Tag Archives: copyright

Copyright Office Procedures During COVID-19

By Elizabeth Altman

As COVID-19-related disruptions and social distancing measures continue across the country and throughout the summer, many public institutions are seeing continued curtailment to their operations. It can be overwhelming to parse through ever-changing, institution-specific pandemic protocols, which is why we have put together an overview of the Copyright Office’s current practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This guide explores the safety and efficiency measures adopted by the Copyright Office to mitigate effects from the national emergency, and explains what that means for your registrations, recordations, research, and other copyright-related concerns.

General Background

First and foremost, the Copyright Office’s physical offices remain closed, as they—along with all Library of Congress buildings—have been since March 13 of this year. The Office is actively teleworking, however, with staff and registration specialists operating remotely to continue core Copyright Office activities, such as reviewing and processing of registrations. The Copyright Office’s emergency modifications, implemented on March 31, 2020, and discussed further below, have currently been extended through September 8, 2020.

Registrations

A central function of the Copyright Office is registering copyrighted works. During the pandemic, the Office has continued to provide this service via its online registration portal, eCO. Examiners continue to review online registrations remotely, processing electronic applications in the order in which they are received (except with respect to special handling, discussed further below). The Copyright Office strongly encourages online registration, especially considering that, given today’s copyright technology and the Copyright Office’s current procedures, most works are fully registerable online.

The main COVID-19-related disruption to registration involves physical deposits and applications, which some people prefer to use, and which are required for certain categories of works and applications as discussed below. Although the Copyright Office is still accepting physical submissions, it is currently storing them in an offsite facility, regardless of whether they were submitted by USPS, courier, or delivery service. The Copyright Office will only process these submissions when the Library of Congress reopens, for which there is presently no timeline. To date, the Library of Congress has stated that all events at its buildings are cancelled until September 1 and that all facilities remain closed “until further notice.” When the Copyright Office does resume reviewing physical materials, it will do so in the order in which they were received, as submissions have been date-stamped.

The Copyright Office therefore strongly encourages applicants to take advantage of electronic filing options. To this end, the Office has expanded its electronic submissions programs, to accommodate applications that would normally require a physical deposit copy. Below is a summary of the available submission options, depending upon the deposit requirements for the type of work:

a) Registration Where No Physical Deposit is Required:

For applicants not required to submit a physical deposit copy of the work, the Office strongly encourages uploading one electronic copy of the work after completing the electronic application and paying the required fee. No other declaration form or special procedure is required.

b) Registration Where Physical Deposit is Required:

Physical deposit copies are required for certain kinds of work, including vessel designs and mask works. They are also required when:

  • A work was first published in the U.S. before the applicant submitted an application claim to the Copyright Office, and the work was published in physical form, like a CD, DVD, or paperback book;
  • A work was first published in the U.S. before the applicant submitted an application claim, and the work was published both in a physical and an electronic form (like a song released on CD and as a download); or
  • A work was first published abroad before the applicant submitted an application claim to the Copyright Office, and the work was first published in a physical format like CD, DVD, or paperback book.

Applicants that must submit a physical deposit copy should mail it to the Copyright Office, including the shipping slip, which provides the mailing address. Although the physical deposit will not be processed until the Office returns to normal operations, applicants who also follow the Office’s special pandemic procedures—as outlined below—will receive remote examination of the electronic application: 

  1. Complete an electronic application and submit the filing fee through the online registration system.
  2. Upload an electronic copy of the work that is identical to the physical copy.
  3. Print the shipping slip generated by the eCO system and attach it to the physical deposit copy of the work that is mailed to the Copyright Office.
  4. Complete and upload a Deposit Ticket Declaration Form certifying that the physical deposit and electronic copy contain identical content.
  • Include the title of the work, which the registration specialist will use to confirm that the information in the declaration matches that in the application.
  • Sign the declaration; typed signatures suffice.
  • You need not notarize the form or have a witness.

The Copyright Office advises that where an applicant has filed an application electronically but has only submitted a physical deposit, the examiner assigned to the claim may send an email with the option of uploading an electronic copy of the work and the Deposit Form, where the option is available. Emails send from cop-ad@loc.gov. However, applicants taking note of the Copyright Office’s building closures and hold on inspections of physical material are advised to proceed with this process from the start.

Where applicants follow this procedure, the effective date of registration will be the date the Copyright Office receives the completed application, fee, and deposit in its proper form, regardless of whether the physical or electronic version first reaches the Office. Claims submitted in this manner should be examined within 30 days after the Office receives the electronic copy, although the Copyright Office generally advises that the average time to process a registration is presently 3.2 months.

The Copyright Office directs that applicants that have only submitted a paper application should not resubmit an online application; in such cases, the Copyright Office will examine the application when the building reopens and staff returns.

c) Where Applicants are Unable to Submit an Application, Fee, and/or Deposit During COVID-19

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, passed on March 27, 2020, the Register of Copyrights has the temporary authority to extend certain filing deadlines and procedural requirements if she determines that a national emergency is disrupting Copyright Office practices. The Register quickly used this authority to establish a procedure to extend the window for registrations under Section 710 of the Copyright Act, which authorizes her, on a temporary basis and subject to certain exceptions, to “toll, waive, adjust, or modify any timing provision . . . or procedural provision” in the Copyright Act if she determines that a national emergency declared by the President “generally disrupts or suspends the ordinary functioning of the copyright system . . . or any component thereof.” Considering the difficulties of prompt registration, which is generally required in order to ensure the availability of statutory damages and attorney’s fees should an infringement dispute proceed to litigation (these legal remedies are only available for works registered before infringement or, if after infringement, within three months after first publication), the Office is now allowing applicants to toll the registration window based on fulfillment of certain conditions:

  • Applicants who are unable to submit an application, fee, and/or required physical deposit copy should fill in and upload a Section 710 Declaration online (the form applies to applicants who declare that due to the pandemic they either could not submit an application fee, and/or deposit copy or could not submit a required physical deposit copy though they did submit an online application and fee; it also contains a section for the applicant’s statement supporting the declaration, and an acknowledgement of the penalties associated with making a false representation in an application for copyright registration). When possible, applicants should proceed to complete an electronic application, submit a filing fee, print a shipping slip, and mail the required deposit with the shipping slip to the address on the slip. Applicants must mail these materials within 30 days after the date that the COVID-19 disruption has ended, as announced by the Register of Copyrights.
  • Applicants that are prevented from submitting a paper or electronic application, fee, and/or required deposit may do so after the end of the national emergency, provided that they include a Section 710 Declaration with their application materials.

Section 710 Declarations must be signed—either handwritten or typed signatures suffice—and include satisfactory evidence to support the claim that the pandemic prevented the applicant from submitting required materials. The following would be suitable justifications:

  • A statement that you are/were subject to a governmental stay-at-home order.
  • A statement that you are/were unable to access required physical materials due to a business closure at the site of the materials’ storage.
  • A statement that you were unable to access the internet.

Certificates of Registration

The Copyright Office has ceased printing certificates of registrations at present. If, however, your claim has been registered, it will appear in the Office’s online catalog. You may retrieve the registration number by searching using the title, author, or claimant name. For registrations processed through Special Handling, the Office will email an unofficial copy of the registration certification that includes the registration number. If the Copyright Office refuses your claim, it will email you a copy of the refusal letter.

Special Handling

The Copyright Office’s “special handling” procedure allows applicants to expedite the registration process for an additional fee. Presently, the Copyright Office will only receive and process requests for special handling that are submitted online.

The following steps ensure special handling:

  1. Submit an electronic application completing the special handling screen.
  2. Pay the filing fee and additional special handling fee.
  3. Upload an electronic copy of your work.

If the application would ordinarily require a physical deposit, you may use the Deposit Ticket Declaration Form option to qualify for special handling.

After you complete these steps, the Office will typically examine your claim, or contact you with questions within five business days. If, however, you submit physical copies or a paper application, the Copyright Office will neither examine your materials nor implement special handling until the Library of Congress reopens. As of May 2020, the Office now also permits applicants to submit requests for special handling of document recordation submissions, including notices of termination, by email.

Requests for Reconsideration of Registration Refusal

Requests for reconsideration are typically filed by mail, but as an alternative during the pandemic, the Copyright Office will allow you to submit your request to copreviewboard@copyright.gov. After receiving your request, the Copyright Office will contact you with instructions to pay the required filing fee electronically. The request and fee must be received by the Office within three months from your refusal date.

Requesting Cancellation of Registration

To seek a voluntary cancellation of a registration, as the author or claimant of record, you may submit your request to copreviewboard@copyright.gov. A staff member will contact you about submitting the required fee.

Research & Updates

a) Library of Congress

As noted, all Library of Congress buildings and facilities have been closed to the public, including researchers and those with reader identification cards, which are required to access the Library’s research areas, including Computer Catalog centers and Copyright Office public service areas. Access to the Library of Congress is currently limited to a small number of necessary persons, although the Library notes that, as of June 22, 2020 it will implement “Phase One, Part One” of its plan to gradually restore on-site operations. This plan involves recalling around 200 staff members—approximately 5% of all staff—to onsite operations. Neither the Library of Congress nor the Copyright Office have provided a timeline for how long Phase One will last, when “Phase One, Part Two” is likely to commence, nor a prospective implementation date for Phase Two. The duration of each phase will be determined based on local conditions and the Library’s operations at each stage. All public events at the Library of Congress have been cancelled through September 1, 2020.

The public may still access Library of Congress resources at:

Copyright Office

Copyright.gov remains, of course, the main starting point for keeping up to date on copyright matters. To stay current with Copyright Office COVID-19 news, in particular, visit https://www.copyright.gov/coronavirus/. The Office’s Coronavirus FAQ, which outlines specific questions regarding registration and deposit copies, may also be of use. Subscribe to updates regarding COVID-19, as well as other copyright matters, at the Office’s NewsNet service: https://www.copyright.gov/subscribe/. Finally, the Copyright Office’s up-to-date filing options are available in chart form at https://www.copyright.gov/coronavirus/filing-options/.

We will update this post from time to time with further developments.

CDAS Named a Top Tier Firm, Nationally, for Entertainment Law and Trademark Law in U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms in America 2020,” and achieved High Rankings in Copyright and Media Law

CDAS achieved a Tier 1 ranking nationally for Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures & Television as well as Trademark Law. The firm was also ranked nationally in Tier 2 for Copyright Law. Within New York City, CDAS was ranked in Tier 1 for Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures & Television, Copyright Law and Trademark Law, and in Tier 3 for Media Law.

These competitive rankings are based on extensive client and peer review, focused on practice group expertise, responsiveness, understanding of business needs, cost-effectiveness, and other important parameters. Inclusion in “Best Law Firms” is considered a significant achievement.

The Entertainment Industry in 2020: Four Legal and Business Issues For Consideration

By Simon Pulman and Briana Hill

1. AB5 Brings Uncertainty: The new California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) became effective on January 1, 2020. Originally created to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), and to address the increase of misclassification of workers as independent contractors, the drafting of AB5 is so broad that it greatly expands the definition of “employee” in a way that potentially reclassifies most independent contractors as employees. This has huge potential repercussions for many companies doing business in California, including those in the entertainment industry (which has traditionally been extremely reliant on independent contractors), as companies may now need to provide full employment benefits to individuals previously characterized as independent contractors.

While there are certain statutory exemptions, the exemptions do not cover traditional entertainment job categories.  There is currently very little guidance as to how the law will be interpreted and enforced, and how it will interact with guild rules. It is incumbent on all studios, producers, networks, and other entertainment companies to watch developments closely, and to consult with knowledgeable counsel when in doubt.

2. Continued Evolution in Streaming: The rise of streaming platforms has dominated the film and episodic programming business over the past few years. 2020 is poised to bring the most significant year of change yet, as new platforms such as HBO Max, Quibi and Peacock will join the recently launched Apple TV+ and Disney+, and incumbents such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. Each of these platforms is targeting a slightly different position in the marketplace, and the economics for content producers vary on a platform-by-platform basis based on the rights and territories that each discrete platform is presently seeking to acquire.

From a deal-making perspective, it is possible that the increased competition will put pressure on platforms to offer greater transparency into the performance of their content and potentially more meaningful participation for creators in the upside of successful series and movies. Additionally, it will be interesting to see if Netflix blinks with respect to its (to date) steadfast insistence on dropping all series on an all-at-once “binge” model, given the plaudits and positive buzz that Disney+ has received for releasing episodes of The Mandolorian on a weekly basis. Finally, Quibi is a truly interesting new entrant that is planning some fascinating creative experiments with short form and interactive content, in addition to providing producers with a business model that is arguably more favorable than some of its competitors.

3. Exclusivity Reigns in Podcasting: 2019 was a year of huge growth and continued maturation for the podcast industry. Mainstream coverage of the industry expanded significantly, many major celebrity names launched podcasts for the first time, and a number of big media conglomerates entered the space or materially increased investments in their podcast divisions. The maturing of the podcast industry has had notable effects on the business side of this burgeoning medium. Participants at all levels in the value chain have started to stake a claim to ownership of, or participation in, podcast rights and revenues. Moreover, the deal-making has become much more sophisticated. Prior to 2019, the dominant podcast distribution model was very simple – make your podcast available on as many ad-supported platforms as possible, and split revenues between stakeholders (usually the creator and the production company or network) (often in a straight 50/50 configuration). This began to change during 2019 as certain companies grew and engaged more experienced representation, and entrants such as Spotify and Luminary started to lock down exclusive rights to content.

Expect the podcast content arms race to heat up in 2020, as high-profile shows and creators commit exclusively to platforms in exchange for sizeable minimum guarantees. However, platforms that offer podcasts in combination with music (such as Spotify, Apple, iHeart, and Pandora) would appear to be best positioned in the market versus pureplay podcast subscription outlets because of their existing subscriber bases and the value proposition of bundling music with podcast (and, indeed, expect 2020 to be the year of the “music podcast”).

4. Gaming Grows: As Netflix Chairman and CEO Reed Hastings famously opined, Netflix is primarily competing with Fortnite rather than with other SVOD platforms. Expect 2020 to be a huge year for gaming, with the release of several big titles (such as Cyberpunk 2077 and The Last of Us 2) being followed by the impending launch of much-anticipated new consoles Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X in the fall.

The continued growth of gaming will fuel a corresponding growth in esports and “game-adjacent content culture” – the creation, consumption and interactive fan participation in content around the culture of videogames, via platforms such as Twitch, Mixer, YouTube and Instagram. All of the next-generation gaming platforms will include built in recording and streaming capabilities allowing gamers to easily create media and engage with other users. While this arguably implicates copyright issues for rightsholders, many of the game companies have taken a permissive stance regarding streaming (and other activities, such as creating derivative works), believing it to be helpful to their business – although distributors must also be cognizant of other issues such as right of publicity.

Additionally, as discussed in a previous blog, expect a flurry of announcements during 2020 and beyond with respect to entertainment extensions of videogame properties – most notably film and TV adaptations, but also podcasts and graphic novels. A significant portion of these will probably involve the original game developers and/or publishers in a meaningful way, as rightsholders understand the importance of maintaining a strong and consistent brand across platforms.

Other sectors of the entertainment business should ignore gaming at their peril. For more, we recommend reading “7 Reasons Why Video Gaming Will Take Over” by Matthew Ball.

Fox Television Stations, Inc., et al. v. Aereokiller, LLC, et al.: Ninth Circuit Holds FilmOn X Not a “Cable System” Entitled to Compulsory License; Implicates Federal Agency Deference Doctrines

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, Inc., held that unlicensed re-broadcasts of copyrighted content over the Internet constituted public performances of copyrighted works in violation of content owners’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act; as part of its discussion, the Court analogized services like Aereo’s to “cable services.”  Emboldened by the Court’s comparison, Aereo competitor FilmOn X (formerly Aereokiller) took the “cable services” ball and ran with it.  FilmOn X has sought to brand itself as a “cable service” under § 111 of the Copyright Act, a status that would entitled it to re-transmit performances of copyrighted works without securing prior consent if it complies with certain regulations and pays a minimal statutory fee – the “compulsory license.”  FilmOn X is now fighting high-stakes copyright battles before several federal appellate courts around the country.  On March 21, the Ninth Circuit dealt a blow to FilmOn X’s western front, becoming the second federal court of appeals (along with the Second Circuit in WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.) to hold that Internet re-transmitters do not constitute “cable systems” under the Copyright Act. Continue reading

Copyright Termination Is Comin’ To Town Law360, New York

After sorting through the tangled 80-year history behind the song “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town,” the Second Circuit recently held that rights to the Christmas classic will revert back to the songwriter’s heirs on Dec. 15, 2016. Rights to the composition, written by J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie, are currently held by EMI Feist Catalog Inc. According to the Second Circuit, EMI’s rights are derived from a post-Jan. 1, 1978, author-made grant that replaced and superseded a prior grant, and that is now eligible for termination.

The Second Circuit’s decision provides insight into the judicial review of termination rights, and sets out certain principles concerning the statutory calculation of termination dates. This article outlines the court’s decision in order to provide practitioners with guideposts that may be useful in determining if, and when, to terminate a grant of copyright.

Continue reading

Rock the Vote: Public Performance of Music on the Campaign Trail

Election season is upon us, and while music may not be the first thing that comes to mind amidst scandals, poll numbers, and innumerable primary debates, politicians’ use of theme songs almost inevitably becomes a hot-button issue for musicians, recording artists, and lawyers.  Two presidential candidates have already angered artists who feel their music was misused during campaign rallies, but like many other musicians in the past, those artists will likely need to seek vindication by means other than copyright law – whether via endorsement theories, or in the court of public opinion.

Continue reading

Copyright Trumps Right of Publicity – Permitting Display and Download of Basketball Photographs (Maloney v. T3Media, Inc.)

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Maloney v. T3Media, Inc. recently held that state right-of-publicity claims brought by former college basketball players complaining of photographs licensed of their likenesses without consent warranted dismissal with prejudice pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which prohibits suits aimed at inhibiting free expression.  Members of the 2001 NCAA Division III champion Catholic University basketball team sued T3Media, a cloud storage, hosting, and digital licensing service, alleging violations of their rights of publicity when photographs of the players from the NCAA championship were displayed and made available for licensing on T3Media’s website.

Continue reading

CDAS Partner Nancy Wolff’s Webinar Available Online

Recently, CDAS Partner Nancy Wolff hosted a webinar for the Digital Media Licensing Association which answered common questions about when you need releases when using visual images. The webinar is now available online for free, and is a useful resource for anyone publishing or displaying still or motion images and wondering whether permissions are needed from the subjects or property owners depicted in the content. The webinar footage can be found here.

Copyright on the Wild Side

With a Push of a Button, Monkey Raises New Question About Copyright Authorship and Ownership of Photographs

It’s been theorized that if you give a million monkeys a million typewriters, they will eventually produce the entire collected works of William Shakespeare. It’s been proven, however, that if a troupe of monkeys steals a camera, one will eventually take a really good selfie. By now you’ve probably heard this story, but just in case, the facts are as follows.

In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater traveled to the forests of Indonesia, equipment in tow, to follow and photograph the endangered crested black macaque species of monkey. According to news reports, during his trip, Slater set up his camera and tripod and briefly stepped away, and when he came back, a group of macaques had, in the words of The Telegraph, “hijacked” his camera, ultimately taking hundreds of shots. Many of the shots were, as expected, blurry or otherwise unusable, but several actually came out quite well, including a crystal-clear selfie of a female macaque showing off her large amber eyes and huge toothy grin. Slater sold the image to several publications, and soon the story – and the selfie – caught fire in the media, filling inches in the Guardian, the Telegraph, and the Washington Post, among other media outlets. The selfie soon ended up on Wikimedia Commons (owned by the parent company of Wikipedia), which is advertised as a repository of over 22.3 million free public domain images. Continue reading

How And Why Aereo Got To The Supreme Court

Note: This blog is cross-posted from Law360.com with permission from Portfolio Media, Inc.

This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could have significant impacts on several segments of the television industry. While it may seem unusual that a dispute centered on dime-sized antennas would capture the attention of the high court, the case captioned American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc., on certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sits in the context of a half-dozen pending litigations across the country; it also tests both the boundaries of a Second Circuit decision that the court refused to hear five years ago, and the language that Congress drafted over 35 years ago. Continue reading