Over One Million Card Catalog Records Digitized in Copyright Public Records System Pilot

"This summer, the Copyright Office reached a new milestone in our modernization efforts: surpassing one million card catalog records digitized with searchable metadata and added to the Office’s Copyright Public Records System (CPRS) pilot. As the number of card catalog entries in CPRS continues to grow, now is a good time to revisit the Office’s digitization efforts and explain how to read a registration application card.

Researchers from all over the country and the globe rely on the public record the Office maintains and manages. The Copyright Reading Room oversees approximately thirty-five million items, amounting to the most complete and accurate collection of copyright records of ownership in the world. From researching ownership to determine if a work is in the public domain or for licensing purposes, to identifying unpublished works by a particular artist, to investigating whether your ancestors registered any creative works during their lifetime, the Office maintains the record of creative endeavors in the United States.

What is CPRS?

CPRS is a pilot running in parallel to our legacy Copyright Public Catalog, and it will eventually become the official public record of copyright information in the United States.¹ CPRS uses a more powerful search engine than the Public Catalog, provides easy filtering capabilities, and follows user-centered design principles that align with the Office’s expanding Enterprise Copyright System (ECS). Users can easily conduct searches in CPRS by keyword, name, and title and conduct advanced searches using detailed registration and recordation filters.

Users can visit CPRS and begin searching the Office’s records today!.."
Copyright Public Records 

Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity

"Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Tillis

On behalf of the United States Copyright Office, I am pleased to deliver a copy of a report entitled Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity, which is available to the public on the Office’s website.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Cooper, you requested that the Copyright Office undertake a study to determine whether, consistent with the Court’s analysis, Congress could legislatively abrogate state sovereign immunity to suits in federal court for damages for copyright infringement.

In response to your request, the Office solicited the views of interested stakeholders and held round tables to amplify the record. The Office received comments from many copyright owners who believed that their works had been infringed by state entities. A number of state entities provided information about their policies on copyright, and views regarding allegations of infringement and the possible effect of abrogation on their operations. The Office also conducted extensive research into the legal standards governing abrogation in the context of copyright infringement. 2

After carefully evaluating the information provided, the Office can report that the number of allegations of state infringement provided in the course of this study is substantially greater than the number Congress considered when it adopted its prior abrogation legislation, and greater than the evidence found insufficient in prior intellectual property cases. Although few of the infringement allegations provided to the Office were adjudicated on the merits, the evidence indicates that state infringement represents a legitimate concern for copyright owners. Given the demands of the current legal standard, however, and some ambiguity in its application, we cannot conclude with certainty that even the current more robust record would be found sufficient to meet the constitutional test for abrogation.

The Office nevertheless continues to believe that infringement by state entities is an issue worthy of congressional action. n. While many such entities take care to respect copyright, and engage in activities likely to fall under copyright exceptions, others may use copyrighted works for a variety of market substituting purposes. There would seem to be little justification for immunizing these types of entities from damages if they intentionally engage in the same conduct for which a private party could be held liable. Therefore, if Congress decides not to proceed with abrogation legislation, the Office would support consideration of alternative approaches to address this issue.."
Copyright and state sovereign 

The Lifecycle of Copyright: 1925 Works Enter the Public Domain

"On January 1, a new raft of creative works of expression entered the public domain in the United States. The term of copyright has ended for works published or registered in 1925, which now join pre-1924 works already in the public domain and available for use by everyone without restrictions.

Expiration of copyright term is a critical phase in the lifecycle of copyright. Under the U.S. Constitution, the purpose of copyright is “to promote the progress of science.” Article I, section 8, clause 8, outlines a two-part structure for Congress to follow when enacting copyright laws so that they will further that goal.

Specifically, Congress may secure to authors “the exclusive right to their respective writings.” Granting exclusive rights to authors acts as an incentive to writers, artists, composers, and others in creative fields and thus increases the universe of human knowledge and culture.

Additionally, the Constitution specifies that the protection shall be “for limited times.” This ensures that those works will become part of the storehouse of human creation and can serve as source material for further creation.

The critical role of the public domain in human culture is easily illustrated by the fact that so many new works are based on public domain works, such as the works of William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Bram Stoker, Louisa May Alcott, the Brontë sisters, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle..."
Copyright 

Copyright Office Launches Copyright Public Records System Pilot

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office launched a new Copyright Public Records System (CPRS) pilot to the public. The new portal will provide access to the same copyright records for both registration and recordation data that exist in the Copyright Public Catalog but with enhanced search capabilities and improved interfaces for internal and external users. With these enhancements, users should have an easier time finding the exact records they need. The CPRS pilot is also the second Enterprise Copyright System module to launch. While the first module, the electronic recordation system pilot, was released to a limited external audience, the CPRS pilot is available to the entire public.

The public can access the new CPRS pilot at publicrecords.copyright.gov and provide feedback on their experience using the feedback link at the bottom of the page. For any questions or other comments, please email publicrecords@copyright.gov.

The pilot is designed to run concurrently with the Copyright Public Catalog—available at cocatalog.loc.gov. During the pilot, the Copyright Public Catalog will remain the official source of authoritative records. The CPRS pilot will continue to evolve after the public release. Developers and Copyright Office staff are working on including the ability to download and print search results and the ability for users to see their recent searches and records. While the current CPRS pilot contains records from 1978 through the present, the Office is considering migrating other public records to the CPRS.

To learn more about the CPRS, watch the June 2020 copyright modernization webinar on the Copyright Office website or YouTube channel. The CPRS is also accompanied by a tutorial to assist new users..."
Copyright 

Copyright in Code: Supreme Court Hears Landmark Software Case in Google v. Oracle

"In what observers have hailed as the “copyright case of the century,” an eight-member Supreme Court heard arguments on October 7, 2020, in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., a long-running intellectualproperty dispute between the two tech giants. Along with the billions of dollars at stake between the parties, the Court’s decision in Google v. Oracle could have far-reaching implications for software companies, the broader technology industry, and other copyright-intensive industries. Reflecting these stakes, the Supreme Court received over 70 amicus briefs from industry, advocacy groups, academics, and other stakeholders, ranging from computer scientists and small software startup firms to IBM, Microsoft, and the Motion Picture Association. This Sidebar reviews the legal doctrines at issue in Google, the facts of the dispute, the parties’ arguments, and the potential implications of the Court’s decision for Congress.

Software Copyright Basics

Copyright law grants certain exclusive legal rights to authors of original creative works, such as books, music, fine art, and architecture. At least since 1980, U.S. copyright law has protected computer programs as a type of literary work. Applying legal principles originally crafted for books to computer code has not always been a straightforward task, in part because computer programs are more functional than other copyrightable subject matter. Courts have long wrestled with the appropriate scope of copyright protection in computer code. When the Supreme Court last tried to weigh in on software copyright in the 1990s, it divided 4-4 and therefore issued no precedential decision. Given that the Court heard arguments in Google with eight Justices presiding, there is at least a possibility of a 4-4 split in this case as well, although the probability of such an outcome remains unclear..
Google v. Oracle 

For the First Time in More Than 20 Years, Copyrighted Works Will Enter the Public Domain

"Whose woods these are, I think I”—whoa! We can’t quote any more of Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” because it is still under copyright as this magazine goes to press. But come January 1, 2019, we, you, and everyone in America will be able to quote it at length on any platform.

At midnight on New Year’s Eve, all works first published in the United States in 1923 will enter the public domain. It has been 21 years since the last mass expiration of copyright in the U.S.

That deluge of works includes not just “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” which appeared first in the New Republic in 1923, but hundreds of thousands of books, musical compositions, paintings, poems, photographs and films. After January 1, any record label can issue a dubstep version of the 1923 hit “Yes! We Have No Bananas,” any middle school can produce Theodore Pratt’s stage adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and any historian can publish Winston Churchill’s The World Crisis with her own extensive annotations. Any artist can create and sell a feminist response to Marcel Duchamp’s seminal Dadaist piece, The Large Glass (The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even) and any filmmaker can remake Cecil B. DeMille’s original The Ten Commandments and post it on YouTube.

“The public domain has been frozen in time for 20 years, and we’re reaching the 20-year thaw,” says Jennifer Jenkins, director of Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain. The release is unprecedented, and its impact on culture and creativity could be huge. We have never seen such a mass entry into the public domain in the digital age. The last one—in 1998, when 1922 slipped its copyright bond—predated Google. “We have shortchanged a generation,” said Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive. “The 20th century is largely missing from the internet.."
Copyright works

Public Draft for the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices

"

Acting Register Karyn Temple Claggett has released a revised draft of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition. This draft is the first update to the Compendium since it was released in December 2014. Public comments on this draft may be submitted from June 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017 using the comment box below.

The draft will become effective on July 3, 2017. Until then, the December 2014 version of the Compendium remains in effect..."

Copyrights

Illegal Internet Streaming of Copyrighted Content: Legislation in the 112th Congress

"Technological developments related to the Internet benefit consumers who want convenient ways
to view and hear information and entertainment content on a variety of electronic devices (such as
televisions, radios, computers, mobile phones, video game consoles, and portable media players).
New technologies offer the potential to help copyright holders promote their creative works for
artistic, educational, and commercial reasons. However, new technologies may increase the risk
of infringement of the copyright holders’ rights because they often provide faster, cheaper, and
easier means of engaging in unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of
copyrighted works than previous technologies. The widespread consumer use of high-speed
Internet connections as well as increased reliance on data storage offered by “cloud computing”
services may also contribute to infringement problems..."

Call the Copyright Office Toll Free -1-877-476-0778
"When you call the U.S. Copyright Office on its toll-free line, you will be given three choices. To request publications or get recorded information about copyright, press 1. To obtain technical support for online registration, press 2. To speak to an information specialist about copyright or registration requirements, press 0."

The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes of Online Indexing Fair Use Under Copyright Law?
"The Google Book Search Library Project, announced in December 2004, raised important
questions about infringing reproduction and fair use under copyright law. Google planned to digitize, index, and display “snippets” of print books in the collections of five major libraries without the permission of the books’ copyright holders, if any. Authors and publishers owning copyrights to these books sued Google in September and October 2005, seeking to enjoin and recover damages for Google’s alleged infringement of their exclusive rights to reproduce and publicly display their works. Google and proponents of its Library Project disputed these allegations. They essentially contended that Google’s proposed uses were not infringing because
Google allowed rights holders to “opt out” of having their books digitized or indexed. They also argued that, even if Google’s proposed uses were infringing, they constituted fair uses under copyright law..."

United States Copyright Office Releases Section 109 Report
Study Examines the Cable and Satellite Statutory Licenses in the Copyright Act
"After more than a year of intensive study, the U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on whether to maintain, modify or eliminate Sections 111, 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act. It will serve as the basis for discussion for possible changes to the statutory licenses.

Section 109 of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA) of 2004 requires the Copyright Office to examine and compare the statutory licensing systems for the cable and satellite television industries under Sections 111, 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and recommend any necessary legislative changes no later than June 30, 2008..."

U.S. Copyright Office Releases New Technology to Process Applications Online
"Handling about 550,000 copyright claims annually, the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress is making it much easier for the public to register and protect its collective creativity. On July 1, the Copyright Office will enter the next phase in the implementation of its multi-year business process re-engineering effort to modernize operations from a paper-based to a Web-based processing environment...

At the heart of the re-engineering initiative is a new online registration system named electronic Copyright Office (eCO), which the Office plans to release through a portal on its Web site on July 1. Filing an eService claim via eCO offers several advantages:

* lower filing fee of $35 for a basic claim;
* fastest processing time;
* earlier effective date of registration;
* online status tracking;
* secure payment by credit or debit card, electronic check or Copyright Office deposit account;
* and ability to upload certain categories of deposits directly into eCO as electronic files."