Tag: Copyright Office

C-IP2 2022 Fall Conference Panel Discusses Copyright Under Pressure

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date October 26, 2022

The following post comes from Cala Coffman, a 2L at Scalia Law and Research Assistant at C-IP².

At the recent C-IP² conference entitled IP on the Wane: IP on the Wane: Examining the Impacts as IP Rights Are Reduced, one panel discussed the current state of copyright law, the pressures it has come under in recent years, and their differing perspectives on how the digital world is shaping copyright. Topics of discussion included enforcement techniques, trends in fair use, and the impact of evolving technology on copyright.

Panelists were Clark Asay (Professor of Law at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School), Orit Fischman-Afori (Professor of Law at The Haim Striks School of Law, College of Management Academic Studies (COLMAN)), Terry Hart (General Counsel, Association of American Publishers (AAP)), and Karyn A. Temple (Senior Executive Vice President & Global General Counsel, (Motion Picture Association)), and the session was moderated by Sandra Aistars (Clinical Professor, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School; Senior Fellow for Copyright Research and Policy; and Senior Scholar at C-IP²).

Professor Fischman opened the panel by proposing a reconsideration of criminal enforcement for copyright claims. After reviewing current avenues for civil copyright enforcement, including the newly established Copyright Claims Board in the Copyright Office, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and civil enforcement in federal court including the opportunity for statutory damages, Professor Fischman suggested that criminal copyright enforcement actions seem to be on the decline and should not be a focus of enforcement efforts. Rather, greater attention should be devoted to civil enforcement. Recently, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that criminal Copyright and Trademark cases have dropped from 475 cases in 2015 to 137 cases in 2021.

Over the past two decades, several enforcement mechanisms have been introduced to address the challenges authors face enforcing their copyrights in the digital world. These include the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, the Digital Theft Deterrence Act of 1999, and the Copyright Alternatives in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020, which improved access to enforcement for small creators by creating a new administrative forum with simplified proceedings in the Copyright Office. Small copyright claims can be pursued there with or without the assistance of counsel. While these civil enforcement mechanisms are effective, they have not been without criticism.

Ultimately, Professor Fischman argued that the combination of civil and criminal enforcement frameworks creates a powerful enforcement mechanism for author’s rights. As we consider the current state of IP rights, criminal enforcement is becoming less meaningful overall, in her opinion.

Next, Professor Asay presented three recent empirical studies examining trends in copyright litigation.

The first study indexed fair use cases from 1991 to 2017. In this study, Professor Asay examines the scope of fair use analysis in copyright infringement cases and finds a “steady progression of both appellate and district courts adopting the transformative use paradigm, with modern courts relying on it nearly ninety percent of the time.” The study finds that at the Federal Circuit Court level, in cases where transformative use was asserted, 48% were found to be transformative, and 91% of transformative uses were found to be fair use. Professor Asay states that “fair use is copyright law’s most important defense to claims of copyright infringement,” but as courts increasingly apply transformative use doctrine, he finds that “it is, in fact, eating the world of fair use.”

The second study Professor Asay presented analyzed over 1000 court opinions from between 1978 and 2020 that used a substantial similarity analysis. In this study, Professor Asay finds first that courts rely on opinions from the Second and Ninth circuits “more than any other source in interpreting and applying the substantial similarity standard.” The study also breaks down trends within the two-step substantial similarity analysis. On the first step, Professor Asay finds that “courts mostly decide this first prong . . . as a matter of whether defendant’s had access to the plaintiff’s work, and they mostly favor plaintiffs.” On the second step, he finds “significant heterogeneity” in analyzing improper appropriation of a plaintiff’s work. He states that “no dominant means exist for resolving this question” and “the data also suggest that one of the keys to winning, for either defendants or plaintiffs, is the extent to which the court engages with and discusses copyright limitations.”

The third study, which is forthcoming, examines DMCA Section 1201 litigation. DMCA Section 1201 prohibits attempts to circumvent technological measures used to control access to a copyrighted work.17 U.S.C. § 1201. This study encompasses 205 cases and 209 opinions, and Professor Asay said during the panel that “the most interesting finding in this study is that there’s not much section 1201 litigation.” Although the DMCA has been in force for nearly twenty-five years, less than one appellate decision is made per year on average. The study also finds that “the most litigated subject matter” (over every other subject matter the study coded for) is software.

Ms. Temple discussed how new technologies, techniques, and distribution methods are constantly requiring courts to re-evaluate how authorship rights function in a digital landscape. She likewise commented on the challenges courts seem to face in appropriately drawing distinctions between derivative uses of copyrighted works that should require a license from the author, and transformative uses that are permissible under the affirmative defense of fair use.

Ms. Temple cited the numerous briefs in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (including the Motion Picture Association’s) that note that the transformative use test is becoming the sole criteria courts use to determine fair use. Indeed, the MPA’s brief cited to Professor Asay’s study on transformative use (Is Transformative Use Eating the World?) to support the petitioner’s assertion that “in practice, the transformativeness inquiry is virtually always dispositive of the fair use question.” In closing, Ms. Temple stated that although we may be “waning” in how courts see fair use, Warhol presents a chance to correct the fair use analysis and steer it away from infringing on the derivative work rights of authors.

Finally, Mr. Hart presented on potential threats to authorship rights and the concomitant harms to consumer interests in the e-book arena. Mr. Hart’s perspective was that as businesses, copyright industries legitimately have profit-motivated goals, but happily, their ability to meet these goals is directly tied to the “ultimate goal” of promoting science and the useful arts and thus is beneficial to society as a whole. Mr. Hart stated that “the good news, if we think copyright [protections are] waxing, is that . . . the legal framework both in the United States and internationally recognizes [the] principles” that allow copyright owners to take advantage of and divide their exclusive rights. However, digitization may pose a threat to the ability to license rights as the copyright owner desires, as digital copying and transmission greatly increases risk of infringement of e-books.

The e-book market is unique, according to Mr. Hart, in that authors may be particularly vulnerable to digital threats when “digital copies are completely indistinguishable from the originals, and so they would be competing directly with the copyright owner’s primary markets.” Furthermore, he stated that “threats to the ability of copyright owners . . . to pursue rational choices in how they market and distribute their works can be just as harmful as straight up piracy.”

Mr. Hart characterized the e-book market as a thriving, sustainable economy. E-books have been popular for over a decade now, and there are a “variety of licensing models [available] . . . that continue to evolve to meet both the needs of publishers and libraries.” Mr. Hart stated, “the evidence shows that this is a well-functioning market.” He said that “Overdrive, which is the largest e-book aggregator, reported that in 2021 there was over half a billion check-outs of library e-books worldwide, and the pricing is, in my view, fair and sustainable.” Additionally, Mr. Hart said, “Overdrive also reported . . . that the average cost per title for libraries declined in 2021, and libraries have been able to significantly grow their e-book collections . . . with collection budgets that, when you’ve adjusted for inflation, have essentially been flat the entire time.”

One of the major threats to authorship rights in the e-book market, in Mr. Hart’s view, is the rise of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). While this theory is currently being litigated in Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive, Mr. Hart posits that we are only a few steps from a full-blown digital first-sale doctrine, which could have widespread harms throughout copyright for many types of authors. Many amicus briefs in the Internet Archive case have identified this potential harm, as well. According to Hart, the Copyright Alliance brief, for example, stated that a ruling in favor of CDL would have extremely widespread economic harms for authors.

The second threat Mr. Hart identified comes from recent propositions at the state level that would introduce compulsory licenses for e-books. These proposed laws would outlaw limitations on e-book licenses offered to libraries and allow states to dictate what states believe are “reasonable” pricing for e-book licenses. A flaw in both the arguments for CDL and for compulsory e-book licensing, as Mr. Hart sees it, is that both approaches treat the mere exercise of a copyright owner’s exclusive right as unfair and, if accepted, would be dangerous encroachments on authorship rights.

Ultimately, while the panelists identified significant concerns in the existing copyright regime, they were hopeful about the future of authorship rights, reflecting that even if the protections for copyright law had “waned” in certain respects in recent years, and certain rights remain in peril, there are opportunities for education as courts confront the significant changes that accompany an increasingly digital landscape.

Paradise Rejected: A Conversation about AI and Authorship with Dr. Ryan Abbott

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date March 23, 2022

This post comes from Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor and Director of the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic at George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, and Senior Fellow for Copyright Research and Policy & Senior Scholar at C-IP².

2022 Paradise Rejected event flyer — Click on image for full-size PDF flyer.

On March 17, 2022, I had the pleasure to discuss Artificial Intelligence and Authorship with Dr. Ryan Abbott, the lawyer representing Dr. Stephen Thaler, inventor of the “Creativity Machine.” The Creativity Machine is the AI that generated the artwork A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was denied copyright registration by the United States Copyright Office. Dr. Abbott, Dr. Thaler, and his AI have exhausted all mandatory administrative appeals to the Office and announced that they would soon sue the Office in order to obtain judicial review of the denial. You can listen to the conversation here.

Background:

Dr. Thaler filed an application for copyright registration of A Recent Entrance to Paradise (the Work) on November 3, 2018. For copyright purposes, the Work is categorized as a work of visual art, autonomously generated by the AI without any human direction or intervention. However, it stems from a larger project involving Dr. Thaler’s experiments to design neural networks simulating the creative activities of the human brain. A Recent Entrance to Paradise is one in a series of images generated and described in text by the Creativity Machine as part of a simulated near-death experience Dr. Thaler undertook in his overall research into and invention of artificial neural networks. Thaler’s work also raises parallel issues of patent law and policy which were beyond the scope of our discussion.

The registration application identified the author of the Work as the “Creativity Machine,” with Thaler listed as the claimant as a result of a transfer resulting from “ownership of the machine.” In his application, Thaler explained to the Office that the Work “was autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine,” and he sought to “register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”[i]

The Copyright Office Registration Specialist reviewing the application refused to register the claim, finding that it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”[ii]

Thaler requested that the Office reconsider its initial refusal to register the Work, arguing that “the human authorship requirement is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law.”[iii]

The Office re-evaluated the claims and held its ground, concluding that the Work “lacked the required human authorship necessary to sustain a claim in copyright” because Thaler had “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work.”[iv]

37 CFR 202.5 establishes the Reconsideration Procedure for Refusals to Register by the Copyright Office. Pursuant to this procedure Thaler appealed the refusal to the Copyright Office Review Board comprised of The Register of Copyrights, The General Counsel of the Copyright Office and a third individual sitting by designation. The relevant CFR section requires that the applicant “include the reasons the applicant believes registration was improperly refused, including any legal arguments in support of those reasons and any supplementary information, and must address the reasons stated by the Registration Program for refusing registration upon first reconsideration. The Board will base its decision on the applicant’s written submissions.”

According to the Copyright Office, Thaler renewed arguments from his first two unsuccessful attempts before the Office that failure to register AI created works is unconstitutional, largely continued to advance policy arguments that registering copyrights in AI generated works would further the underlying goals of copyright law, including the constitutional rationale for protection, and failed to address the Office’s request to cite to case law supporting his assertions that the Office should depart from its reliance on existing jurisprudence requiring human authorship.

The Office largely dismissed Thaler’s second argument, that the work should be registered as a work made for hire as dependent on its resolution of the first—since the Creativity Machine was not a human being, it could not enter into a “work made for hire” agreement with Thaler. Here, the Office rejected the argument that, because corporations could be considered persons under the law, other non-humans such as AIs should likewise enjoy rights that humans do. The Office noted that corporations are composed of collections of human beings. The Office also explained that “work made for hire” doctrine speaks only to who the owner of a given work is.

Of course, both Dr. Abbott and the Copyright Office were bound in this administrative exercise by their respective roles: the Copyright Office must take the law as it finds it—although Dr. Abbott criticized the Office for applying caselaw from “the Gilded Age” as the Office noted in its rejection “[I]t is generally for Congress,” not the Board, “to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause’s objectives.” Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003). The Board must apply the statute enacted by Congress; it cannot second-guess whether a different statutory scheme would better promote the progress of science and useful arts.”[v] Likewise, Dr. Abbott, acting on behalf of Dr. Thaler was required to exhaust all administrative avenues of appeal before pursuing judicial review of the correctness of the Office’s interpretation of constitutional and statutory directives, and case law.

Our lively discussion begins with level setting to ensure that the listeners understand the goals of Dr. Thaler’s project, goals which encompass scientific innovation, artistic creation, and apparently—legal and policy clarification of the IP space.

Dr. Abbott and I additionally investigate the constitutional rationales for copyright and how registering or not registering a copyright to an AI-created work is or is not in line with those goals. In particular, we debated utilitarian/incentive-based justifications, property rights theories, and how the rights of artists whose works might be used to train an AI might (or might not) be accounted for in different scenarios.

Turning to Dr. Thaler’s second argument, that the work should be registered to him as a work made for hire, we discussed the difficulties of maintaining the argument separately from the copyrightability question. It seems to me that the Copyright Office is correct that the argument must rise or fall with the resolution of the baseline question of whether a copyrightable work can be authored by an AI to begin with. The other challenging question that Dr. Abbott will face is how to overcome the statutory “work made for hire” doctrine requirements in the context of an AI-created work without corrupting what is intended to be a very narrow exception to the normal operation of copyright law and authorship. This is already a controversial area, and one thought by many to be unfavorable to individual authors because it deems a corporation to be the author of the work, sometimes in circumstances where the human author is not in a bargaining position to adequately understand the copyright implications or to bargain for them differently. In the case of an AI, the ability to bargain for rights or later challenge the rights granted, particularly if they are granted on the basis of property ownership, seems to be dubious.

In closing the discussion, Dr. Abbott confirmed that his client intends to seek judicial review of the refusal to register.

[i] Opinion Letter of Review Board Refusing Registration to Ryan Abbot (Feb. 14, 2022).

[ii] Id. (Citing Initial Letter Refusing Registration from U.S. Copyright Office to Ryan Abbott (Aug. 12, 2019).)

[iii] Id. (Citing Letter from Ryan Abbott to U.S. Copyright Office at 1 (Sept. 23, 2019) (“First Request”).)

[iv] Id. (Citing Refusal of First Request for Reconsideration from U.S. Copyright Office to Ryan Abbott at 1 (March 30, 2020).)

[v] Id at 4.

In Opposition to Copyright Protection for AI Works

This response to Dr. Ryan Abbott comes from David Newhoff.

On February 14, the U.S. Copyright Office confirmed its rejection of an application for a claim of copyright in a 2D artwork called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” The image, created by an AI designed by Dr. Stephen Thaler, was rejected by the Office on the longstanding doctrine which holds that in order for copyright to attach, a work must be the product of human authorship. Among the examples cited in the Copyright Office Compendium as ineligible for copyright protection is “a piece of driftwood shaped by the ocean,” a potentially instructive analog as the debate about copyright and AI gets louder in the near future.

What follows assumes that we are talking about autonomous AI machines producing creative works that no human envisions at the start of the process, other than perhaps the medium. So, the human programmers might know they are building a machine to produce music or visual works, but they do not engage in co-authorship with the AI to produce the expressive elements of the works themselves. Code and data go in, and something unpredictable comes out, much like nature forming the aesthetic piece of driftwood.

As a cultural question, I have argued many times that AI art is a contradiction in terms—not because an AI cannot produce something humans might enjoy, but because the purpose of art, at least in the human experience so far, would be obliterated in a world of machine-made works. It seems that what the AI would produce would be literally and metaphorically bloodless, and after some initial astonishment with the engineering, we may quickly become uninterested in most AI works that attempt to produce more than purely decorative accidents.

In this regard, I would argue that the question presented is not addressed by the “creative destruction” principle, which demands that we not stand in the way of machines doing things better than humans. “Better” is a meaningful concept if the job is microsurgery but meaningless in the creation or appreciation of art. Regardless, the copyrightability question does not need to delve too deeply into the nature or purpose of art because the human element in copyright is not just a paragraph about registration in the USCO Compendium but, in fact, runs throughout application of the law.

Doctrinal Oppositions to Copyright in AI Works

In the United States and elsewhere, copyright attaches automatically to the “mental conception” of a work the moment the conception is fixed in a tangible medium such that it can be perceived by an observer. So, even at this fundamental stage, separate from the Copyright Office approving an application, the AI is ineligible because it does not engage in “mental conception” by any reasonable definition of that term. We do not protect works made by animals, who possess consciousness that far exceeds anything that can be said to exist in the most sophisticated AI. (And if an AI attains true consciousness, we humans may have nothing to say about laws and policies on the other side of that event horizon.)

Next, the primary reason to register a claim of copyright with the USCO is to provide the author with the opportunity, if necessary, to file a claim of infringement in federal court. But to establish a basis for copying, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged infringer had access to the original work and that the secondary work is substantially or strikingly similar to the work allegedly copied. The inverse ratio rule applied by the courts holds that the more that access can be proven, the less similarity weighs in the consideration and vice-versa. But in all claims of copying, independent creation (i.e., the principle that two authors might independently create nearly identical works) nullifies any complaint. These are considerations not just about two works, but about human conduct.

If AIs do not interact with the world, listen to music, read books, etc. in the sense that humans do these things, then, presumably, all AI works are works of independent creation. If multiple AIs are fed the same corpus of works (whether in or out of copyright works) for the purpose of machine learning, and any two AIs produce two works that are substantially, or even strikingly, similar to one another, the assumption should still be independent creation. Not just independent, but literally mindless, unless again, the copyright question must first be answered by establishing AI consciousness.

In principle, AI Bob is not inspired by, or even aware of, the work of AI Betty. So, if AI Bob produces a work strikingly similar to a work made by AI Betty, any court would have to toss out BettyBot v. BobBot on a finding of independent creation. Alternatively, do we want human juries considering facts presented by human attorneys describing the alleged conduct of two machines?

If, on the other hand, an AI produces a work too similar to one of the in-copyright works fed into its database, this begs the question as to whether the AI designer has simply failed to achieve anything more than an elaborate Xerox machine. And hypothetical facts notwithstanding, it seems that there is little need to ask new copyright questions in such a circumstance.

The factual copying complication raises two issues. One is that if there cannot be a basis for litigation between two AI creators, then there is perhaps little or no reason to register the works with the Copyright Office. But more profoundly, in a world of mixed human and AI works, we could create a bizarre imbalance whereby a human could infringe the rights of a machine while the machine could potentially never infringe the rights of either humans or other machines. And this is because the arguments for copyright in AI works unavoidably dissociate copyright from the underlying meaning of authorship.

Authorship, Not Market Value, is the Foundation of Copyright

Proponents of copyright in AI works will argue that the creativity applied in programming (which is separately protected by copyright) is coextensive to the works produced by the AIs they have programmed. But this would be like saying that I have claim of co-authorship in a novel written by one of my children just because I taught them things when they were young. This does not negate the possibility of joint authorship between human and AI, but as stated above, the human must plausibly argue his own “mental conception” in the process as a foundation for his contribution.

Commercial interests vying for copyright in AI works will assert that the work-made-for-hire (WMFH) doctrine already implicates protection of machine-made works. When a human employee creates a protectable work in the course of his employment, the corporate entity, by operation of law, is automatically the author of that work. Thus, the argument will be made that if non-human entities called corporations may be legal authors of copyrightable works, then corporate entities may be the authors of works produced by the AIs they own. This analogizes copyrightable works to other salable property, like wines from a vineyard, but elides the fact that copyright attaches to certain products of labor, and not to others, because it is a fiction itself whose medium is the “personality of the author,” as Justice Holmes articulated in Bleistein.

The response to the WMFH argument should be that corporate-authored works are only protected because they are made by human employees who have agreed, under the terms of their employment, to provide authorship for the corporation. Authorship by the fictious entity does not exist without human authorship, and I maintain that it would be folly to remove the human creator entirely from the equation. We already struggle with corporate personhood in other areas of law, and we should ask ourselves why we believe that any social benefit would outweigh the risk of allowing copyright law to potentially exacerbate those tensions.

Alternatively, proponents of copyright for AI works may lobby for a sui generis revision to the Copyright Act with, perhaps, unique limitations for AI works. I will not speculate about the details of such a proposal, but it is hard to imagine one that would be worth the trouble, no matter how limited or narrow. If the purpose of copyright is to proscribe unlicensed copying (with certain limitations), we still run into the independent creation problem and the possible result that humans can infringe the rights of machines while machines cannot infringe the rights of humans. How does this produce a desirable outcome which does not expand the outsize role giant tech companies already play in society?

Moreover, copyright skeptics and critics, many with deep relationships with Big Tech, already advocate a rigidly utilitarian view of copyright law, which is then argued to propose new limits on exclusive rights and protections. The utilitarian view generally rejects the notion that copyright protects any natural rights of the author beyond the right to be “paid something” for the exploitation of her works, and this cynical, mercenary view of authors would likely gain traction if we were to establish a new framework for machine authorship.

Registration Workaround (i.e., lying)

In the meantime, as Stephen Carlisle predicts in his post on this matter, we may see a lot of lying by humans registering works that were autonomously created by their machines. This is plausible, but if the primary purpose of registration is to establish a foundation for defending copyrights in federal court, the prospect of a discovery process could militate against rampant falsification of copyright applications. Knowing misrepresentation on an application is grounds for invalidating the registration, subject to a fine of up to $2,500, and further implies perjury if asserted in court.

Of course, that’s only if the respondent can defend himself. A registration and threat of litigation can be enough to intimidate a party, especially if it is claimed by a big corporate tech company. So, instead of asking whether AI works should be protected, perhaps we should be asking exactly the opposite question: How do we protect human authorship against a technology experiment, which may have value in the world of data science, but which has nothing to do with the aim of copyright law?

About the IP Clause

And with that statement, I have just implicated a constitutional argument because the purpose of copyright law, as stated in Article I Clause 8, is to “promote science.” Moreover, the first three subjects of protection in 1790—maps, charts, and books—suggest a view at the founding period that copyright’s purpose, twinned with the foundation for patent law, was more pragmatic than artistic.

Of course, nobody could reasonably argue that the American framers imagined authors as anything other than human or that copyright law has not evolved to encompass a great deal of art which does not promote the endeavor we ordinarily call “science.” So, we may see AI copyright proponents take this semantic argument out for a spin, but I do not believe it should withstand scrutiny for very long.

Perhaps, the more compelling question presented by the IP clause, with respect to this conversation, is what it means to “promote progress.” Both our imaginations and our experiences reveal technological results that fail to promote progress for humans. And if progress for people is not the goal of all law and policy, then what is? Surely, against the present backdrop in which algorithms are seducing humans to engage in rampant, self-destructive behavior, it does seem like a mistake to call these machines artists.

Tags A Recent Entrance to Paradise, AI, artificial intelligence, authorship, Bleistein, copyright, Copyright Office, Creativity Machine, David Newhoff, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Ryan Abbott, Sandra Aistars, Stephen Carlisle, Stephen Thaler, USCO

Ninth Circuit Narrows Copyright Owner’s Ability to Receive Multiple Statutory Damages Awards

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date March 17, 2021

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

By Liz Velander

A recent Ninth Circuit ruling limits the amount a copyright owner can be awarded in statutory damages. In Desire v. Manna, the court found that the Copyright Act only lets owners collect a single award per infringing work in cases with joint and several liability. It held that the Act does not authorize multiple statutory damages awards where one infringer is jointly and severally liable with all other infringers, but the other infringers are not completely jointly and severally liable with one another. Its decision reduced the district court’s award of statutory damages from $480,000 to $150,000.

The facts of the case are as follows: Desire, a fabric supplier, purchased a floral textile design and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in June 2015. A few months later, Desire sold a few yards of fabric bearing the design to Top Fashion, which it used to secure a garment order from a clothing retailer. When Desire and Top Fashion later disagreed on the price for more fabric, Top Fashion took the design to rival supplier Manna. Manna then passed the design along to an independent designer, who in turn gave it to a textile manufacturer with instructions to modify it. Manna registered a copyright in the resulting altered design with the U.S. Copyright Office in December 2015.

Manna began selling fabric bearing the altered design to various manufacturers, which used it to create garments that they sold to various clothing retailers. Desire sued Manna, the manufacturers, and the retailers for copyright infringement. As alleged, Manna infringed Desire’s copyright by selling fabric bearing the altered design to the manufacturer defendants. The manufacturer defendants then each allegedly committed a separate ac of infringement in their sales to the individual retail defendants, who in turn allegedly committed acts of infringement in their sales to consumers. Desire did not allege that the manufacturer defendants infringed in concert, nor that the retail defendants acted in concert to infringe Desire’s copyright.

The district court granted partial summary judgment for Desire. It concluded that Desire owned a valid copyright entitled to broad protection and that there were no triable issues of fact as to Desire’s ownership of the initial design or Manna’s and others’ access to it. But there remained issues of triable fact as to whether the altered design was substantially similar to the original and whether defendants willfully infringed. The district court held that if Desire prevailed on these issues, the supplier would be entitled to seven statutory damages awards with joint and several liability imposed amongst Manna, the manufacturer defendants, and the retail defendants.

A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Manna, Top Fashion, and one other defendant, manufacturer ABN, willfully infringed the initial design, and that two other defendants, manufacturer Pride & Joys and retailer 618 Main, innocently infringed. Desire elected to claim statutory damages in lieu of actual damages, as permitted under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Under § 504(c), a statutory damage award is limited to $30,000 for innocent infringement and $150,000 for willful infringement.

The jury awarded Desire statutory damages totaling $480,000 after two defendants settled. The district court divided liability under its pre-trial ruling as follows:

1. $150,000 against Manna individually, for copying the design and distributing the fabric bearing the altered design to the manufacturer defendants.

1. $150,000 against Manna and Top Fashion jointly and severally, for Top Fashion’s sale of infringing garments.

1. $150,000 against Manna and ABN jointly and severally, for ABN’s sale of infringing garments.

1. $20,000 against Manna and Pride & Joys jointly and severally, for ABN’s sale of infringing garments to 618 Main.

$10,000 against 618 Main, Pride & Joys, and Manna jointly and severally, for 618 Main’s display and sale of infringing garments to consumers.

The parties appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated the judgment awarding Desire multiple awards of statutory damages. The court began by affirming the district court’s determinations at summary judgment that Desire owned a valid copyright and that the original design was entitled to broad copyright protection. But the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by permitting multiple statutory damages awards.

The Ninth Circuit looked at the text of § 504(c)(1) to determine whether it authorizes multiple statutory damages awards where one infringer is jointly and severally liable with all other infringers, but the other infringers are not completely jointly and severally liable with one another. § 504(c)(1) permits an owner to recover “an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally.”

The Court concluded that the plain meaning of § 504(c)(1) precludes multiple awards of statutory damages when there is only one work infringed by a group of defendants that have partial joint and several liability among themselves through a prime tortfeasor that is jointly and severally liable with every other defendant. It reasoned that “an award” clearly means one award, and the use of the word “any” means that, if all infringers in the action were jointly and severally liable with at least one common infringer, then all defendants should be treated as one unit.

In this case, Manna was alleged to be the tortfeasor lynchpin. Because “‘an award’ clearly means one award,” and Manna was jointly and severally liable with every other defendant, Desire was entitled to only one statutory damage award per work. The court concluded that its interpretation was most consistent with the Copyright Act’s goal of providing adequate compensation for infringement without giving copyright owners a windfall. However, it acknowledged that its ruling could also run afoul of the purposes of the Act if a copyright owner decided to sue separate infringers in separate actions.

The court wrote in a footnote that “if Manna were not involved at all and Pride & Joys, ABN, and Top Fashion had independently infringed, there could be three awards, even though Pride & Joys, ABN, and Top Fashion were each jointly and severally liable with others in their separate distribution chains. . . . This view treats groups of jointly and severally liable defendants that are not jointly and severally liable with other groups identically to individually liable infringers.”

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Wardlaw disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of § 504(c)(1). She explained that the majority’s decision means “a copyright plaintiff can seek only one award of statutory damages when it joins in a single lawsuit members of independently infringing distribution chains that trace back to a common infringing source. But if the plaintiff brings separate lawsuits against each infringer, or it simply cuts the common source defendant at the top of the chain out of the case, a separate statutory damages award is available against each defendant.”

The majority ultimately decided that such risk was outweighed by the potential for disproportionate awards and the fact that multiple lawsuits could still be filed (and consolidated), regardless of the Court’s ruling on this point. “But even if we are wrong in our appraisal of the multiple-lawsuit risk, as our approach is the only one consistent with the text of Section 504(c)(1), it is not our job to reweigh the merits of several possible approaches.” Given the stark differences in the majority and the dissent regarding the language of § 504(c)(1), this decision could form the basis for further splits and result in an en banc or certiorari petition.

Tags § 504(c)(1), copyright, Copyright Act, Copyright Office, damages, design, infringement, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, Liz Velander, Ninth Circuit, statutory damages

House Judiciary Committee Hearing Reacts to Copyright Office Report on Efficacy of Section 512

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date October 28, 2020

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

U.S. Capitol building By Liz Velander

In late September, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled Copyright and the Internet in 2020: Reactions to the Copyright Office’s Report on the Efficacy of 17 U.S.C. 512 After Two Decades. As Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) explained, the hearing sought “perspectives on whether Section 512 is working efficiently and effectively for this new internet landscape.” The hearing was guided by the U.S. Copyright Office’s Section 512 Report, released in May, which concluded that the operation of the Section 512 safe harbor system disfavors copyright owners—contrary to “Congress’ original intended balance.”

The witnesses included: Jeffrey Sedlik, President & CEO, PLUS Coalition; Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge; Morgan Grace Kibby, Singer and Songwriter; Jonathan Band, Counsel, Library Copyright Alliance; Matthew Schruers, President, Computer & Communications Industry Association; and Terrica Carrington, Vice President, Legal Policy and Copyright Counsel, Copyright Alliance.

Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 512 establishes a system for copyright owners and online service providers (OSPs) to address online infringement, including a “safe harbor” that limits liability for compliant OSPs. To qualify for safe harbor protection, an OSP must fulfill certain requirements, generally consisting of implementing measures to expeditiously address online copyright infringement. Congress sought to create a balance between two goals in enacting Section 512: (1) providing important legal certainty for OSPs so that the internet ecosystem can flourish without the threat of the potentially devastating economic impact of liability for copyright infringement as a result of user activity, and (2) protecting the legitimate interests of authors and other rights owners against the threat of rampant, low-barrier online infringement.

The Copyright Office’s Report determined that the balance Congress originally sought is now “askew.” It found that “despite the advances in legitimate content options and delivery systems, and despite the millions of takedown notices submitted on a daily basis, the scale of online copyright infringement and the lack of effectiveness of Section 512 notices to address that situation, remain significant problems.” The Report did not recommend any wholesale changes to Section 512, but instead identified certain areas that Congress could fine-tune in order to better balance the rights and responsibilities of OSPs and copyright owners. These include eligibility qualifications for the service provider safe harbors, repeat infringer policies, knowledge requirement standards, specificity within takedown notices, non-standard notice requirements, subpoenas, and injunctions.

At the hearing, the six witnesses reacted to the Copyright Office’s Report in dramatically different fashions. Representatives of OSPs disagreed with the Report’s conclusions, testifying that Section 512 is working as Congress intended. Mr. Band from the Library Copyright Alliance referred to Section 512 as a “shining example of enlightened legislation for the public good” that is responsible for the “golden age of content creation and distribution.” Mr. Schruers from the Computer & Communications Industry Association criticized the Report for inadequately reflecting the interests of users and “conspicuously” overlooking the problem of Section 512 misuse. Ms. Rose from Public Knowledge stated “the Office’s analysis performed a familiar sleight-of-hand by presenting user interests as coextensive with those of platforms, effectively erasing free speech concerns from its analysis.”

Representatives of content creators painted an entirely different picture of Section 512’s efficacy. They applauded the Copyright Office for calling attention to areas of imbalance related to Section 512 and to how overly expansive or narrow interpretations of the statute have aided in skewing the balance Congress intended. Mr. Sedlik, a photographer with over 35 years of professional experience and President & CEO of the PLUS Coalition, described how service providers take advantage of his and others’ copyrighted works while hiding behind Section 512’s safe harbors. He explained that, like many other copyright owners, he must spend an exorbitant amount of time searching for infringing materials online and sending takedown notices instead of creating new works.

Ms. Kibby, a singer and songwriter, testified that Section 512 is “undermining creativity, and more alarmingly, quietly undercutting our next generation of artists. It is jeopardizing livelihoods for working class musicians, obliterating healthy monetary velocity in our creative community. It is rewarding unscrupulous services that deal in the unauthorized trade and use of our works. It is fundamentally sabotaging the legitimate online marketplace that we all rely on and that Congress envisioned.” Responding to the argument that notice-and-takedown results in censorship of user-generated content, Ms. Kibby said that Section 512’s “stripping creators of their fundamental rights, their livelihood, and ultimately their creative contributions is the real censorship.”

Ms. Carrington from the Copyright Alliance identified three main problems with Section 512: (1) the ineffective notice-and-takedown process, (2) the effective elimination of the red flag knowledge standard, and (3) ineffective repeat infringer policies. She recommended adjusting the statute to clarify the difference between actual and red flag knowledge, enacting the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, and transparently developing effective standard technical measures (STMs).

Members of the Committee recognized the need for reform. Chairman Nadler remarked that the sheer volume of takedown notices being sent does not seem like the hallmark of a system functioning as intended. Some Members first spoke about the importance of copyright law before questioning the panelists. For example, Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) said “it’s crucial that these creators are able to rely on copyright law protections to make their living. This is even more true in an age where the click of a button can plagiarize a lifetime of work.”

It was heartening to hear the Representatives’ positive response to the concerns of small, individual creators whose livelihoods depend on the commercial viability of their works. It was clear that the Committee is seriously considering the recommendations in the Copyright Office Report and looking for a way to rebalance Section 512 so that it respects what Congress originally intended—a system that respects the rights of authors and artists who face widespread infringement of their rights in the online environment.

Tags copyright, Copyright Office, Liz Velander, notice and takedown, Section 512, standard technical measures, STM, Terrica Carrington, U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright Notebook: The Importance of Artists’ Agency

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date September 9, 2020

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriter I am looking forward to hosting a keynote conversation with Grammy-winning composer, performer, songwriter, best-selling author, and essayist Rosanne Cash this week at CPIP’s The Evolving Music Ecosystem conference. One part of Rosanne Cash’s “music ecosystem” is the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), where she serves as a member of the board. Preparing for that conversation, I am thinking a lot about the importance of artists’ agency. Over the summer, the ARA “rebooted,” relaunching itself with a powerhouse music council of artists and experts. The ARA is “an alliance of working musicians, performers, and songwriters fighting for a healthy creative economy and fair treatment for all creators in the digital world. [They] work to defend and protect artists, guided by [their] Artists’ Bill of Rights, which outlines fundamental principles for today’s music economy.”

Those principles:

The Right to Control Our Work
The Right to Economic and Artistic Freedom
The Right to Attribution and Acknowledgment
The Right to a Music Community
The Right to Competitive Platforms
The Right to Information and Platform Transparency
The Right to Political Participation

All share one core attribute—an artist’s agency—over their work, their livelihood, their community, themselves. That the ARA found it necessary to relaunch this summer is not surprising. The triple threat of a pandemic decimating artists’ livelihoods, the surging power of technology platforms, and the challenges of ensuring one’s work is not distorted by others or used to send disagreeable political messages has heightened awareness among artists about the issues for which ARA stands.

Several notable lawsuits have also brought these issues to the forefront this summer that may shape the nature of artists’ agency over their work for years to come. Here are some thoughts about why they are significant and some issues you may not have noticed.

Hachette Book Group et al. v. Internet Archive

On June 1, 2020, four of the world’s preeminent publishing houses sued Internet Archive (IA) for willful mass copyright infringement. The IA styles itself an online library, open to anyone to borrow books, music, and other works. It scans millions of copyrighted as well as public domain works and makes them available to “borrowers” for free. It had previously operated under an already controversial policy of “controlled digital lending” (more on that below), but in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, dropped even these minimal restrictions on its distribution of works. As the Authors Guild put it in an open letter to the IA:

[B]y declaring a spurious “copyright emergency” and making a massive trove of copyrighted books available for free without any restrictions, Internet Archive has demonstrated a shocking disrespect for the rule of law—the cornerstone of our civil, democratic society—at a time when we most need it to prevail. You cloak your illegal scanning and distribution of books behind the pretense of magnanimously giving people access to them. But giving away what is not yours is simply stealing, and there is nothing magnanimous about that. Authors and publishers—the rights owners who legally can give their books away—are already working to provide electronic access to books to libraries and the people who need them. We do not need Internet Archive to give our works away for us.

In their complaint, the publishers argue that IA’s assertion that it should not be liable for infringement is based on “an invented theory called ‘Controlled Digital Lending’ (‘CDL’)—the rules of which have been concocted from whole cloth and continue to get worse.” As the complaint sets forth:

[A]t first, under this theory IA claimed to limit the number of scanned copies of a title available for free download at any one time to the number of print books of that title in its collection—though no provision under copyright law offers a colorable defense to the systematic copying and distribution of digital book files simply because the actor collects corresponding physical copies. Then, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, IA opportunistically seized upon the global health crisis to further enlarge its cause, announcing with great fanfare that it would remove these already deficient limitations that were purportedly in place. Today, IA offers an enormous universe of scanned books to an unlimited number of individuals simultaneously in its “National Emergency Library.” IA’s blatant, willful infringement is all the more egregious for its timing, which comes at the very moment that many authors, publishers, and independent bookstores, not to mention libraries, are both struggling to survive amidst economic uncertainty, and planning deliberatively for future, changing markets.

The publishers’ lawsuit is important because it is the first “live” judicial challenge to the legal theory of “controlled digital lending”—a legal theory which was announced by certain academics and internet advocates in 2018. They argue that it should be fair use for libraries to scan or obtain scans of physical books they own and lend them electronically, provided certain restrictions are applied, such as limitations that attempt to emulate the limitations of lending in the physical world (e.g., limits on lending periods and on numbers of copies that can be loaned at a given time).

I refer to this as the first “live” judicial challenge because, while it is the first time CDL has been challenged in the courts, the supporters of CDL sought and failed to receive the blessing of the Second Circuit for IA’s original Open Library service when that court was reviewing the decision in Capitol Records v ReDigi. Unsurprisingly, the court declined to do so. In an opinion written by Judge Leval, the Second Circuit rejected ReDigi’s and its amici’s fair use argument because market harm would be likely since the sales of ReDigi’s digital files would compete directly with those of Capitol Records. Because “used” digital files do not deteriorate like used physical media, there would be no reason for customers to buy new licenses from Capitol Records if they could obtain the files from ReDigi at a lower price.

One imagines that the impact of free CDL on e-book sales would only be worse—first, because it is free, rather than merely a reduced price for “used” files, and second, because it would be usurping a valuable market authors and publishers have continued to actively develop and license for several years since the ReDigi decision. This includes licensing to libraries for free lending via services like OverDrive. It is likewise significant that the “Emergency Library” at issue in the publishers’ case against IA is far less restricted than the version of IA’s “Open Library” the amici sought and failed to have blessed by the Second Circuit in ReDigi.

Maria Schneider et. al. v. YouTube

Another case to watch is the class action lawsuit filed by composer and jazz performer Maria Schneider against YouTube and its parent companies Google and Alphabet in July. The lawsuit alleges that “YouTube has facilitated and induced [a] hotbed of copyright infringement [on its website] through its development and implementation of a copyright enforcement system that protects only the most powerful copyright owners such as major studios and record labels.” Because members of the class are denied access to the copyright management tool YouTube offers its corporate partners—Content ID—the lawsuit alleges that rather than preventing repeat infringements of works, the tool “actually insulates the vast majority of known and repeated copyright infringers from YouTube’s repeat infringer policy, thereby encouraging its users’ continuing upload of infringing content.”

This is all part of a deliberate strategy, according to the complaint:

Defendants Alphabet, Google, and YouTube reap billions of dollars annually from the online hosting of videos, including millions of works that infringe on the exclusive copyrights of Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendants permit and facilitate this infringement because it furthers their growth and revenue strategies and because they have determined that Plaintiffs and the Class—unlike YouTube’s preferred Content ID partners—lack the resources and leverage necessary to combat copyright infringement on the scale at which it is perpetuated on YouTube.

Maria Schneider argues many of the same things she and other artist advocates have asserted before Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in hearings and roundtable proceedings exploring the provisions of Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA):

Faced with litigation by major music studios and other significant rights holders, Defendants have crafted distinct and disparate systems of copyright “enforcement” on their platform. For those entities with vast stores of copyright material and thus the leverage to require Defendants to appease their copyright management concerns, YouTube created its Content ID program, which allows qualifying copyright owners automatically to identify and manage their content on YouTube. . . . Smaller rights holders, including [Schneider], are, however, denied access to Content ID and thus are relegated to vastly inferior and time-consuming means of trying to police and manage their copyrights such as scanning the entirety of YouTube postings, searching for keywords, titles, and other potential identifiers.

They must then send notices identifying infringements URL by URL, filling out cumbersome webforms, often laden with advertising, struggle with captcha codes, and contend with requests for additional information or challenges from employees reviewing the requests.

While many artists have neither the pocketbook nor the backbone to stand up to an adversary like YouTube in federal court, this lawsuit seems particularly well-timed given that the ongoing focus on Section 512 in multiple government venues over the past decade has developed a solid record articulating the scope and the magnitude of the problem, as well as that the complaints against YouTube and other web platforms by individual artists seem to be almost universally shared.

Regardless of Maria Schneider’s lawsuit, the Senate and the U.S. Copyright Office are not done considering the issue. The Copyright Office released its much-anticipated Section 512 Report earlier this May and engaged in a subsequent exchange of letters with Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy regarding additional statutory clarifications that the Senate might consider and other approaches that could improve the operation of the DMCA without legislative amendment. Among the issues addressed in that letter is a request from the Senators to the Copyright Office to conduct stakeholder meetings to identify and adopt standard technical measures (STMs) as was anticipated in Section 512(i) of the DMCA. It is notable that Maria Schneider has herself been an active participant in the Copyright Office’s Section 512 proceedings, and in February of 2017, she submitted comments to the Copyright Office urging that Content ID be recognized as a STM under the DMCA and that all creators be granted access to it in order to be able to more efficiently police YouTube’s platform. The Copyright Office did not take up her suggestion.

In answer to the Tillis/Leahy request, on June 29, 2020, the Copyright Office responded in part that it will convene virtual meetings in late summer/early fall “focused on identifying any potential obstacles to the identification of potential STMs, as well as the requirements that must be met in order to adopt and implement an STM,” and to “begin identifying the kinds of technologies that may meet the statutory definition. Once the bounds of potential qualifying technologies have been identified, the Office would then convene further discussion to evaluate whether individual technologies meet the other requirements of section 512(i), including discussions to learn more about the terms upon which the technologies are offered in the marketplace.”

To date, hypothetical discussions (as well as lawsuits and licensing) have focused on digital fingerprinting technologies. Such technologies are designed to identify content by taking a “fingerprint” of a file that is being or has been uploaded to a platform and matching it to a database of sample content submitted by copyright owners. Regardless of the technology identified as an STM, the challenge may come not from choosing the technology, but rather in applying it. What one copyright owner is willing to tolerate in the name of marketing and fan word of mouth, another will not be. What a technology platform may set the technology to overlook, a filmmaker on the eve of a festival premiere will consider a “match.” Hence the importance of artists’ agency. Or as the ARA would have it: the right to competitive platforms and the right to information and platform transparency. Unless artists are informed about the STMs platforms apply and how they apply them, and unless they have the ability to keep their work from platforms that don’t meet their requirements, identifying an STM on its own won’t make much of a difference. Without artists’ agency and the right to control what happens to their creative output, we may just have the digital fingerprint version of the notice-and-takedown “whack-a-mole” game.[1]

Neil Young v. Donald J. Trump for President

Musicians have perpetually battled with political campaigns over the unauthorized use of their music at rallies and other campaign events. Given the particularly heated nature of this year’s presidential contest, it is perhaps not surprising that Neil Young has sued the Trump campaign for copyright infringement for publicly performing his musical works Rockin’ in the Free World and Devil’s Sidewalk at numerous campaign rallies and events, including one in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The complaint alleges: “The Campaign has willfully ignored Plaintiff’s telling it not to play the Songs and willfully proceeded to play the Songs despite its lack of a license and despite its knowledge that a license is required to do so.”

Neil Young is not the only musician battling the Trump campaign. Leonard Cohen’s estate is considering whether to file suit for the campaign’s use of Halleluiah during the last night of the Republican National Convention, and the Rolling Stones are working with ASCAP and BMI to persuade the Trump campaign to stop playing You Can’t Always Get What You Want at rallies. Campaigns typically assert that they are permitted to play any songs included in the Performing Rights Organizations’ political entities licenses, from which artists may seek to exclude their works if they object to use at political rallies. The allegations by Neil Young, the Cohen estate, and the Stones seem to be that the particular uses by the Trump campaign have gone beyond what a venue license for a political gathering envisions and that the campaign is instead using the songs to either distort their meaning or suggest an endorsement by the artist.

As the members of the Artist Rights Alliance wrote to all of the Republican and Democratic National Campaign Committees this July: “Like all other citizens, artists have the fundamental right to control their work and make free choices regarding their political expression and participation. Using their work for political purposes without their consent fundamentally breaches those rights—an invasion of the most hallowed, even sacred personal interests.”

These lawsuits are interesting because, until now, due to a combination of the veneer of protection offered by the venue licenses, and the time constraints imposed by campaign season, the only viable mechanism for discouraging unwanted uses of an artist’s work by a campaign has been public shaming via social media or statements by the artist publicly disowning and rejecting the candidate. Consequently, neither the moral rights or right of publicity-like qualities of the complaints nor the availability of damages for the infringing use have been explored. Since the Trump campaign is unlikely to settle a lawsuit, this case may define the boundaries of political entities licensed uses or add a new tool to musicians’ arsenals in ensuring they are not unwillingly conscripted into the service of a campaign they do not support.

RIP Matt Herron[2]

A civil rights era photographer I admired and came to know when I was CEO of the Copyright Alliance—Matt Herron—recently passed. Matt was inspiring on many levels. He described himself as an “activist with a camera,” and he covered some of the most meaningful moments in the effort to gain voting rights for Black people in the 1960s—including the Selma to Montgomery march.

“I photograph things I believe in. I try to photograph the things that are important in my life,” said Herron during a panel I moderated in 2011. He felt so strongly about what he saw happening in the 1960s south that he picked up his family and moved from Philadelphia to Mississippi because he thought they could be more relevant there. In doing so, through his photographs, he gave countless generations a front row seat to history. He described the five days he spent documenting the march from Selma to Montgomery:

As photographers, we are mostly voyeurs. We stand a little bit aside from an event. Part of our mind is clicking through F Stops and the rest of it is trying to figure out where images and angles are. But sometimes something happens that sucks us in and we lose that voyeuristic element and become part of the event itself. Certainly for me, the Selma March—five days of walking in rain and sunshine and all kinds of conditions—was one of those moments. I have no memory of where I slept, what I ate, how I handled any of my basic physical problems. All I remember is the camera, the walking, and the faces.

Matt Herron lived by the copyright of his photographs and used them to further education about the social causes he covered. Besides the Selma march, he shot whaling protests by Greenpeace and the AIDS quilt. He explained that copyright laws help him keep collections of his images together and allow him to present them for the benefit of the causes covered:

I’ve put some effort into making not just single photographs but collections. I have historical collections and copyright allows me to decide how these images will be presented and how these historical moments can be disseminated. If I didn’t own the copyright some of these pictures of Martin Luther King might be used to advertise shoes. As it is, I can disseminate these images in ways that add to our national heritage, in educational ways for school children and to preserve a piece of history. Copyright allows me to retain this control not so I can keep them to myself but present them to the world in a way that’s coherent.

Matt Herron’s lifetime of work demonstrates in a way that is perhaps clearer this summer than any in recent memory why ensuring that artists are guaranteed agency over their creative output—whether they be photographers chronicling our history, musicians expressing our yearning, or authors giving words to our conscience—is crucial to democracy.

[1] Although it is approximately a decade old, this article, The (Im)possibility of “Standard Technical Measures” for UGC Websites, written by then student, now partner at Wilson Sonsini, Lauren Gallo, is the most thorough, balanced, and articulate examination of the issues the USCO is undertaking to date. Gallo notes that already in 2011 when her note was published, rights owners and UGC service providers were deploying fingerprinting technology to protect copyrighted works on the internet and operate repeat infringer policies. She writes: “In light of the widespread use of this successful technology and Congress’ mandate that ‘standard technical measures’ be developed ‘expeditiously,’ individual or infrequent holdouts should not obstruct the consensus necessary to define the term. . . . [F]ingerprinting technology should qualify as ‘standard technical measures’ under section 512(i), so that right holders and service providers may be on notice of their statutory obligations and may continue to develop ‘best practice’ applications for that technology.”

Ms. Gallo’s current practice focuses on novel legal questions online, involving among other issues, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and she has represented Google and YouTube in cases challenging their decisions regarding whether or not to remove or limit access to online content.

[2] Portions of this section appeared as a blog post in June of 2011 on the Copyright Alliance website, when I was CEO of that organization.

Tags CDL, Content ID, controlled digital lending, copyright notebook, Copyright Office, Donald Trump, Hachette Book Group, Internet Archive, investment, Maria Schneider, Matt Herron, Neil Young, ReDigi, Sandra Aistars, Section 512, standard technical measures, STMs, YouTube

Scalia Law Students and CPIP Scholars Make an Impact in Copyright Office Section 512 Study

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date May 26, 2020

The U.S. Copyright Office released its long-awaited report on Section 512 of Title 17 late last week. The Report is the culmination of more than four years of study by the Office of the safe harbor provisions for online service provider (OSP) liability in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Fortuitously, the study period coincided with the launch of Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic. Clinic students were able to participate in all phases of the study, including filing comments on behalf of artists and CPIP scholars, testifying at roundtable proceedings on both coasts, and conducting a study of how OSPs respond to takedown notices filed on behalf of different types of artists. The Office cites the filings and comments of Scalia Law students numerous times and ultimately adopts the legal interpretation of the law advocated by the CPIP scholars.

The Office began the study in December 2015 by publishing a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking public input on the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions in Section 512. Citing testimony by CPIP’s Sean O’Connor to the House Judiciary Committee that the notice-and-takedown system is unsustainable given the millions of takedown notices sent each month, the Office launched a multi-pronged inquiry to determine whether Section 512 was operating as intended by Congress.

Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic drafted two sets of comments in response to this initial inquiry. Terrica Carrington and Rebecca Cusey submitted comments to the Office on behalf of middle class artists and advocates, including Blake Morgan, Yunghi Kim, Ellen Seidler, David Newhoff, and William Buckley, arguing that the notice-and-takedown regime under Section 512 is “ineffective, inefficient, and unfairly burdensome on artists.” The students pointed out that middle class artists encounter intimidation and personal danger when reporting infringements to OSPs. Artists filing takedown notices must include personal information, such as their name, address, and telephone number, which is provided to the alleged infringer or otherwise made public. Artists often experience harassment and retaliation for sending notices. The artists, by contrast, obtain no information about the identity of the alleged infringer from the OSP. The Office’s Report cited these problems as a detriment for middle class artists and “a major motivator” of its study.

A second response to the notice of inquiry was filed by a group of CPIP scholars, including Sandra Aistars, Matthew Barblan, Devlin Hartline, Kevin Madigan, Adam Mossoff, Sean O’Connor, Eric Priest, and Mark Schultz. These comments focused solely on the issue of how judicial interpretations of the “actual” and “red flag” knowledge standards affect Section 512. The scholars urged that the courts have interpreted the red flag knowledge standard incorrectly, thus disrupting the incentives that Congress intended for copyright owners and OSPs to detect and deal with online infringement. Several courts have interpreted red flag knowledge to require specific knowledge of particular infringing activity; however, the scholars argued that Congress intended for obvious indicia of general infringing activity to suffice.

The Office closely analyzed and ultimately adopted the scholars’ red flag knowledge argument in the Report:

Public comments submitted by a group of copyright law scholars in the Study make a point closely related to the rightsholders’ argument above, focusing on the different language Congress chose for actual and red flag knowledge. They note that the statute’s standard for actual knowledge is met when the OSP has “knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing” or “knowledge that the material or activity is infringing,” while the red flag knowledge standard is met when the OSP is “aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.” This difference, the copyright law scholars argue, is crucial to understanding the two standards: while the statute uses a definite article—“the”—to refer to material or activity that would provide actual knowledge, it drops “the” to speak more generally about facts or circumstances that would create red flag knowledge. “In Congress’s view,” the comment concludes, “the critical distinction between the two knowledge standards was this: Actual knowledge turns on specifics, while red flag knowledge turns on generalities.”

The Office went on to state that “a standard that requires an OSP to have knowledge of a specific infringement in order to be charged with red flag knowledge has created outcomes that Congress likely did not anticipate.” And since “courts have set too high a bar for red flag knowledge,” the Office concluded, Congress’ intent for OSPs to act upon information of infringement has been subverted. This echoed the scholars’ conclusion that the courts have disrupted the balance of responsibilities that Congress sought to create with Section 512 by narrowly interpreting the red flag knowledge standard.

Scalia Law students and CPIP scholars likewise participated in roundtable hearings on each coast to provide further input for the Copyright Office’s study of Section 512. The first roundtable was held on May 2-3, 2016, in New York, New York, at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, where the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York hear cases. The roundtable was attended by CPIP’s Sandra Aistars and Matthew Barblan. They discussed the notice-and-takedown process, the scope and impact of the safe harbors, and the future of Section 512. The second roundtable was held in San Francisco, California, at the James R. Browning Courthouse, where the Ninth Circuit hears cases. Scalia Law student Rebecca Cusey joined CPIP’s Sean O’Connor and Devlin Hartline to discuss the notice-and-takedown process, applicable legal standards, the scope and impact of the safe harbors, voluntary measures and industry agreements, and the future of Section 512. Several of the comments made by the CPIP scholars at the roundtables ended up in the Office’s Report.

In November 2016, the Office published another notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking additional comments on the impact and effectiveness of Section 512. The notice itself included citations to the comments submitted by Scalia Law students and the comments of the CPIP scholars. Under the guidance of Prof. Aistars, the students from Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic again filed comments with the Office. Clinic students Rebecca Cusey, Stephanie Semler, Patricia Udhnani, Rebecca Eubank, Tyler Del Rosario, Mandi Hart, and Alexander Summerton all contributed to the comments, which discussed their work in helping individuals and small businesses enforce their copyright claims by submitting takedown notices pursuant to Section 512. The students reported on the practical barriers to the effective use of the notice-and-takedown process at particular OSPs. Two problems identified by the students were cited by the Copyright Office as examples of how OSPs make it unnecessarily difficult to submit a takedown notice. Accordingly, the Office called on Congress to update the relevant provisions of Section 512.

Two years after the additional written comments were submitted, the Office announced a third and final roundtable to be held on April 8, 2019, at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss any relevant domestic or international developments that had occurred during the two prior years. CPIP’s Devlin Hartline attended this third roundtable to discuss recent case law related to Section 512, thus ensuring that CPIP scholars were represented at all three of the Office’s roundtables.

CPIP congratulates and thanks the students of Scalia Law’s Arts and Entertainment Advocacy Clinic for their skillful advocacy on behalf of artists who otherwise would not be heard in these debates.

How the Supreme Court Made it Harder for Copyright Owners to Protect Their Rights—And Why Congress Should Fix It

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date March 7, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court building Earlier this week, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, a case examining the registration precondition to filing a suit for copyright infringement in the federal district courts. While I agree with the Court’s exegesis of the statute at issue, it’s worth noting how the Court’s construction leaves many, if not most, copyright owners in the lurch. Under the Court’s holding, in fact, this very blog post could be infringed today, and there’s very little that could be done to stop it for many months to come. As the Court noted in Harper & Row v. Nation, “copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” The Court’s holding in Fourth Estate, by contrast, disincentivizes dissemination since it undermines effective copyright protection and prejudices the public interest in the production of, and access to, creative works. Again, I don’t blame the Court for this outcome—in fact, I think it’s correct. The problem, as I’ll explain, lies in the unfortunate fact that nowadays it takes too long to register a copyright claim. And that’s something that Congress needs to fix.

The issue in Fourth Estate is straightforward. Under the first sentence of Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act, “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” Some courts, like the Ninth Circuit, have applied the so-called “application approach,” finding that “registration . . . has been made” when the copyright owner delivers a complete application to the Copyright Office. Other courts, like the Tenth Circuit, have applied the so-called “registration approach,” where “registration” is not “made” until the Register of Copyrights has acted upon the application (by either approving or rejecting it). Confounding the analysis is the fact that other sections of the Copyright Act alternatively delineate registration as something done by the applicant or by the Copyright Office.

In the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit applied the registration approach, affirming the district court’s dismissal of Fourth Estate’s complaint since the Register of Copyrights had not yet approved or denied its application to register. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Justice Ginsburg, affirmed: “We hold . . . that registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.” The issue for the Court was one of pure statutory construction, and the problem for proponents of the application approach is that the second sentence of Section 411(a) clearly indicates that registration is something done by the Copyright Office. It provides, as an exception to the first sentence, that a copyright owner can nevertheless sue for infringement once the application materials “have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused.”

Justice Ginsburg reasoned: “If application alone sufficed to ‘ma[ke]’ registration, § 411(a)’s second sentence—allowing suit upon refusal of registration—would be superfluous.” I’ve always found this to be the better argument, and I’m not surprised to see it front-and-center in the Court’s analysis. Why would applicants need an exception that turns on the subsequent action of the Copyright Office if merely delivering a completed application sufficed? As Justice Ginsburg noted, the application approach “requires the implausible assumption that Congress gave ‘registration’ different meanings in consecutive, related sentences within a single statutory provision.” I think the Court got this one exactly right, and I don’t find arguments to the contrary to be particularly persuasive.

That said, let me now explain why it’s wrong—well, at least why it’s bad for millions of copyright owners and why Congress should fix it ASAP.

The purpose of the registration approach and other similar provisions in the Copyright Act (such as the availability of statutory damages or attorney’s fees) is to incentivize timely registration, which is no longer a prerequisite to copyright protection as it was under the Copyright Act of 1909. Under the current Copyright Act, copyright protection nominally exists once a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and registration is no longer mandatory. (I say “nominally” because the Court’s holding in Fourth Estate ensures that, as a practical matter, countless works with respect to which copyright owners have exclusive rights on paper in fact have no immediate rights in the real world since they can’t actually file suit to quickly stop any ongoing infringement.) However, the incentive-to-register theory makes little sense in the context of the debate over the proper interpretation of Section 411(a) itself as the works being sued upon must be registered under both the application and registration approaches.

With due respect to the Copyright Office, processing a registration application is primarily a ministerial act. The vast majority of applications are granted—97% in 2017 according to the latest available data from the Copyright Office (though 29% of those applications required correspondence with the applicant). Are we really withholding remedies for all copyright owners because of the remaining 3%? And even for the 3% of applications that are denied, the copyright owner can still sue for infringement, asking the district court to reassess the agency’s refusal. No matter what the Copyright Office does with the application, whether it grants or denies, the copyright owner ultimately can sue. And, under the third sentence of Section 411(a), the Register of Copyrights can even “become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim.” So it’s not like the Register can’t have a say should the application be in that slim minority of questionable ones that may merit intervention.

To its credit, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its holding would cause problems for copyright owners—but it also overplayed the exceptions to the registration approach that Congress put in place to alleviate some of these issues. For example, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that Section 408(f) empowers the Register of Copyrights to establish regulations for the preregistration of certain categories of works. Under this regime, as Justice Ginsburg noted, “Congress provided that owners of works especially susceptible to prepublication infringement should be allowed to institute suit before the Register has granted or refused registration.” That’s great for that particular subset of copyright owners, but what about everyone else? And what about authors who publish their works just as soon as they create them? Moreover, Justice Ginsburg’s blithe comment that copyright owners “may eventually recover damages for the past infringement” ignores the fact that injunctive relief to stop the actual, ongoing infringement is unavailable until the registration is processed by the Copyright Office.

The Court laments such policy ramifications: “True, the statutory scheme has not worked as Congress likely envisioned. Registration processing times have increased from one or two weeks in 1956 to many months today.” And this gets to the heart of the problem: The time it takes the Copyright Office to process an application has significantly increased over the years. Just four years after the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect, the delay was “5 to 6 weeks.” And, as of October 2018, the delay has grown to an “average processing time for all claims” of “7 months.” Indeed, the fastest the Copyright Office processes an application now is one month, and the longest it takes is an incredible 37 months. The following illustration from the Copyright Office breaks this down with more particularity:

To be clear, I don’t think these delays are the Copyright Office’s fault. In fact, I think it’s Congress’s fault for not giving the agency more resources to do the very things that Congress requires it to do. Regardless, the fact remains that even copyright owners who do everything that the Copyright Act expects them to do in order to obtain the greatest protection for their works at the earliest that they can reasonably do so are still left without remedies should—or, perhaps more likely, when—infringement occur once they release their works to the world. The aforementioned constitutional goal of dissemination is thus undercut by the subservient goal of registration, for rational copyright owners would be less motivated to disseminate their works by the right to exclude when that right is in fact illusory. If Congress really wants authors to promote progress via dissemination of new works, it should adjust Section 411(a) to provide for immediate protection to all works, whether registered or not. It can still incentivize registration by limiting the remedies available, but it shouldn’t make it so that there are none.

To see the injustice, one need look no further than this very blog post. According to the Copyright Act, this post was protected the moment it was fixed in a tangible medium of expression (i.e., yesterday evening). Should the copyright owner—presumably the university where I work as this is a work made for hire—have filed for registration as quickly as possible (i.e., this morning), there still would be no way to obtain any injunctive relief while the Copyright Office processes the application. Preregistration was never an option as this post is not a literary work that is protected by the exception for certain works prone to prepublication infringement under Section 202.16 of the CFR. Even if the university had done everything that it was supposed to do as early as it could reasonably have done so to ensure the utmost copyright protection for this post, it could do nothing in the courts to stop an infringer who willfully exploits this post for profit until the Copyright Office acts upon the application—a lifetime for infringement in the digital age. (There is an option to expedite review for $800, but that amount of money is not reasonable for most people.)

Perhaps a takedown notice could be issued under Section 512 of the DMCA, but if there’s a counternotice, the university could not bring suit in the designated 10-14 day window to prevent the service provider from restoring the infringing material since there’s been no registration and thus it cannot sue for infringement. Despite having done everything Congress expected, the university would be powerless to stop the ongoing infringement of its exclusive rights in this post for perhaps several months into the future. And any argument that damages will compensate for infringements occurring before the Copyright Office got around to acting on the application is undercut by the fact that courts routinely grant preliminary injunctive relief precisely because the harm from infringement is irreparable—money damages cannot make the copyright owner whole.

The absurd result of all this is that the promise of exclusive rights in one’s original work of authorship is practically meaningless given the registration approach under Section 411(a). No doubt, Congress intended this disability to act as a stick in order to encourage the carrot of remedies should those rights be infringed. But the reality is that numerous copyright owners who do everything right get the stick and not the carrot—at least until the Copyright Office happens to process their applications. In the meantime, these copyright owners cannot be faulted for thinking twice before disseminating their works. Since enforcement of their rights is precluded through no fault of their own, what else does Congress expect them to do? A right without a remedy is senseless, and given the millions of original works that are created each day, Congress’s promise of copyright protection for new works may be one of the most illusory rights in modern times. Now that the Supreme Court has clarified Section 411(a), it’s time for Congress to fix it.

Tags copyright, Copyright Office, Devlin Hartline, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, exclusive rights, Fourth Estate, infringement, registration, Section 411, Section 512, Supreme Court, USCO, Wall-Street.com

Debunking Criticism of the Copyright Small Claims Act

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date November 21, 2017

Cross-posted from the Mister Copyright blog.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriter It’s been six weeks since the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act (H.R.3945) was introduced to Congress by a bipartisan coalition of Representatives, and while there’s an abundance of support among politicians, creators, artists’ rights organizations, and the Copyright Office, some have been critical of the legislation. Although much of the pushback can be chalked up to certain groups who seemingly resist any effort to hold infringers accountable for misappropriation, it’s worth addressing some of the criticisms to show that they’re largely baseless.

The CASE Act would create a Copyright Claims Board (CCB) within the Copyright Office to hear claims brought by individual creators and copyright owners. It aims to provide a venue for these often frustrated parties to address rampant infringement online, empowering a class of rights holders who have limited means and few opportunities for recourse. But some have argued that this system will be tilted in favor of claimants and unfairly burden respondents, and these critics are calling for the bill’s defeat.

One supposed problem with the CCB, according to its critics, is that the three-officer panels overseeing cases will be biased and favor the claimants and copyright owners. It’s a bold assumption, but unfortunately not surprising coming from organizations that routinely accuse the Copyright Office of being “pro-content” or “anti-user”—accusations that remain completely unsubstantiated.

Perhaps anticipating such charges, the CASE Act calls for a panel in which two of the three claims officers must have diverse copyright experience which includes representing the interests of both creators and content users. As Section 1401(b)(3)(A) on officer qualifications explicitly states:

Each Copyright Claims Officer shall be an attorney with no less than 7 years of legal experience. Two of the Copyright Claims Officers shall have substantial experience in the evaluation, litigation, or adjudication of copyright infringement claims and, between them, shall have represented or presided over a diversity of copyright interests, including those of both owners and users of copyrighted works.

The third claims officer is required to be an expert in alternative dispute resolution who also has substantial copyright law experience. Any fear that these officers will render decisions unfairly in favor of claimants is likely a reaction to the realization that the small claims system will finally hold accountable a large number of infringers who have previously flown under the radar.

Another criticism of the CASE Act is that due to appearance requirements and allegedly unfair notice procedures, the Copyright Claims Board will issue a disproportionate amount of default judgments against respondents and thereby violate due process and personal jurisdiction. However, Section 1405(g) establishes clear notice obligations of claimants, including proof of service within 90 days of receiving notice to proceed. Furthermore, there is no rule requiring parties to appear in-person before the Board in Washington, D.C. It’s anticipated that smaller claims will be electronically resolved, while larger disputes will be handled via video conferencing. Section 1405(c) clearly explains:

Proceedings before the Copyright Claims Board shall be conducted at the offices of the Copyright Claims Board without the requirement of in-person appearances by parties or others, and shall take place by means of written submissions and hearings and conferences accomplished via Internet-based applications and other telecommunications facilities.

Critics also claim default judgments would be difficult to overturn, despite section 1407(c) explicitly providing an opportunity to appeal determinations to the District Court of the District of Columbia. Additionally, Section 1407(c)(1)(c) allows for respondents to challenge default determinations “where it is established that the default or failure was due to excusable neglect.”

There have also been arguments that, at $30,000, the damages available to claimants are too high. But while it may seem like a big number compared to what’s available in other small claims courts, it is the absolute ceiling of available damages. The CCB has discretion to award up to $30,000, and that limit is much lower than what an infringer might be on the hook for in federal court.

Making these criticisms of the small claims initiative seem even more absurd is the fact that the proceeding will be completely voluntary, allowing respondents to opt out of the entire system if preferred. While it’s hoped that respondents will choose to resolve claims before the CCB—rather than risk a potentially worse fate in federal court—there is no obligation to participate if they see the process as unfair or burdensome.

The reality is that the notice requirements and damages available represent a system that is no more skewed towards claimants than any other adjudicatory proceeding. Arguments to the contrary reflect a resistance to a system that will finally hold accountable infringing behavior that, because of past difficulty to address it, has become routine in the digital age. It’s time to give small creators and copyright owners a realistic shot at protecting their works, and making the CASE Act law would lead the way in this long-overdue and worthy endeavor.

Tags CASE, CCB, copyright, Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement, Copyright Claims Board, Copyright Office, Kevin Madigan, smaill claims

Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing History of Intellectual Property Innovation Internet Legislation Uncategorized

Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts

Post author By Joshua Grove
Post date August 4, 2015

The following post is by CPIP Research Associate Matt McIntee, a rising 2L at George Mason University School of Law. McIntee reviews a paper from CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.

By Matt McIntee

In Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts, recently published in the George Mason Law Review, Professor Sean Pager demonstrates how the current copyright system can be improved to better support creative upstarts. Pager defines “creative upstarts” to include “independent creators and producers who (a) are commercially-motivated; (b) operate largely outside the rubric of the mainstream commercial content industries; and (c) therefore lack the kind of copyright-related knowledge, resources, and capabilities that mainstream players take for granted.” Though these upstarts depend on their copyrights to make a living, they often find it difficult to effectively navigate the copyright system.

Pager explains how the copyright system generally benefits sophisticated users. For example, the Copyright Act contains hyper-technical language that can be difficult for naïve users to traverse. Pager pilots through this strikingly complex legal regime and determines that there are ample opportunities to afford better copyright protection to creative upstarts without diluting the copyrights held by others. He offers several proposals geared towards protecting the interests of creative upstarts, and he explains how the copyright system was designed without these features in mind.

One of Pager’s proposals is that we lower copyright registration costs, which potentially deter creative upstarts from registering their works. He notes that registration, obtaining accurate copyright information, and clearing copyrights are among the chief costs associated with obtaining copyright protection. A $35 registration fee may seem insignificant due to the benefits that come with it, but these costs can add up quickly for creative upstarts who generate large volumes of works. For example, graphic artists typically create many original works in order to build their portfolios, and the registration costs could be prohibitive.

Pager also notes that the Copyright Office’s searchable database increases costs for creative upstarts by adding valuable time to the process. The database is supposed to be complete and catalogued so that persons can easily search for accurate copyright information, but unfortunately this is not always the case. As a result, many creative upstarts have to spend precious time sifting their way through incomplete records and clearing copyrights instead of spending their time creating.

Tracing the history of the current regime, Pager explains how the copyright system assumes that artists seeking copyright protection have ample resources, such as lawyers, production facilities, manufacturers, and money. When the system was designed, policymakers structured it to support a “capital intensive process” that required significant investment and risk. But as Pager notes, the industry has shifted, and creative upstarts now form the bulk of content creators. A copyright system designed for artists recording on 8-track tapes is no longer appropriate in the digital age.

Pager offers a number of incremental steps to reform copyright law with the goal of making it more favorable to creative upstarts while still protecting the other players in the field. Though he acknowledges that there is no “magic bullet” solution, Pager argues that “improvements must come through a combination of substantive, procedural, and institutional reforms that yield incremental improvements across the entire copyright system.” And with such a comprehensive approach, he notes that certain tradeoffs will have to be made.

Substantively, Pager discusses how reducing systemic complexity is “deceptively simple.” While replacing “fuzzy standards with bright-line rules” would to some degree enhance certainty, Pager notes that “bright lines quickly become blurred” in a “world of fast-changing technologies and business practices.” He proposes instead that a “more realistic fallback goal would be to couple open-ended standards with clear safe harbor provisions or explicit examples.” Under this system, “standards would have room to evolve” while “their core meaning would be anchored as a starting point.”

Regarding procedural reforms, Pager suggests a “small claims dispute resolution” mechanism to drastically reduce costs for creative upstarts by providing them with a quick way to pursue infringement claims. Right now, copyright claims are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal district courts, an impractical and expensive route for independent artists. The Copyright Office has put forth a proposal for such a mechanism, but Pager argues that there is a “fatal flaw” since the process “would only be available on a voluntary basis.” By allowing “better-resourced adversaries” to opt out, the Office’s proposal leaves creative upstarts vulnerable.

Pager proposes that the Section 512 notice-and-takedown procedures could be improved to better support creative upstarts. Currently, creators are burdened by both the number of takedown notices required and the lack of access to the “trusted sender” facilities available to major participants. As Pager notes, the House Judiciary Committee addressed these issues as recently as March of 2014, but questions remain concerning who will bear the costs and how the transition will be implemented.

Turning to the registration system, Pager suggests three reforms that would benefit creative upstarts. First, having a single registry for authors to register their works, rather than a multitude of public and private registries, would reduce administrative burdens. Second, registration records would be more efficiently maintained through a tiered-fee system that charges more to larger content creators in order to subsidize the costs of smaller upstarts. Lastly, removing the timely registration requirement for enhanced damages, coupled with small claims dispute resolution reform, would provide cost-effective enforcement mechanisms.

Finally, Pager explains how technology can play a pivotal role in helping creative upstarts. One example is updating the Copyright Office website to provide more basic information about the copyright system. This information is currently scattered all over the Internet, and it could be organized to make it more user-friendly and less “lawyerly.” Another example is implementing software similar to TurboTax that actively assists authors when registering their copyrights. There would first have to be substantive changes in the law to allow for such software, but Pager believes that this technology would be incredibly helpful to those navigating the registration system.

Creative Upstarts is a fascinating look into the world of creative upstarts. With their interests and the interests of the larger copyright ecosystem in mind, Pager skillfully traverses our complicated copyright regime and identifies ample opportunities to improve copyright protections for creative upstarts. The twenty-first century is a digital age, and creators and innovators have the technological ability to produce creative works right on their laptops. Pager’s hope is the Copyright Act will be updated to address the realities of this modern world for creative upstarts.

Tags Copyright Office, copyright reform, creative upstarts, registration, Sean Pager

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories