Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/13/2017-12114/procedural-regulations-for-the-copyright-royalty-board-regarding-electronic-filing-of-claims
Timestamp: 2017-08-22 07:47:52
Document Index: 416665826

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', '§\u2009360', 'arts 350', 'arts 350', '§\u2009350', '§\u2009301', '§\u2009350', '§\u2009301', '§\u2009301', '§\u2009301', '§\u2009301', '§\u2009350', '§\u2009350']

Federal Register :: Procedural Regulations for the Copyright Royalty Board Regarding Electronic Filing of Claims
A Rule by the Copyright Royalty Board on 06/13/2017
82 FR 27016
27016-27021 (6 pages)
II. Comments on Proposed Rules and Judges' Findings
Section 360.4—Form and Content of Claims
Section 360.22—Form and Content of Claims
Section 360.30—Amendment of Claims
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-12114 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2017-12114
On March 17, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on proposed amendments to regulations relating to an automated system, designated eCRB.[1] The proposed regulations addressed electronic filing of claims to royalty fees deposited with the Copyright Office for compulsory licenses. The Judges received comments from the following interested parties: The Allocation Phase Parties; [2] the Joint Sports Claimants (JSC); [3] the MPAA-Represented Program Suppliers (Program Suppliers); [4] the Performing Rights Organizations (PROs); [5] and Screenrights International (Screenrights).[6]
The Judges address the comments on a section-by-section basis. The Judges will adopt without change those sections upon which no interested party commented.[7]
Each of the comments the Judges received addressed this section. All of the commenters opposed proposed language that would have required parties filing joint claims to identify a qualifying secondary transmission of a work for each copyright owner listed in a joint claim. See, e.g., Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 1-4; JSC Comments at 1; Program Suppliers Comments at 3-4; PROs Comments at 4-6; Screenrights Comments at 1. Two commenters sought clarification that § 360.4(b)(2)(ii) does not require the filer of a joint claim to include a separate statement from each copyright owner confirming the filer's authorization to act on the copyright owner's behalf. See Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 6-7; Program Suppliers Comments at 2-3. In addition, the Program Suppliers proposed that the special relief granted to performing rights organizations in § 360.4(b)(2)(i) and (ii) be extended to “collective management organizations” such as AGICOA, EGEDA, and Screenrights. See Program Suppliers Comments at 4-7.[8]
The Allocation Phase Parties described the burden on claimants and filers of requiring identification of a qualifying transmission for a work of each copyright owner listed in a joint claim, both in terms of labor and monetary expense. “For example, the Start Printed Page 27017last time one of the Allocation Phase Parties . . . undertook such a task, it expended approximately 300 hours annually to identify secondary transmissions . . . . [F]or many copyright owners' claims it would require merging commercially available and expensive broadcast programming databases with cable carriage data . . . .” Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 3. The Allocation Phase Parties also noted that the Copyright Office had considered and ultimately rejected the same requirement in 1994. Id. at 2-3. In the face of unanimous opposition from interested parties, the Copyright Office concluded that “requiring identification of a secondary transmission for each joint claimant would add in some cases a substantial burden and cost to joint claimants without yielding an appreciable return in administrative efficiency.” Id. at 3 (quoting Final Regulations, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels, 59 FR 63025-63028 (Dec. 7, 1994)).
Identifying only a single secondary transmission on a joint claim has very little utility for the Judges. The Judges proposed requiring identification of secondary transmissions for each joint claimant at the claims-filing stage in order to improve the efficiency of distribution proceedings by screening out invalid claims at the earliest possible point in the claims distribution process. The Judges must weigh the potential improvement of administrative efficiency against the cost of compliance on some claimants, and the potential for deterring the filing of meritorious claims. On balance, the Judges find that the burden outweighs the benefit and will not include the proposed requirement in the final rule. Moreover, given the extremely limited value of identifying a single secondary transmission on a joint claim, the Judges will eliminate that existing requirement as well.[9]
Similar considerations apply to § 360.4(b)(2)(ii). The language the Judges proposed was intended to elicit information from joint claimants regarding their authorization to file claims on behalf of each of the copyright owners listed in the claim. Again, the Judges were seeking to improve the efficiency of distribution proceedings by screening out invalid claims at the earliest possible point in the distribution process. The Judges recognize that the proposal would impose additional cost on some claimants, potentially deterring them from filing meritorious claims. Consequently, the Judges will omit the proposed the language concerning authorization from the final rule. The Judges will rely instead on the filer's declaration and certification regarding the filer's authority and the veracity of the claim.
The Program Suppliers have proposed that the Judges extend to collective management organizations (CMOs) the existing language that exempts performing rights organizations from the requirement to identify each of the copyright owners covered by a joint claim. The Program Suppliers argued that “CMOs are distinct from other non-PRO claimants in that they are government-authorized, non-profit entities typically regulated by their native national legislation, and are specifically created to administer audiovisual rights and/or collect royalties on behalf of thousands of rights owners based in their respective countries or regions . . . . Within the context of retransmission royalties, CMOs therefore are similarly situated as PROs.” Program Suppliers Comments at 5-6.
This is a new proposal that has not been reviewed or commented upon by any interested parties (other than the Program Suppliers). The administrative record is limited to a brief discussion in the Program Suppliers Comments. The Judges are not prepared to extend the existing exemption to a potentially broad group of entities on this basis. The final rule will not include the Program Suppliers' proposal.
The PROs urged the Judges to revise this provision to permit filers of joint claims to submit a list of joint claimants in electronic form. PROs Comments at 7. The PROs “anticipate[d]”—correctly—that eCRB will accommodate lists of claimants in electronic format, and seek express acknowledgement in the regulation. In addition, the PROs sought language that would permit parties filing joint claims by mail or hand delivery to provide claimant lists on a CD or other electronic format.
Claims filed through eCRB are entirely electronic. eCRB will permit a person filing a joint claim to list up to ten claimants in the webform. For joint claims with more than ten claimants, the filer will be permitted to attach a separate electronic file that lists the claimants. Proposed § 360.4(b)(2)(i) already reflects this eCRB innovation. The Judges will modify proposed § 360.22 to reflect this as well.
In addition, the Judges find the PROs' proposal to permit parties filing joint claims by mail or hand delivery to provide claimant lists on a CD or other electronic format to be reasonable and likely to improve administrative efficiency. The Judges will therefore include this proposal in both the final rule for cable and satellite claims (§ 360.4) and the final rule for DART claims (§ 360.22).
The Allocation Phase Parties and the Program Suppliers urged the Judges to permit amendment of claims after the claims-filing deadline without requiring the claimant to file a motion with the Judges. See Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 4-6; Program Suppliers Comments at 7-8. As proposed, § 360.30 would permit claimants to amend claims prior to the claims filing deadline by filing a Notice of Amendment. In the proposed rule, after the statutory claims filing period claimants would be required to file a motion with the Judges demonstrating good cause and lack of prejudice to other claimants.
The Allocation Phase Parties noted that “[t]he only elements of a claim subject to being amended are those relating to the ‘general statement of the nature of the works’ being claimed and to the example of a secondary transmission of one of the copyright owner's works establishing the basis of the claim.” Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 5 (citations and footnote omitted).[10] They argued that “amendments of those portions of a claim should be allowed as of right at any time.” Id. The Program Suppliers pointed out that, as drafted, the regulation would require a claimant to file a motion to fix typographical and other nonsubstantive errors after the claims deadline. Program Suppliers Comments at 7. In addition, they noted that “the Judges typically do not establish docket numbers or official service lists for cable or satellite royalty distribution proceedings until months (or even years) after royalty claims are filed” making it difficult for claimants to file motions with the Judges. Id. at 7-8.
The Allocation Phase Parties' assertion is mistaken: There are other elements of a claim that may be amended. For example, while the proposed regulation would prohibit Start Printed Page 27018filers from adding additional claimants to a joint claim, it would allow a filer to strike claimants that have been included in error. Filers might also need to amend a claim to correct an erroneous corporate name or to reflect a corporate acquisition or name change. In addition, the Allocation Phase Parties failed to note those elements of a claim to DART royalties, such as the list and category of interested copyright parties and identification of the subfund in which they claim, that are not addressed by the final sentence of § 360.30.
Nevertheless, the Allocation Phase Parties are correct in pointing out that the regulations should allow certain amendments as of right after the claims filing deadline. In addition, the Program suppliers are correct in pointing out practical difficulties in filing a motion to amend a claim prior to the initiation of a distribution proceeding.[11]
The final regulation will permit amendment to filed claims prior to the claims filing deadline as of right. It will also permit amendment to filed claims after the claims filing deadline as of right, provided that the amendment is limited to correcting the general description of the nature of the work, fixing typographical or other nonsubstantive errors in other portions of the claim, or striking a claimant that was erroneously included in a joint claim. The Judges will address the procedure for making any other amendments to filed claims in a separate rulemaking at a later date and after further study.
Having considered all comments from interested parties, the Judges adopt as final rules the changes and additions to 37 CFR parts 350 and 360 detailed in this Final Rule.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend parts 350 and 360 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
2. Amend § 350.5 by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
(b) Claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board will be considered timely filed only if they are filed online through eCRB or by mail or hand delivery in accordance with § 301.2 during the month of July, as determined in accordance with § 350.7.
(ii) On the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.crb.gov/​cable/​ (for cable claims) or http://www.crb.gov/​satellite/​ (for satellite claims) during the month of July for claims filed online through eCRB; and
(iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board by mail at the address set forth in § 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in § 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.
(1) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates specifically authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings; orStart Printed Page 27020
(i) On the Copyright Royalty Board's Web site at http://www.crb.gov/​claims for claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board by mail or by hand delivery;
(iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board, by mail at the address set forth in § 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in § 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.
(d) Changes. In the event that the legal name and/or address of the claimant changes after the filing of the claim, the claimant must notify the Copyright Royalty Board of the change. Any other proposed changes or amendments must be submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 360.30. If the good faith efforts of the Copyright Royalty Board to contact the claimant are frustrated because of failure to notify the Copyright Royalty Board of a name and/or address change, the claim may be subject to dismissal. A person or entity that filed a claim online through eCRB must notify the Copyright Royalty Board of any change of name or address by updating that person or entity's eCRB profile as required by § 350.5(g).
(e) List of claimants. If the claim is a joint claim, it must include the name of each claimant participating in the joint claim. Filers submitting joint claims online through eCRB on behalf of ten or fewer claimants, must list claimant information directly on the filed joint claim. Filers submitting joint claims on behalf of more than ten claimants must include an Excel spreadsheet listing the full legal name, address, and email address of each claimant included in the joint claim. For joint claims filed by mail or hand delivery, the filer may submit the list containing the name of each claimant included in the joint claim in a single Excel spreadsheet on CD, DVD, or other electronic storage medium.
Any claimant may amend a filed claim as of right by filing a Notice of Amendment during the statutory period for filing annual claims. After the expiration of the time for filing claims, a claimant may amend a filed claim as of right to correct the general description of the nature of the claimant's work(s), to fix typographical or other nonsubstantive errors in other portions of the claim, or to strike a claimant or interested copyright party Start Printed Page 27021that was erroneously included in a joint claim. No filer may amend a filed claim to add additional claimants or interested copyright parties after the expiration of the time for filing claims.
1. See 82 FR 14167.
2. “The Allocation Phase Parties are Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, Public Broadcasting Service, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., SESAC, Inc., Settling Devotional Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, and National Public Radio.” Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 1 n1.
3. The JSC is comprised of Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. JSC Comments at 1 n.1.
4. The Program Suppliers are comprised of The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., its member companies and “other producers and/or distributors of syndicated series, movies, specials, and non-team sports broadcast by television stations.” Program Suppliers Comments at 1.
5. The PROs consist of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., and SESAC, Inc.
6. “Screenrights International is a division of the Audio-Visual Copyright Society Pty Ltd trading as Screenrights the Australian based collecting society.” Screenrights Comments at 1.
7. The Judges received no comments, apart from technical corrections, on the following sections in the NPRM: §§ 350.5(c)(3), 360.1, 360.2, 360.3, 360.5, 360.20, 360.21, 360.23, 360.24, 360.31, and 360.32. The Judges have incorporated in the final rule all technical corrections to these provisions identified in the comments.
8. Several commenters also suggested nonsubstantive, technical corrections to this section. The Judges find all of those suggestions to have merit and have included them in the final rule.
9. In order to maintain consistency for single and joint claimants, the Judges will eliminate the requirement to identify a secondary transmission from both single and joint claims.
10. The Allocation Phase Parties also note, correctly, that under the proposal claimants are required to update contact information for the filer and copyright owner(s) and are prohibited from adding additional claimants after the claims filing deadline.
11. The eCRB system will establish a docket number for distribution proceedings concurrently with the filing of the first claim in each category. Assignment of the docket number alone, however, will not trigger filing Petitions to Participate, which are the source documents for lists of participants requiring notice of proceeding activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-12114 Filed 6-12-17; 8:45 am]