of fraud and/or error 

by those who mistakenly believe or 

fraudulently represent themselves as 

deriving some incidental benefit from a 

document to be recorded.32 On further 

reflection, the Office believes that 

including third-party beneficiaries is not 

necessary. The main impetus for the 

expansion was to cover the types of 

scenarios noted by the Brauneis 

Report,33 which would be covered by 

successors-in-interest.34 As was 

originally proposed,35 the Office is 

requiring that any authorized 

representative specify who they 

represent and that successors-in-interest 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
52216 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

36See Music Parties Comments at 4 

(recommending that successors-in-interest 

‘‘describe their relationship to the document or to 

the signatories to the document’’). 37See MPAA Comments at 6. 

38 82 FR at 22775. 

39 Id. 

40See Copyright Alliance Comments at 3; ESA 

Comments at 4; MPAA Comments at 4; Music 

Parties Comments at 4–5. 

41See Kernochan Comments at 2 (‘‘[A]ll material 

should be made available to the USCO if the USCO 

so requests.’’). 

42See ESA Comments at 4 (noting that ‘‘remitters 

are motivated by Section 205(c) not to redact 

information relevant to the purposes of 

recordation’’); Music Parties Comments at 4–5 

(‘‘Section 205(c) . . . provides a strong incentive for 

remitters to redact only material that is irrelevant 

to the purposes of recordation.’’). 

43MPAA Comments at 4. 

44 Id. 

45See ESA Comments at 4 (‘‘[T]his rule generally 

provides an appropriate framework for addressing 

cases where a document contains sensitive 

information.’’); MRI Comments at 5 (‘‘These data 

categories are appropriate for redaction.’’); Music 

Parties Comments at 4 (‘‘We generally agree with 

the proposed approach to redactions. Allowing 

financial, trade secret and personally identifiable 

information to be redacted as of right and other 

information to be redacted at the discretion of the 

Office should meet the needs of remitters.’’). 

46 82 FR at 22775. 

47See Sergey Vernyuk Comments. 

48See Copyright Alliance Comments at 3. 

briefly describe the nature of their 

relationship to the document or the 

original parties to the document.36

Completeness and Legibility. In 

response to the NPRM’s proposal on 

completeness and legibility, the Office 

received a technical suggestion on the 

provision’s wording that the Office 

agrees with.37 Thus, as under current 

regulations, the Office will continue to 

require documents submitted for 

recordation to be complete and legible. 

But as the NPRM proposed, the 

completeness requirement is being 

simplified to mandate that, while the 

document must be complete by its 

terms, it need only include referenced 

schedules, appendices, exhibits, 

addenda, or other material essential to 

understanding the copyright-related 

aspects of the document.38 This is a 

change from current practice, where the 

Office requires documents to include all 

schedules, or provide an explanation for 

why such material cannot be provided. 

Thus, under the interim rule, if, for 

example, a document has several 

schedules, but only one has any 

relevance to the copyright-related terms 

of the agreement, the document would 

be deemed complete so long as that 

schedule is included; the other 

schedules can be omitted. The Office 

sees no reason to burden remitters with 

having to submit, and Office staff with 

reviewing, what can often be a 

significant volume of material 

completely unrelated to the copyright 

terms of the document. 

Redactions. The NPRM proposed 

adopting rules governing redactions of 

documents, generally limiting 

redactions to certain enumerated 

categories of sensitive information, 

including financial, trade secret, and 

personally identifiable information.39

The NPRM further proposed allowing 

remitters to request in writing the ability 

to redact other information from a 

document, which the Office may permit 

at its discretion. The proposal also 

required that blank or blocked-out 

portions of the document be labeled 

‘‘redacted’’ or an equivalent; that all 

portions of the document required by 

the simplified completeness 

requirement be included (even if an 

entire page is redacted); and that upon 

request, for review purposes, the 

remitter may be required to supply the 

Office with an unredacted copy of the 

document or additional information 

about the redactions. Most commenters 

discussing redactions took issue with 

this last requirement to provide the 

Office with an unredacted copy of the 

document or additional information 

about the redactions, voicing serious 

security, privacy, and confidentiality 

concerns with the Office receiving, 

having access to, and storing such 

sensitive materials.40 While one 

commenter did support the proposal,41

the Office has decided to not include 

this part of the provision in the interim 

rule, especially given that the Office was 

unlikely to require such information in 

the majority of cases. The Office 

cautions, however, that, as commenters 

pointed out, over-redacting a document 

may affect constructive notice under 

section 205(c).42

Additionally, one commenter also 

asked that if an unredacted document is 

submitted accidentally that there be a 

simple process to replace it with a 

properly redacted one.43 This would 

essentially be a type of correction. As 

such, the Office will more fully consider 

it in connection with its evaluation of 

the final rule on treatment of corrections 

going forward (see Correcting Errors 

below). The same commenter also 

suggested that the Office add more 

flexibility to the proposed rule by 

adding the phrase ‘‘other similarly 

sensitive information’’ to the acceptable 

categories of redactable information.44

The Office declines to adopt this 

suggestion at this time. Other 

commenters agreed with the proposed 

categories, and the ability to make a 

written request to redact other 

information should provide an adequate 

mechanism through which remitters can 

seek additional redactions without 

having a catch-all provision.45 The 

Office, however, will evaluate whether 

it is regularly receiving written requests 

to redact additional categories of 

information as part of the interim rule, 

and take that into account when 

formulating the final rule. 

English Language Requirement. In the 

NPRM, the Office proposed to continue 

accepting and recording non-English 

language documents only if 

accompanied by an English translation 

signed by the individual making the 

translation.46 The Office further 

proposed to extend the translation 

requirement to any indexing 

information provided by the remitter. 

Because the Office did not receive any 

objections to this aspect of the proposed 

rule, and one commenter affirmatively 

supported it,47 it is being adopted as 

part of the interim rule. One commenter 

did, however, ask the Office to also 

permit translations made by software or 

automated translation services.48 The 

Office agrees, and has included such a 

provision in the interim rule. This 

adjustment should make it easier and 

less costly to provide a translation. As 

to any concerns about accuracy, the 

Office notes that it may reject a 

translation if it is unintelligible, 

whether made by a person or through 

the use of software or automated 

service. 

The Office would also like to clarify 

that even though the translation 

requirement is being expanded to 

indexing information, the Office does 

not intend to change its current 

practices concerning non-English titles 

of works at this time. If a non-English 

title of a work is natively spelled using 

only the letters, numbers, and printable 

characters that appear in the ASCII 128- 

character set (the character set the 

Office’s current systems are limited to), 

a translation need not be provided, and 

if one is, the Office will index both the 

English and non-English titles of the 

work. If a non-English title is spelled 

using characters outside that character 

set (for example, it is in French but has 

accented letters, or is in Japanese), a 

transliteration using the ASCII 128- 

character set may be provided instead of 

or in addition to a literal translation. 

Where both a translation and 

transliteration are provided, both will be 

indexed as related titles. 

Constructive Notice. The proposed 

rule sought to make clear that for 

constructive notice under 17 U.S.C. 

205(c) to attach with regard to works to 

which a recorded document pertains, 

the document must include or be 

accompanied by the title and copyright 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52217 

49 82 FR at 22776. 

50See Author Services Comments at 1; Copyright 

Alliance Comments at 4–5; ESA Comments at 4–5; 

MPAA Comments at 4–6; Music Parties Comments 

at 7; SIIA Comments at 5–6. 

51 82 FR at 22776–77. 

52 Id. 

53 Id. at 22777. 

54 Id. 

55 Id. at 22776, 22777. 

56 Id. at 22776. 

57 Id. 

58See Copyright Alliance Comments at 3; ESA 

Comments at 5–6; MPAA Comments at 4; Music 

Parties Comments at 3, 5–6. 

59 82 FR at 22775–76. 

60See ESA Comments at 6; MRI Comments at 4– 

5; Music Parties Comments at 7. Another 

commenter added that the proposed modification 

would seem to place the burden on any and every 

party to a document to regularly and continually 

check the Office’s records to ensure no one has 

submitted inaccurate information. Sergey Vernyuk 

Comments. 

registration number of each such 

work.49 The Office received several 

comments objecting to the proposed 

rule on the ground that it is inconsistent 

with the statute, which they contended 

only requires that a title or registration 

number be provided for constructive 

notice to attach.50 The Office is 

continuing to evaluate its proposal and 

these comments, including by closely 

examining the relevant legislative 

history to better discern the intent 

behind the statutory provision. For now, 

the Office declines to adopt a rule 

interpreting section 205(c). Nothing 

should be inferred from the Office’s 

proposed provision or the Office’s 

decision not to adopt a rule at this time. 

B. Notices of Termination 

Commenters did not object to any of 

the proposed submission requirements 

or procedures for recording notices of 

termination, and the proposals have 

largely been adopted. As the NPRM 

discussed, the requirements governing 

what must be submitted to the Office to 

record a notice of termination are 

remaining essentially unchanged.51

Thus, under the interim rule, as under 

the pre-existing rule, remitters are 

required to provide a complete and 

legible copy of the signed notice of 

termination as served on the grantee or 

successor-in-title. If separate copies of 

the same notice were served on more 

than one grantee or successor, only one 

copy needs to be submitted to the Office 

for recordation. The interim rule also 

maintains the requirement that remitters 

submit a statement setting forth the date 

on which the notice was served and the 

manner of service, unless that 

information is already contained within 

the notice itself. The interim rule also 

makes clear that, as previously, where 

service was made by first class mail, the 

date of service is the day the notice was 

deposited with the post office. The 

Office’s timeliness rule also remains 

unchanged, and the Office will continue 

to refuse notices if they are untimely. 

Such scenarios where a notice would be 

deemed untimely include when the 

effective date of termination does not 

fall within the five-year period 

described in section 203(a)(3) or section 

304(c)(3), as applicable, the documents 

submitted indicate that the notice was 

served less than two or more than ten 

years before the effective date of 

termination, and the date of recordation 

is after the effective date of termination. 

As proposed,52 the interim rule 

clarifies that however the notice is 

signed, what must be submitted to the 

Office for recordation is a copy of the asserved notice, including the reproduced 

image of the signature as it appeared on 

that served notice. The interim rule also 

adds new certification requirements, as 

had also been proposed.53 Lastly, as the 

NPRM discussed,54 remitters are now 

required to include a cover sheet with 

any notice of termination submitted for 

recordation. This Recordation Notice of 

Termination Cover Sheet (‘‘Form TCS’’) 

is similar to and serves the same 

function as Form DCS does for section 

205 document submissions. Form TCS 

asks for information about the remitter 

and for certain indexing information. It 

also includes a space for the remitter to 

provide a statement of service and make 

the required certifications. 

C. Correcting Errors 

In the NPRM, the Office indicated that 

it was inclined to continue its current 

general practice of not permitting 

corrections to be made for any remittercaused inaccuracies after the document 

or notice is recorded.55 Instead, the 

Office proposed that, as is the current 

practice, the remitter would need to 

resubmit the document or notice for 

recordation with corrected information 

and it would be treated as any other 

first-time-submission. For purposes of 

uniformity and efficiency, the NPRM 

proposed discontinuing permitting 

corrections for inaccurate electronic title 

lists that accompany paper filings.56 The 

Office explained that such errors should 

be treated the same as those made on 

the cover sheet or through the new 

electronic system. Lastly, the NPRM 

concluded that to have an efficient 

recordation system with an affordable 

fee, it would simply be impractical for 

Office staff to review all remitterprovided indexing information, which 

also means that it would be very 

difficult to review ‘‘corrected’’ 

submissions against the original to 

confirm that the remitter is not 

attempting to do something improper 

under the guise of a correction.57

The Office received comments asking 

that corrections be permitted under 

various circumstances.58 The Office is 

still evaluating these comments and has 

not yet made a decision on this issue. 

For purposes of the interim rule, the 

Office is not changing the status quo for 

correcting information after a 

recordation has been completed. As a 

result, a slightly modified version of the 

current provision permitting corrections 

for electronic title lists has been 

retained. Mirroring the interim rule’s 

approach to preparing and submitting 

electronic title lists, the interim rule 

also omits the current instructions that 

detail how to submit a corrective filing 

and instead states that a correction 

concerning an electronic title list may 

be requested by following the 

instructions provided by the Office on 

its Web site. 

D. Consequences of Inaccuracies 

In the NPRM, the Office said that it 

intended to continue its current practice 

of relying on the information provided 

by remitters for indexing purposes and 

requiring parties-in-interest to bear the 

consequences of any inaccuracies in 

such remitter-provided information.59

The NPRM also clarified that it is not 

necessarily always the remitter who 

bears the consequences of inaccuracies, 

but rather, more accurately, it is the 

parties in interest to the remitted 

document or notice of termination who 

bear the consequences, if any, of any 

inaccuracies in the information 

provided to the Office by the remitter. 

Based on the comments received, the 

Office has decided to eliminate the part 

of the proposed rule stating that partiesin-interest to a document or notice bear 

the consequences, if any, of any 

inaccuracies in the information the 

remitter provides to the Office. In 

response to the NPRM, some 

commenters expressed confusion over 

who really bears the consequences in 

the notice of termination context, while 

another commenter pointed out that 

non-parties may also bear the 

consequences if they rely to their 

detriment on incomplete or inaccurate 

recordation information.60 The Office 

did not intend for the proposed rule to 

be an assignment of risk or 

responsibility to a particular party to a 

transaction, but merely meant to make 

clear that the Copyright Office bears no 

responsibility for errors caused by a 

remitter. To avoid any confusion, the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
52218 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

61MRI Comments at 4–5. 

62 Kernochan Comments at 2. 

63 Id. 

64Brauneis Report at 58, 84. 

65 Id. 

66 Id. 

67To be clear, the Office means only those 

deficiencies pertaining to the requirements for 

recordation; not other types of deficiencies that 

could affect the underlying validity or legal 

effectiveness of the document or notice. See U.S. 

Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright 

Office Practices, sec. 2305 (3d ed. 2017) (‘‘Members 

of the general public who submit documents for 

recordation cannot expect the Office to screen a 

document for even obvious errors or discrepancies. 

Therefore, parties are strongly advised to review 

and scrutinize any document to ensure that the 

document is legally sufficient to accomplish the 

purpose for which it is intended before it is 

submitted for recordation.’’). 

68This is in contrast to, for example, examining 

applications for copyright registration. Registering a 

work involves a substantive determination by the 

Office as to a work’s copyrightability and can 

constitute prima facie evidence of a valid copyright. 

See 17 U.S.C. 410(a)–(c). Recordation is a more 

ministerial act, akin to the Office’s acceptance of 

other types of filings for inclusion in the public 

record. For example, the Office accepts statements 

of account under the section 111 cable license after 

a review for ‘‘obvious errors or omissions appearing 

on the face of the documents’’ (see 37 CFR 

201.17(c)(2)), notices of intention under the section 

115 compulsory license without review for ‘‘legal 

sufficiency,’’ ‘‘errors or discrepancies’’ (see 37 CFR 

201.18(g)), and agent designations made pursuant to 

section 512(c)(2) without any examination. 

69While the provision for section 205 documents 

is technically new, the Office currently already 

provides similar guidance. See U.S. Copyright 

Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, sec. 2305 (3d ed. 2017) (‘‘Although the 

Office will record a document after it has been 

executed, it does not issue or enforce notices of 

termination, transfers of ownership, or other 

documents pertaining to copyright. The Office only 

serves as an office of public record for such 

documents. . . . The fact that a document has been 

recorded is not a determination by the U.S. 

Copyright Office concerning the validity or the 

effect of that document. That determination can 

only be made by a court of law. . . [T]he Office 

only examines documents to determine if they 

comply with the requirements of the Copyright Act 

and the Office’s regulations. The Office will not 

attempt to interpret the substantive content of any 

document that has been submitted for recordation. 

Likewise, the Office will not attempt to determine 

whether a document satisfies the legal requirements 

that may be necessary for it to be effective or 

enforced.’’). 

Office has removed the provision. But, 

to be clear, the Office bears no 

responsibility or liability if a remitter 

provides inaccurate indexing 

information that is then relied upon by 

the Office in indexing the document. 

One commenter also asked that the 

Office adopt a rule stating that when a 

non-party relies to its detriment on 

incomplete or inaccurate recordation 

records, it should constitute evidence 

that any resulting infringement was not 

willful.61 The Office declines to adopt 

such a rule. It is for a court to determine 

willfulness in an infringement action 

based on all of the particular facts at 

issue in a given case. 

Concerning the Office’s reliance on 

remitter-provided material, the Office 

did not receive any comments critical of 

the proposed rule. Consequently, that 

portion of the provision is being 

retained. The interim rule makes slight 

changes to the proposed version of the 

provision to clarify that the Office will 

not only rely on remitter-provided 

indexing information, but also on the 

certifications that accompany a 

document or notice and any other 

remitter-provided information. The 

interim rule also makes plain that what 

the Office means by reliance is that it 

may not necessarily confirm the 

accuracy of any such certifications or 

information against the actual document 

itself. 

E. Recordation Certificate and Returning 

of Document 

As before, once recorded, the 

document or notice of termination will 

be returned to the remitter with a 

certificate of recordation. Currently, all 

recorded documents and notices are 

digitally imaged and electronically 

stamped with an official recordation 

number and page numbers. This 

stamped copy is then printed and sent 

to the remitter with a paper recordation 

certificate. Where an original document 

is submitted, it is also returned. The 

Office plans to continue under this 

paper-based process while the new 

electronic recordation system is being 

developed. 

F. Scope of Office’s Examination and 

Effect of Recordation 

One commenter inquired into the 

level of review the Office performs in 

examining recordation submissions, 

noting that it interpreted the NPRM’s 

proposed language about parties bearing 

the consequences of their inaccuracies 

to indicate that the Office will not 

review submitted materials for accuracy 

or completeness.62 The commenter 

recommended that if that is not the 

Office’s intent, that the Office follow the 

recommendation from the Brauneis 

Report,63 which suggested that the 

Office cease screening each individual 

remitted document for compliance with 

the various recordation requirements.64

The report recommended that remitters 

instead should certify that a document 

satisfies all of the requirements for 

recordation, and that the Office only 

‘‘spot-screen’’ a sample of submissions 

to identify systematic problems, with 

the goal of trying to reduce them 

through corrective measures like better 

education.65 The report did note, 

however, that some particular types of 

submissions, such as notices of 

termination, might still warrant 

document-by-document examination.66

While the Office declines to adopt 

this exact approach at this time, the 

Office has decided to implement 

something similar. The Office agrees 

that it need not exhaustively review 

every recordation submission for 

compliance with all applicable laws, 

rules, and instructions, but there is a 

benefit to both remitters and the public 

at large in the Office at least examining 

submissions individually for facially 

obvious deficiencies 67 so as to ensure 

that the majority of recorded documents 

and notices of termination are in 

compliance with the legal and formal 

requirements for recordation.68 As 

discussed above, and in line with the 

Brauneis Report’s recommendation, the 

Office is requiring various certifications 

and certain indexing information to be 

provided to the Office that, as the 

interim rule makes clear, the Office will 

not necessarily check against the 

remitted document or notice itself. 

While the Office intends to only 

examine submissions for facially 

obvious deficiencies, it may continue to 

perform a more comprehensive review, 

such as for notices of termination, at its 

discretion. Likewise, the Office also 

reserves the right to engage in a less 

comprehensive review, closer to what 

the Brauneis Report recommended, as a 

matter of administrative convenience. 

Even with a more comprehensive 

level of review there is always the 

potential that some documents and 

notices that fail to comply with the 

requirements for recordation might still 

get recorded by the Office because the 

deficiency is simply not caught during 

the examination process. Consequently, 

for clarity and avoidance of doubt, the 

interim rule makes some adjustments to 

the existing notice of termination 

provision concerning the legal effect of 

recordation and adds a similar provision 

for section 205 documents.69 The 

interim rule makes even clearer that the 

act of recordation should in no way be 

construed as a determination by the 

Office that a document or notice is valid 

or legally effective. The interim rule also 

makes plain that recordation is without 

prejudice to any party claiming, 

including in court, that the 

requirements for recordation or 

effectuating termination have not been 

met. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52219 

Interim Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office amends 

37 CFR part 201 as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

■ 2. Revise § 201.4 to read as follows: 

§ 201.4 Recordation of transfers and other 

documents pertaining to copyright. 

(a) General. This section prescribes 

conditions for the recordation of 

transfers of copyright ownership and 

other documents pertaining to a 

copyright under 17 U.S.C. 205. A 

document is eligible for recordation 

under this section if it meets the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section, if it is submitted in accordance 

with the submission procedure 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section, and if it is accompanied by the 

fee specified in § 201.3(c). The date of 

recordation is the date when all of the 

elements required for recordation, 

including a proper document, fee, and 

any additional required information, are 

received in the Copyright Office. After 

recordation the document is returned to 

the sender with a certificate of 

recordation. The Office may reject any 

document submitted for recordation that 

fails to comply with 17 U.S.C. 205, the 

requirements of this section, or any 

relevant instructions or guidance 

provided by the Office. 

(b) Documents not recordable under 

this section. This section does not 

govern the filing or recordation of the 

following documents: 

(1) Certain contracts entered into by 

cable systems located outside of the 48 

contiguous States (17 U.S.C. 111(e); see 

§ 201.12); 

(2) Notices of identity and signal 

carriage complement, and statements of 

account of cable systems and satellite 

carriers and for digital audio recording 

devices and media (17 U.S.C. 111(d), 

119(b), and 1003(c); see §§ 201.11, 

201.17, 201.28); 

(3) Notices of intention to obtain a 

compulsory license to make and 

distribute phonorecords of nondramatic 

musical works (17 U.S.C. 115(b); see 

§ 201.18); 

(4) Notices of termination (17 U.S.C. 

203, 304(c) and (d); see § 201.10); 

(5) Statements regarding the identity 

of authors of anonymous and 

pseudonymous works, and statements 

relating to the death of authors (17 

U.S.C. 302); 

(6) Documents pertaining to computer 

shareware and donation of public 

domain software (Pub. L. 101–650, sec. 

805; see § 201.26); 

(7) Notifications from the clerks of the 

courts of the United States concerning 

actions brought under title 17, United 

States Code (17 U.S.C. 508); 

(8) Notices to libraries and archives of 

normal commercial exploitation or 

availability at reasonable prices (17 

U.S.C. 108(h)(2)(C); see § 201.39); 

(9) Submission of Visual Arts Registry 

Statements (17 U.S.C. 113; see § 201.25); 

(10) Notices and correction notices of 

intent to enforce restored copyrights (17 

U.S.C. 104A(e); see §§ 201.33, 201.34); 

and 

(11) Designations of agents to receive 

notifications of claimed infringement 

(17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2); see § 201.38). 

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this 

section: 

(1) A transfer of copyright ownership 

has the meaning set forth in 17 U.S.C. 

101. 

(2) A document pertaining to a 

copyright is any document that has a 

direct or indirect relationship to the 

existence, scope, duration, or 

identification of a copyright, or to the 

ownership, division, allocation, 

licensing, or exercise of rights under a 

copyright. That relationship may be 

past, present, future, or potential. 

(3) An actual signature is any legally 

binding signature, including an 

electronic signature as defined in 15 

U.S.C. 7006. 

(4) A sworn certification is a 

statement made in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. 1746 that the copy of the 

document submitted for recordation is, 

to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, 

a true copy of the original, signed 

document. A sworn certification must 

be signed by one of the parties to the 

signed document, a successor-in-interest 

to one of the parties to the signed 

document, or the authorized 

representative of such a party or 

successor. Authorized representatives 

must state who they represent and 

successors-in-interest must describe 

their relationship to the document or 

the original parties to the document. An 

authorized representative of a successorin-interest must describe the successor’s 

relationship to the document or the 

original parties to the document. A 

sworn certification may be signed 

electronically. 

(5) An official certification is a 

certification, by the appropriate 

governmental official, that the original 

of the document is on file in a public 

office and that the copy of the document 

submitted for recordation is a true copy 

of the original. An official certification 

may be signed electronically. 

(d) Document requirements—(1) 

Original or certified copy. The remitter 

must submit either the original 

document that bears the actual 

signature(s) of the person(s) who 

executed it, or a copy of the original, 

signed document accompanied by a 

sworn certification or an official 

certification. Each document submitted 

for recordation must be certified to 

either have the actual signature(s) (if it 

is an original document) or reproduce 

the actual signature(s) (in the case of a 

copy of the original document). All 

documents lacking a handwritten, wet 

signature (including all documents 

bearing an electronic signature) are 

considered to be copies of the original, 

signed document, and must be 

accompanied by a sworn certification or 

an official certification. Where an actual 

signature on the relevant document is 

not a handwritten or typewritten name, 

such as when an individual clicks a 

button on a Web site or application to 

indicate agreement to contractual terms, 

the remitter must submit a description 

of the nature of the signature and 

documentation evidencing the existence 

of the signature (e.g., a database entry or 

confirmation email showing that a 

particular user agreed to the terms by 

clicking ‘‘yes’’ on a particular date). 

Where such description and evidence 

are provided, the Office will make them 

available for public inspection and may 

presume that the signature requirement 

for recordation has been satisfied, 

without prejudice to any party claiming 

otherwise, including before a court of 

competent jurisdiction. 

(2) Completeness. Each document 

submitted for recordation must be, and 

be certified to be, complete by its terms, 

but need only include referenced 

schedules, appendices, exhibits, 

addenda, or other material essential to 

understanding the copyright-related 

aspects of the document. 

(3) Legibility. Each document 

submitted for recordation must be, and 

be certified to be, legible. 

(4) Redactions. The Office will accept 

and make available for public 

inspection redacted documents certified 

to be redacted in accordance with this 

paragraph (d)(4), provided that all of the 

following conditions are satisfied: 

(i) The redactions must be limited to 

financial terms, trade secret 

information, Social Security or 

taxpayer-identification numbers, and 

financial account numbers. Additional 

types of information may be redacted on 

a case-by-case basis if the need for any 

such redactions is justified to the Office 

in writing and approved by the Office; 

such written requests should be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
52220 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

included in the remitter’s recordation 

submission to the Office. 

(ii) The blank or blocked-out portions 

of the document must be labeled 

‘‘redacted’’ or the equivalent. 

(iii) Each portion of the document 

required by paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section must be included. 

(5) English language requirement. The 

Office will accept and record nonEnglish language documents and 

indexing information only if 

accompanied by an English translation 

that is either signed by the individual 

making the translation or, if a publicly 

available commercial or consumer 

translation software product or 

automated service is used, by the 

individual using such product or service 

and accompanied by the name of the 

product or service. All translations will 

be made available for public inspection 

and may be redacted in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(e) Paper submission procedure—(1) 

Process. A document may be submitted 

for recordation by sending it to the 

appropriate address in § 201.1(b) or to 

such other address as the Office may 

specify, accompanied by a cover sheet, 

the proper fee, and, if applicable, any 

electronic title list. Absent special 

arrangement with the Office, the Office 

reserves the right to not process the 

submission unless all of the items 

necessary for processing are received 

together. 

(2) Cover sheet required. Submission 

of a document must include a 

completed Recordation Document Cover 

Sheet (Form DCS), available on the 

Copyright Office Web site. Remitters 

must follow all instructions provided by 

the Office in completing Form DCS, 

including by providing all requested 

indexing information. Form DCS may be 

used to provide a sworn certification, if 

appropriate, and to make any of the 

other certifications required by this 

section. Form DCS will not be 

considered part of the recorded 

document, but will be used by the 

Office for examination, indexing, and 

other administrative purposes. The 

Office may reject any document 

submitted for recordation that includes 

an improperly prepared cover sheet. 

(3) Electronic title list. (i) In addition 

to identifying the works to which a 

document pertains in the paper 

submission, the remitter may also 

submit an electronic list setting forth 

each such work. The electronic list will 

not be considered part of the recorded 

document, but will be used by the 

Office for indexing purposes. Absent 

special arrangement with the Office, the 

electronic list must be included in the 

same package as the paper document to 

be recorded. The electronic list must be 

prepared and submitted to the Office in 

the manner specified by the Copyright 

Office in instructions made available on 

its Web site. The Office may reject any 

document submitted for recordation that 

includes an improperly prepared 

electronic title list. 

(ii) If a remitter of a recorded 

document finds that an error or 

omission in an electronic title list has 

led to the inaccurate indexing of the 

document in the public catalog, the 

remitter may request that the record be 

corrected by following the instructions 

provided by the Office on its Web site. 

Upon receipt of a properly prepared 

corrective filing and the appropriate fee, 

the Office will proceed to correct the 

information in the public catalog, and 

will make a note in the record 

indicating that the corrections were 

made and the date they were made. 

(4) Return receipt. If a remitter 

includes two copies of a properly 

completed Form DCS indicating that a 

return receipt is requested, as well as a 

self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, 

the remitter will receive a date-stamped 

return receipt attached to the extra copy 

acknowledging the Copyright Office’s 

receipt of the enclosed submission. The 

completed copies of Form DCS and the 

self-addressed, postage-paid envelope 

must be included in the same package 

as the submitted document. A return 

receipt confirms the Office’s receipt of 

the submission as of the date indicated, 

but does not establish eligibility for, or 

the date of, recordation. 

(5) Remitter certification. The remitter 

must certify that he or she has 

appropriate authority to submit the 

document for recordation and that all 

information submitted to the Office by 

the remitter is true, accurate, and 

complete to the best of the remitter’s 

knowledge. 

(f) Reliance on remitter-provided 

information. The Copyright Office will 

rely on the certifications submitted with 

a document and the information 

provided by the remitter on Form DCS 

and, if provided, in an accompanying 

electronic title list. The Office will not 

necessarily confirm the accuracy of such 

certifications or information against the 

submitted document. 

(g) Effect of recordation. The fact that 

the Office has recorded a document is 

not a determination by the Office of the 

document’s validity or legal effect. 

Recordation of a document by the 

Copyright Office is without prejudice to 

any party claiming that the legal or 

formal requirements for recordation 

have not been met, including before a 

court of competent jurisdiction. 

■ 3. Revise § 201.10(f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 201.10 Notices of termination of 

transfers and licenses. 

* * * * * 

(f) Recordation. A copy of a notice of 

termination shall be recorded in the 

Copyright Office as required by 17 

U.S.C. 203(a)(4)(A), 17 U.S.C. 

304(c)(4)(A), or 17 U.S.C. 304(d)(1) if it 

meets the requirements of paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section, is submitted in 

compliance with paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section, and is accompanied by the fee 

specified in § 201.3(c). The Office may 

reject any notice submitted for 

recordation that fails to comply with 17 

U.S.C. 203(a), 17 U.S.C. 304(c), 17 

U.S.C. 304(d), the requirements of this 

section, or any relevant instructions or 

guidance provided by the Office. 

(1) Requirements. The following 

requirements must be met before a copy 

of a notice of termination may be 

recorded in the Copyright Office. 

(i) What must be submitted—(A) Copy 

of notice of termination. A copy of a 

notice of termination submitted for 

recordation must be, and be certified to 

be, a true, correct, complete, and legible 

copy of the signed notice of termination 

as served. Where separate copies of the 

same notice were served on more than 

one grantee or successor-in-title, only 

one copy need be submitted for 

recordation. 

(B) Statement of service. The copy 

submitted for recordation must be 

accompanied by a statement setting 

forth the date on which the notice was 

served and the manner of service, unless 

such information is contained in the 

notice. In instances where service is 

made by first class mail, the date of 

service shall be the day the notice of 

termination was deposited with the 

United States Postal Service. 

(ii) Timeliness. (A) The Copyright 

Office will refuse recordation of a notice 

of termination as such if, in the 

judgment of the Copyright Office, such 

notice of termination is untimely. 

Conditions under which a notice of 

termination will be considered untimely 

include: the effective date of 

termination does not fall within the 

five-year period described in section 

203(a)(3) or section 304(c)(3), as 

applicable, of title 17, United States 

Code; the documents submitted indicate 

that the notice of termination was 

served less than two or more than ten 

years before the effective date of 

termination; or the date of recordation is 

after the effective date of termination. 

(B) If a notice of termination is 

untimely, the Office will offer to record 

the document as a ‘‘document 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52221 

1 17 U.S.C. 708(a). 

2 Id. at 708(a)(4). 

3 Id. at 708(b)(5). 

4 Id. Section 708(a) also authorizes the Register to 

fix fees for other services not enumerated in section 

708(a)(1)–(9), such as the cost of preparing copies 

of Office records. Id. at 708(a). The fees for these 

additional Office services, as well as fees for the 

filing of cable and satellite statements of account 

under paragraphs (10) and (11) of section 708(a), 

need not be submitted to Congress, but are instead 

established by the Register of Copyrights by 

regulation based on the Office’s costs. Id. 

5 Id. at 708(b)(1). 

6 Id. at 708(b)(2). 

pertaining to a copyright’’ pursuant to 

§ 201.4, but the Office will not index the 

document as a notice of termination. 

(C) In any case where an author 

agreed, prior to January 1, 1978, to a 

grant of a transfer or license of rights in 

a work that was not created until on or 

after January 1, 1978, a notice of 

termination of a grant under section 203 

of title 17 may be recorded if it recites, 

as the date of execution, the date on 

which the work was created. 

(2) Paper submission procedure—(i) 

Process. A copy of a notice of 

termination may be submitted for 

recordation by sending it to the 

appropriate address in § 201.1(c) or to 

such other address as the Office may 

specify, accompanied by a cover sheet, 

the statement of service, and the proper 

fee. 

(ii) Cover sheet required. Submission 

of a copy of a notice of termination must 

be accompanied by a completed 

Recordation Notice of Termination 

Cover Sheet (Form TCS), available on 

the Copyright Office Web site. Remitters 

must follow all instructions provided by 

the Office in completing Form TCS, 

including by providing all requested 

indexing information. Form TCS may be 

used to provide the statement of service 

and to make any of the certifications 

required by this paragraph (f). Form TCS 

will not be considered part of the 

recorded notice, but will be used by the 

Office for examination, indexing, and 

other administrative purposes. The 

Office may reject any notice submitted 

for recordation that includes an 

improperly prepared cover sheet. 

(iii) Return receipt. If a remitter 

includes two copies of a properly 

completed Form TCS indicating that a 

return receipt is requested, as well as a 

self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, 

the remitter will receive a date-stamped 

return receipt attached to the extra copy 

acknowledging the Copyright Office’s 

receipt of the enclosed submission. The 

completed copies of Form TCS and the 

self-addressed, postage-paid envelope 

must be included in the same package 

as the submitted notice. A return receipt 

confirms the Office’s receipt of the 

submission as of the date indicated, but 

does not establish eligibility for, or the 

date of, recordation. 

(iv) Remitter certification. The 

remitter must certify that he or she has 

appropriate authority to submit the 

notice for recordation and that all 

information submitted to the Office by 

the remitter is true, accurate, and 

complete to the best of the remitter’s 

knowledge. 

(3) Date of recordation. The date of 

recordation is the date when all of the 

elements required for recordation, 

including the prescribed fee and, if 

required, the statement of service, have 

been received in the Copyright Office. 

After recordation, the notice, including 

any accompanying statement, is 

returned to the sender with a certificate 

of recordation. 

(4) Effect of recordation. The fact that 

the Office has recorded a notice is not 

a determination by the Office of the 

notice’s validity or legal effect. 

Recordation of a notice of termination 

by the Copyright Office is without 

prejudice to any party claiming that the 

legal or formal requirements for 

effectuating termination (including the 

requirements pertaining to service and 

recordation of the notice of termination) 

have not been met, including before a 

court of competent jurisdiction. 

(5) Reliance on remitter-provided 

information. The Copyright Office will 

rely on the certifications submitted with 

a notice and the information provided 

by the remitter on Form TCS and, if 

provided, in an accompanying 

statement of service. The Office will not 

necessarily confirm the accuracy of such 

certifications or information against the 

submitted notice. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 25, 2017. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Acting Register of Copyrights and Director 

of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24527 Filed 11–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2017–17] 

Fees for Electronic Recordation and 

Notices of Intention To Obtain a 

Compulsory License 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

publishing a final rule establishing a 

separate, lower filing fee for recording 

documents when they are submitted 

with an electronic title list. Separately, 

the Office is noting a policy change, 

effective on the same date as the final 

rule, to require the payment of fees for 

the filing of all notices of intention to 

obtain a compulsory license to make 

and distribute phonorecords, including 

those that are filed in the Office after 

failed delivery to the copyright owner. 

DATES: Effective December 18, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and 

Associate Register of Copyrights, by 

email at sdam@loc.gov, or Jason E. 

Sloan, Attorney-Advisor, by email at 

jslo@loc.gov. Each can be contacted by 

telephone by calling (202) 707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. New Recordation Fee for Electronic 

Title Lists 

A. Background 

This final rule adjusts U.S. Copyright 

Office fees in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 

708. Section 708(a) specifies that ‘‘[f]ees 

shall be paid to the Register of 

Copyrights’’ for services, including a set 

of specified services enumerated in 

paragraphs (1) through (11) of that 

subsection.1 This includes, as relevant 

here, fees for ‘‘the recordation, as 

provided by section 205, of a transfer of 

copyright ownership or other 

document.’’ 2 Fees for this service and 

the other services specifically 

enumerated in section 708(a)(1)–(9) are 

to be set forth in a proposed schedule 

that is sent to Congress 120 days before 

the adjusted fees can take effect.3 The 

fee may go into effect after the end of 

that period unless ‘‘a law is enacted 

stating in substance that the Congress 

does not approve the schedule.’’ 4

Before proposing new fees for the 

services enumerated in (1) through (9), 

the Register must conduct a study of the 

Office’s costs and must consider the 

timing of any fee adjustments and the 

Office’s authority to use the fees 

consistent with the Office’s budget.5

Section 708(b) further provides that the 

Register may adjust these fees to ‘‘not 

more than that necessary to cover the 

reasonable costs incurred by the 

Copyright Office for . . . [such 

services], plus a reasonable inflation 

adjustment to account for any estimated 

increase in costs.’’ 6 Finally, section 

708(b) also mandates that the ‘‘[f]ees [so] 

established . . . shall be fair and 

equitable and give due consideration to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES