U.S. Copyright Office Seeks Public Feedback Regarding The Copyright Claims Board

The U.S. Copyright Office (“USCO”) issued a notice of inquiry to initiate a study and seek public feedback on several issues relating to the Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”).

Under the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (“CASE Act”), the USCO established the CCB to provide a voluntary forum for parties to resolve copyright disputes with a maximum monetary value of $30,000. Congress intended the CCB “to be accessible especially for pro se . . . parties and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws who cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses heard in federal court.” In June 2022, the CCB launched its operations. Since then, more than 1,000 claims have been filed with the CCB, and the CCB has managed hundreds of proceedings and issued thirty final determinations.

While the CASE Act detailed many of the components and procedures of the CCB, Congress delegated specific authority to the USCO to promulgate certain regulations necessary for the CCB's operations. The USCO thus issued regulations to address many aspects of the CCB's proceedings, including how parties should present their positions and how the CCB will operate.

Within three years of the CCB's first final determination, the CASE Act directs the Register of Copyrights to complete a study addressing five specific topics, along with any other related and pertinent issues. As part of that study, the USCO seeks public comments on a variety of topics. The USCO will use this information to inform its report to Congress, as well as possible future regulatory work. The USCO seeks input from a broad range of perspectives, including parties that have used the CCB, considered using the CCB, or declined to use the CCB (including respondents who have opted out), and legal representatives of these parties, as well as commenters who provided input to the USCO's prior policy study or its implementing regulations for the CCB. In addition, the USCO seeks input on whether potential modifications would involve changing the statute, regulations, or other procedures.

Topics of Inquiry

1. The use and efficacy of the CCB in resolving copyright claims, including the number of proceedings the CCB could reasonably administer.

1. Is the CCB's existence promoting settlements or other private dispute resolutions, either without bringing a claim before the CCB or after filing a claim with the CCB?
2. Is the CCB's $40 initial filing fee deterring frivolous claims without deterring meritorious claims?
3. Is the compliance review process working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?
4. Should the CASE Act's service requirements be modified? Are there other ways to increase the ease and efficiency of perfecting service while adequately preserving respondents' due process rights?
5. Is the opt-out system working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?
6. Are there ways to further streamline and reduce the complexity of CCB proceedings while preserving parties' rights? For example, should any statutory or regulatory time periods be adjusted to allow for faster resolutions of claims?
7. Are the scope of discovery and the use of standard discovery forms appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations?
8. Are the CCB's procedures governing written testimony appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations?
9. Are the processes and procedures for smaller claims proceedings appropriately tailored to parties' needs and expectations, compared to the processes and procedures that apply in standard proceedings?

2. Are there any aspects of other small claims tribunals, including their models or procedures, that should be considered for the CCB?

3. Are there ways that the CCB can be made more accessible and user-friendly, including for self-represented parties? For instance, please consider:

1. Whether the CCB's forms, processes, or procedures should be adjusted; and
2. Whether the CCB should supplement its educational resources (e.g., its handbook, video tutorials, handouts, and website), either by revising existing resources or adding additional resources.

4. Are there any changes that could be made to improve the default process or reduce the incidence of defaults while adequately preserving respondents' rights and ensuring the timely processing of claims?

5. Are the statutory and regulatory rules for addressing bad-faith actors working as intended? In particular, is the one-year ban for bad-faith actors sufficient in length and should there be different sanctions for repeat offenders?

6. Are there any changes that could be made to improve the ability of claimants to enforce determinations?

7. Whether adjustments to the CCB's authority are necessary or advisable, including with respect to: (A) eligible claims, such as claims under section 1202 of title 17, United States Code (which addresses the integrity of copyright management information); (B) eligible types of works; and (C) applicable damages limitations.

1. Are there additional claims that arise under title 17 that would be appropriate for the CCB to resolve?
2. Currently the CASE Act's damages limitations are $30,000 per proceeding and, for statutory damages, $15,000 per work infringed. Would raising or lowering these caps improve the operations of the CCB?
3. Whether greater allowance should be made to permit or limit awards of attorneys' fees and costs to prevailing parties. Currently the cap for attorneys' fees and costs for bad-faith conduct under the CASE Act is $5,000; however, in extraordinary circumstances, the CCB can exceed that cap. Should this cap be increased or decreased?

8. What additional mechanisms, if any, should the CCB adopt to assist claimants in ascertaining the identity and location of unknown online infringers? Should the CCB be granted subpoena power to assist parties in identifying or locating potential respondents?

9. Whether the CCB should be expanded to offer mediation or other nonbinding alternative dispute resolution services to interested parties.

10. Other topics of interest to the Register:

1. The CASE Act contains a rule that treats filing certain CCB claims as equivalent to filing a court action, for the purpose of contesting a counternotice under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2)(C). Is this rule working as intended and, if not, how should it be modified?
2. Do law student representatives, legal clinics, and pro bono organizations face any obstacles in representing or counseling clients before the CCB? How can the USCO increase CCB participation by these groups?
3. Are there any other issues relevant to the CCB or the CASE Act that commenters wish to address, including any proposed statutory or regulatory changes?

Takeaway

If you are interested in submitting written comments on these topics or wish to discuss copyright claims and/or USCO policy studies, please contact Anna Chauvet (anna.chauvet@finnegan.com) for more information. Anna is currently a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP and leader of Finnegan's copyright practice. Anna previously served as associate general counsel at the USCO.

Initial written public comments are due May 9, 2025, and reply comments are due June 23, 2025. Both types of comments must be submitted electronically to the USCO through regulations.gov.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.