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
52222 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

7 Id. at 708(b)(4). 

8The study is available on the Office’s Web site 

at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/feestudy2017/ 

fee-study-2017.pdf. 

9Examples of such indexing information can 

include the types of works, the titles of the works 

(including alternate titles), their respective 

registration numbers, and authorship information. 

10 17 U.S.C. 205(c) (‘‘Recordation of a document 

in the Copyright Office gives all persons 

constructive notice of the facts stated in the 

recorded document, but only if—(1) the document, 

or material attached to it, specifically identifies the 

work to which it pertains so that, after the 

document is indexed by the Register of Copyrights, 

it would be revealed by a reasonable search under 

the title or registration number of the work; and (2) 

registration has been made for the work.’’). 

11See 79 FR 55633 (Sept. 17, 2014) (codified at 

37 CFR 201.4(c)(4)). 

12This includes the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board’s Managerial Cost 

Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal 

Government, which promotes activity-based costing 

for calculating the cost of providing services. See 

Fed. Accounting Standards Advisory Bd., Statement 

of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: 

Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and 

Standards for the Federal Government (1995). 

13See Office of Mgmt. and Budget, Circular No. 

A–25 Revised: User Charges, Whitehouse.gov, 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025 

(last visited Aug. 13, 2017). 

14See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Federal 

User Fees: A Design Guide (GAO–08–386SP) (2008). 

15Though documents with ten or fewer 

additional titles may be submitted with an 

electronic title list, the final rule will deliver fee 

savings to remitters where documents have more 

than ten additional titles. 

the objectives of the copyright 

system.’’ 7

B. Cost Study 

Pursuant to section 708, the Office 

submitted a proposed fee schedule and 

analysis to Congress on August 18, 

2017.8 That study and this final rule 

implementing the fee it proposed 

concern a single Copyright Office 

service: The recording of documents 

accompanied by electronic title lists, 

i.e., lists of certain indexing information 

about the works to which such 

documents pertain.9

Since 1870, the Copyright Office has 

recorded documents pertaining to works 

under copyright, such as assignments, 

licenses, and grants of security interests. 

Under the Copyright Act, recordation of 

such documents is voluntary, but 

provides certain legal entitlements, such 

as constructive notice of the facts stated 

in the recorded document when certain 

conditions are met.10 Thus, the Office 

has an important interest in ensuring 

that the public record of copyright 

transactions is as timely, complete, and 

accurate as possible. 

In general, the recordation process is 

still paper based, and Office staff 

manually transcribe information from 

documents into an electronic format to 

permit indexing in the Office’s public 

catalog. Among the information that 

must be indexed are the titles of and 

related information for copyrighted 

works associated with the document 

submitted for recordation, which are 

typically presented in a list appended to 

the document, referred to informally as 

a ‘‘title appendix.’’ A title appendix 

associated with a document can include 

hundreds, or even thousands, of titles. 

The manual entry of information from 

title appendices is a significant 

contributor to long processing times in 

the Office’s Recordation Section. In 

2014, to gain efficiencies, the Office 

promulgated a new rule permitting 

documents submitted for recordation to 

be accompanied by an electronic title 

list in the form of an Excel 

spreadsheet.11 Document recordation 

fees, however, were last adjusted before 

the introduction of electronic title lists. 

Thus, the Office has never set a separate 

fee for recording documents with such 

lists, and currently charges the same 

recordation fee regardless of whether 

the document has an electronic title list. 

As a result, the Office’s cost study 

proposed implementing a separate, 

reduced filing fee for groups of 

additional titles provided in an 

electronic title list that accompanies a 

document submitted for recordation. 

The fee adjustment implemented by this 

final rule only pertains to that fee. The 

Office is not adjusting the baseline 

document recordation fee of $105 at this 

time; that fee will remain the same for 

recordations made both with and 

without electronic title lists. Nor is the 

Office adjusting the fee for groups of 

additional titles when an electronic title 

list is not used. Proposals for those fees 

will be included in a comprehensive 

study of all Copyright Office costs and 

fees expected to be submitted to 

Congress next year. 

The fee-setting methodology 

employed by the study used activitybased costing principles which comply 

with standards set for federal 

managerial accounting 12 and with 

guidance for fee setting as published by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–25 Revised: User Charges,13

and the Government Accountability 

Office.14 Under the approach, total costs 

for the entire recordation function were 

used to develop a time-based multiplier, 

which was then used to calculate the 

cost of the individual activities for 

recording the information contained in 

electronic title lists. The total cost of 

completing an electronic title list 

transaction was determined by 

aggregating the cost of each individual 

activity. 

Cost studies of this type are typically 

retrospective, using actual data from a 

fiscal year that has concluded. This 

study used actual data from fiscal year 

2016, but the methodology was applied 

prospectively against a planned new 

service. This prospective approach was 

used because, concurrent with the 

effective date of this rule, the Office is 

implementing a new, more efficient 

process for providing this service than 

the one currently employed. This 

methodology was reviewed and 

validated by an independent consulting 

firm. 

The new fee for documents submitted 

with electronic title lists to be 

implemented by this final rule is as 

follows: 

1 to 50 additional titles: $60 

51 to 500 additional titles: $225 

501 to 1,000 additional titles: $390 

1,001 to 10,000 additional titles: $555 

10,001 or more additional titles: $5,550 

In the analysis submitted to Congress, 

the Office determined that while use of 

electronic title lists can significantly 

increase the Office’s processing 

efficiency, remitters had little incentive 

to use them. Thus, the Office proposed, 

and is now instituting, a fee for using 

electronic title lists that is generally 

lower than the current fee for 

recordations made without them. The 

lower fee is being adopted primarily to 

incentivize use of electronic title lists 

for documents with more than ten 

additional titles 15 in an effort to 

increase administrative efficiency and to 

offer a less expensive avenue to 

obtaining the benefits of recording a 

document with the Copyright Office. 

In considering the fairness, equity, 

and objectives of the copyright system, 

the Office believes that offering 

recordation services for a lower fee, 

where remitters have done the work to 

create an electronic title list, should 

result in a wider range of remitters 

submitting documents and may also 

result in existing remitters submitting 

additional or updated documents with 

more frequency than they might 

otherwise. Receipt of additional 

recorded documents should result in 

greater copyright ownership data being 

incorporated into the Office’s records, 

which furthers the Office’s mission and 

benefits the public at large. 

In its analysis, the Office also 

determined that as compared to 

manually indexing documents, where 

more titles generally means more 

processing time and higher costs, when 

an electronic title list is used, 

processing time is typically more 

constant. However, in further evaluating 

the fairness, equity, and objectives of 

the copyright system, the Office has 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 52223 

16See generally 37 CFR 201.18. 

17 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1). 

18 37 CFR 201.3(e)(1). 

19 Id. § 201.18(f)(2). 

20See id. 

21Compare 37 CFR 201.18(e)(1) (2003) (‘‘Notices 

of Intention submitted for filing shall be 

accompanied by the fee specified in § 201.3(e).’’) 

with id. § 201.18(e)(3) (‘‘No filing fee will be 

required in the case of Notices filed under this 

paragraph.’’). 

22 66 FR 45241, 45243 (Aug. 28, 2001); see also 

69 FR 11566, 11572 (Mar. 11, 2004) (additional, 

related notice of proposed rulemaking reiterating 

that ‘‘the Office intends to amend its rules to 

require a filing fee in each instance where the 

Notice is filed with the Copyright Office without 

regard to the licensee’s reason for filing the Notice 

with the Office’’). 

23 66 FR at 45243; see also 69 FR at 11572. 

24 69 FR 34578, 34583 (June 22, 2004). 

25See 37 CFR 201.3(e)(1) (establishing a fee for 

‘‘[r]ecordation of a notice of intention to make and 

distribute phonorecords’’ without differentiation). 

26See id. 

decided to adopt a tiered pricing 

structure based on the number of titles 

to which the document pertains. Under 

this scheme, larger filers submitting 

documents with a larger number of titles 

pay a higher fee for the added benefit 

they receive (when the fee is viewed on 

a per-title basis) to offset the lower total 

fee for smaller filers with fewer titles. 

The first four tiers of the proposed 

schedule increase incrementally based 

on the total number of additional titles 

submitted. The reason for the larger 

jump between the fourth and fifth tiers 

is because of the significant added costs 

to the Office to process documents with 

10,000 or more titles, caused by current 

system limitations. 

The Office notes that the proposed fee 

schedule will be revisited as part of a 

comprehensive study of all Office costs 

and fees to be completed next year. As 

discussed above, the goal of the 

proposed fee schedule is primarily to 

incentivize use of electronic title lists. 

To do that, the proposed fee offers a 

discount from the ordinary recordation 

fee of $35 per group of ten additional 

titles. When the full fee study examines 

all Office costs and evaluates an 

appropriate fee to record a document 

without an electronic title list in light of 

current costs, it is possible that fee will 

increase, in which case it is also 

possible that the fee being adopted for 

using an electronic title list may be 

adjusted upward as well to ensure 

adequate cost recovery. 

C. Effective Date 

Congress’s 120-day review period 

under 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(5) began after the 

Office submitted the proposed fee 

schedule and analysis on August 18, 

2017. If no law is enacted stating in 

substance that Congress does not 

approve of the proposed recordation fee 

during such time, the fee will be 

instituted pursuant to this final rule, 

effective December 18, 2017. 

II. Notices of Intention 

Though not related to the abovediscussed cost study or final rule, the 

Office is taking this opportunity to 

provide public notice that it will 

implement a policy change regarding 

fees for notices of intention to obtain a 

compulsory license to make and 

distribute phonorecords (‘‘NOIs’’). 

Under the Copyright Act, section 115 

establishes a compulsory license, 

whereby anyone may make and 

distribute phonorecords of nondramatic 

musical works, subject to certain terms 

and conditions, and upon paying 

royalties when applicable. To obtain a 

compulsory license, a licensee must 

serve an NOI on the relevant copyright 

owner in the form and manner specified 

by Copyright Office regulations.16

In two circumstances, however, an 

NOI can be filed with the Copyright 

Office rather than the copyright owner. 

First, if the public records of the 

Copyright Office do not identify the 

copyright owner and include an address 

at which notice can be served, the NOI 

can instead be filed with the Office.17

These ‘‘unidentified NOIs’’ can be filed 

electronically or in paper hard copy, 

though a discounted fee is offered for 

electronic submissions.18

Second, if the NOI is sent to the last 

address for the copyright owner shown 

by the Office’s records, but is returned 

to the sender because the copyright 

owner was no longer located at that 

address or refused to accept delivery, 

the Office’s regulations permit the 

‘‘original Notice as sent’’ to be filed with 

the Office, along with a ‘‘brief statement 

that the Notice was sent to the last 

address for the copyright owner shown 

by the records of the Copyright Office 

but was returned,’’ and may also ‘‘be 

accompanied by appropriate evidence 

that it was mailed to, or that delivery by 

reputable courier service was attempted 

at, that address.’’ 19 Typically, for these 

‘‘returned-to-sender NOIs,’’ the Office 

receives the NOI in the original mailing 

envelope marked with a return to sender 

label. The Office does not currently 

have any mechanism for accepting these 

NOIs electronically.20

The Office’s regulations used to 

explicitly state that no filing fee would 

be charged for returned-to-sender NOIs, 

while such a fee would be charged for 

the unidentified NOIs.21 But in 2001, 

the Office issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking seeking to remove this 

limitation, as ‘‘[t]he cost to the Office of 

processing the filing of a Notice of 

Intention is the same whether the 

copyright owner is not identified in the 

records of the Office or the copyright 

owner is no longer located at the 

address shown in the records of the 

Office or has refused to accept 

delivery.’’22 The Office believed that the 

same filing fee ‘‘should be charged in 

both cases.’’23 The final rule, effective in 

2004, adopted that proposal, repealing 

the regulatory language that had 

expressly prohibited charging a fee.24

Consistent with this rulemaking, the 

Copyright Office’s fee schedule does not 

distinguish between different types of 

NOIs.25

In practice, however, and in part due 

to the extremely low volume of 

returned-to-sender NOIs the Office 

received in the years following adoption 

of the 2004 rule, the Office abstained 

from imposing the established fee. In 

recent years, however, the volume of 

returned-to-sender NOIs has increased 

sharply. Last year the Office received 

over 800 such NOIs, and this year the 

Office has received over 2,000 to date. 

Each of these NOIs must be individually 

and manually processed. Because of this 

increased burden, the Office can no 

longer afford to forbear from the 

collection of fees. Accordingly, this 

document announces a policy change 

that will be implemented on December 

18, 2017: Any returned-to-sender NOIs 

received in the Office on or after that 

date must be accompanied by the same 

filing fee applicable to other paper-filed 

NOIs, which is currently $75 plus $20 

per group of one to ten additional 

titles.26 The Office is publicly 

announcing this policy change in 

advance to give remitters of returned-tosender NOIs time to adjust their 

practices. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

Final 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. Amend § 201.3 by revising 

paragraph (c)(16) to read as follows: 

§ 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, 

and related services, special services, and 

services performed by the Licensing 

Division. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
52224 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 217 / Monday, November 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Registration, recordation and related services Fees 

($) 

*******

(16) Recordation of a document, including a notice of intention to enforce ........................

Single title ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 

Additional titles (per group of 1 to 10 titles) ................................................................................................................................. 35 

Additional titles provided in an electronic title list 

1 to 50 additional titles .......................................................................................................................................................... 60 

51 to 500 additional titles ...................................................................................................................................................... 225 

501 to 1,000 additional titles ................................................................................................................................................. 390 

1,001 to 10,000 additional titles ............................................................................................................................................ 555 

10,001 or more additional titles ............................................................................................................................................. 5,550 

Correction of online Public Catalog data due to erroneous electronic title submission (per title) ............................................... 7 

*******

* * * * * 

Dated: October 24, 2017. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Acting Register of Copyrights and Director 

of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24526 Filed 11–9–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 2017–8] 

Secure Tests 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing an update to its interim rule, 

issued June 12, 2017, governing 

registration of secure tests. Based on the 

initial comments received on that 

interim rule, the Office has determined 

that there is an immediate need to 

establish a new group registration 

option for secure test questions and 

answers and other related materials 

(referred to as ‘‘test items’’) that are 

stored in an electronic database, test 

bank, or other medium of expression. 

This interim rule incorporates most of 

the same procedures that the Office 

adopted in its recent interim rule on 

secure tests and adds additional 

procedures for group registration. To 

seek a group registration, applicants will 

be required to submit an online 

application, upload a redacted copy of 

the individual test items to the 

electronic registration system, and 

complete and submit a brief 

questionnaire. If, based on the answers 

to the questionnaire, the test items 

appear to be eligible for the group 

registration option, the Office will 

contact the applicant and schedule an 

appointment to deliver these materials 

to the Office in person. On the 

appointed date, the applicant must 

bring a copy of the application and a 

complete unredacted copy of the actual 

test items. In addition, the applicant 

must bring a redacted copy of the test 

items, and a signed declaration 

confirming that this copy is identical to 

the redacted copy that was uploaded to 

the electronic registration system. The 

Office will examine each test item to 

determine if it contains sufficient 

copyrightable authorship. If the Office 

registers the claim, the registration will 

cover each test item as a separate work 

of authorship, and the registration will 

be effective as of the date the Office 

initially received the application, filing 

fee, and the redacted copy of the test 

items in proper form through the 

electronic registration system. To be 

clear, the previous interim rule 

otherwise remains in effect, and 

applicants may continue to use that rule 

to register individual secure tests. The 

Office welcomes public comment on 

both this interim rule and the June 12, 

2017 interim rule. 

DATES: Effective November 13, 2017. 

Comments on this interim rule and the 

interim rule published on June 12, 2017 

(82 FR 26850), must be made in writing 

and must be received by the U.S. 

Copyright Office no later than December 

11, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, the U.S. Copyright Office is 

using the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are on the U.S. Copyright 

Office Web site at http://copyright.gov/ 

rulemaking/securetests/. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to lack of access to a computer and/ 

or the internet, please contact the Office 

for special instructions using the contact 

information below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice; Sarang Vijay Damle, 

General Counsel and Associate Register 

of Copyrights; Erik Bertin, Deputy 

Director of Registration Policy and 

Practice; or Abioye Ella Mosheim, 

Attorney-Advisor, by telephone at 202– 

707–8040 or by email at rkas@loc.gov, 

sdam@loc.gov, ebertin@loc.gov, and 

abmo@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. General Provisions Regarding 

Copyright Registration 

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, the 

U.S. Copyright Office (the ‘‘Copyright 

Office’’ or ‘‘Office’’) is responsible for 

registering copyright claims. See 17 

U.S.C. 408. In doing so, the Office has 

a statutory obligation to confirm that the 

legal and formal requirements for 

registration have been met, such as 

confirming fixation and examining the 

work for copyrightable authorship. See 

17 U.S.C. 410(a) (obligating the Register 

of Copyrights (the ‘‘Register’’) ‘‘after 

examination’’ to ‘‘determine[ ] that . . . 

the material deposited constitutes 

copyrightable subject matter and that 

the other legal and formal requirements 

of this title have been met’’). 

The Office has the further obligation 

to obtain a registration deposit that is 

sufficient to verify the scope of the 

claim, and to provide an adequate 

archival record of what was examined 

and registered. Id. 408(b) (generally 

requiring a ‘‘complete’’ copy of works 

deposited for registration); id. 705(a) 

(requiring the Register to ‘‘ensure that 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES