Source: http://blog.digitalmedialicensing.org/?cat=713
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:01:54+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Copyright Office has released a public draft of an updated Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition. On April 10, at 2 p.m. ET, the Office will hold a webinar to review the proposed revisions. The draft as well as the webinar can be accessed here. The updates reflect “changes to the Office’s practices and procedures, as well as recent changes in the law,” including the 2017 Star Athletica decision, the Fourth Estate case, and various rulemakings and proposals. Comments are due by May 14. More information is available here.
This entry was posted in Advocacy, Copyright, Copyright Office, Industry News, Legal, U.S. Copyright Office and tagged Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices on March 19, 2019 by Cathy Aron.
It was an eventful day for copyright law on Monday, March 4, as the Supreme Court of the United States issued two unanimous opinions, both involving provisions of the Copyright Act. The decisions were fittingly both issued on the 110th anniversary of the 1909 Copyright Act. The office of our counsel, Nancy Wolff, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLC, wrote a review of these decisions and how they will impact copyright infringement cases going forward.
This entry was posted in Copyright, Copyright Office, Industry News, Legal, U.S. Copyright Office and tagged Supreme Court, Supreme Court Decision, U. S. Supreme Court on March 13, 2019 by Cathy Aron.
It was an eventful day for copyright law on Monday, March 4, as the Supreme Court of the United States issued two unanimous opinions, both involving provisions of the Copyright Act. The decisions were fittingly both issued on the 110th anniversary of the 1909 Copyright Act.
In the first case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC,No. 17–571, the Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, resolved a long-standing circuit split over whether a copyright owner can sue in federal court with only a copyright application in hand, or whether a completed registration is necessary. The Court held that “registration . . . has been made” under Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act—and thus an infringement suit may be instituted—when the Copyright Office grants or denies registration after evaluating the copyright application (coined the “registration approach”) rather than when a copyright owner merely submits the application, materials, and fee required for the registration to begin processing (the “application approach”).
In the second case, Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625, Justice Kavanaugh delivered the option for the Court, holding that Section 505 of the Copyright Act, which allows a party to recover “full costs,” does not authorize appellate courts to award litigation costs beyond the categories enumerated by Congress in the general costs statute codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and § 1920. Such “costs” are limited to fees for the clerk and marshal; transcript, copyright, and docketing fees; disbursements for printing and witnesses; and the compensation of court-appointed experts and certain special interpretation services. The Court rejected Oracle’s position that “full costs” under Section 505 included expert witness fees, electronic discovery expenses, and jury consultant fees.
Both of the Court’s determinations are instructive, as they clarify the legal landscape for copyright litigants who have been grappling with inconsistent applications of the Copyright Act for years.
The “registration approach” adopted in Fourth Estateincentivizes copyright owners—more than ever—to register works with the Copyright Office and will likely incite an uptick in registrations. While there were many benefits to registration prior to this decision, now, if a copyright owner fails to register works prior to discovering an infringement, she will have to wait an average of seven months to sue (the Copyright Office’s average processing time), and the work may continue to be infringed without recourse in the interim. There is, of course, the option of invoking the Copyright Office’s Special Handling process, but it comes with a $800 special handling fee, which may not be an attractive or feasible alternative for some.
Furthermore, creators who have yet to register works and are running up against the three-year statute of limitations for infringement may be out of luck if they file an application and the Copyright Office does not process it in time. The best practice for content owners is to apply for registration as soon as possible, even before infringement is anticipated or suspected. Those who have filed lawsuits based on applications that have not yet been processed should take advantage of the Special Handling process, if possible, otherwise the claim may ultimately be dismissed as untimely.
The limitation on recoverable fees fashioned by the Rimini Street decision may also have far-reaching implications, especially for individual creators and litigants who cannot bear high litigation costs without the chance for recovery. The ruling sounded a death knell for a copyright litigant’s ability to recover fees for expert witnesses, electronic discovery platforms, and jury consultants, which have become increasingly prevalent in copyright cases in the digital age.
For example, while music and software cases have almost always involved experts, matters involving “viral” infringements often call for specialized experts to address novel copyright issues. In such highly technical cases, retention of a knowledgeable expert may make or break the case, making the choice of whether to hire without the option for recovery of those fees all the more difficult, especially for those unable to afford the costs. Additionally, as the use of e-discovery platforms has become nearly ubiquitous, payment for such services has become a necessity for a litigant to maintain an equal footing with their opponent.
The Rimini Street ruling will certainly force copyright litigants to face difficult decisions in how they want to proceed with their case, especially if they are facing an opponent with deep pockets who can afford to hire numerous experts, pay for e-discovery platforms, and retain jury consultants. Clients should discuss their financial limitations with counsel before deciding to commence a copyright action or how to defend against a copyright action, as they may have to bear the burden of certain unrecoverable costs to prevail.
This entry was posted in Copyright, Copyright Office, Industry News, Legal, U.S. Copyright Office and tagged "full costs", Copyright Act, copyright infringement, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, Inc v Oracle USA, Inc., litigation costs, recoverable fees, registration approach, Rimini Street, Supreme Court Decision, U. S. Supreme Court on March 13, 2019 by Cathy Aron.
The U.S. Copyright Office has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing fee increases for copyright registration and other services. The proposed fee increases are based on a Study Report released by the U.S. Copyright office. Fee increases for services will be implemented as the U.S. Copyright Office moves forward with their plans for IT modernization.
Visual creators’ professional organizations and advocates are concerned about how these fee increases will affect visual creators, licensing agents, and related professionals. We will be submitting a Comment Letter to the U.S. Copyright Office about the proposed fee increases. We have created a survey to gather information and feedback from creators who will be impacted by registration fee increases. We will be submitting the survey results to the Copyright Office. The survey is completely anonymous.
We need your help by taking 15 minutes for a short survey. The survey is anonymous and all responses are confidential. We will use this data to support our response to proposed changes in U.S. copyright registration.
The survey will close at midnight on September 7, 2018.
Please pass this along to other artists, photographers, and related professionals you know and urge them to take the survey, too!
This entry was posted in Advocacy, Copyright, Copyright Office, Industry News, Industry Survey, Legal, U.S. Copyright Office and tagged Fee increase on August 23, 2018 by Cathy Aron.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to resolve a long-simmering circuit split over whether copyright owners must fully register their works before suing.
The justices granted a petition for writ of certiorari in the case of Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, allowing them to answer a question that has split the circuits: What exactly the Copyright Act means when it says a work must be “registered” prior to the filing an infringement lawsuit.
In several circuits, copyright owners can sue as soon as they file the application paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office; in others, they can’t sue until the office actually registers or takes action on the application, which can take many months if they don’t pay a significant fee for expedited handling.
Fourth Estate, a journalism collective, sued Wall-Street.com for reposting articles without permission in March 2016. But a federal judge tossed the case two months later, saying Fourth Estate had filed its lawsuit before it had fully registered the copyrights for the articles.
The ruling came after the U.S. solicitor general urged the justices to tackle the issue and affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s position.
This entry was posted in Copyright, Copyright Office, Industry News, Legal and tagged Supreme Court on June 28, 2018 by Cathy Aron.
This entry was posted in Advocacy, Copyright, Copyright Office, Digital Media Licensing Association, DMLA, Industry News, Legal, Press releases, U.S. Copyright Office and tagged Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, VHT, Zillow on December 21, 2017 by Cathy Aron.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1821
 § 1920
 v. 
 v.