Small Claims Procedures for Library and Archives Opt-Outs and Class Actions

The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing procedures for a library or archive to preemptively opt out of Copyright Claims Board (CCB) proceedings, as directed by the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2020. Additionally, the Office is proposing procedures to address a party’s decision to participate in or opt out of a class action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as a claim before the CCB. The CASE Act directs the Register to establish regulations allowing a library or archives that does not wish to participate in proceedings before the CCB to preemptively opt out of all such proceedings. The proposed rule includes procedures by which a library or archives may notify the Office of its intention to opt out. The proposed rule also provides that the Office will maintain a list of libraries and archives that have opted out on its website. With respect to class action proceedings, the proposed rule provides that any party to an active CCB proceeding who receives notice of a class action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the CCB proceeding must either opt out of the class action or seek written dismissal of the CCB within fourteen days of receiving the class action notice. Comments in response to the proposed rule are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on October 4, 2021

Self-archiving and the Copyright Transfer Agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals

A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n = 52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one\u27s works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A society-led, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field\u27s research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others

Copyright Small Claims

It appears beyond dispute that under the current federal system small copyright claimants face formidable challenges in seeking to enforce the exclusive rights to which they are entitled. The Copyright Office therefore recommends that Congress consider the creation of an alternative forum that will enable copyright owners to pursue small infringement matters and related claims arising under the Copyright Act. In light of the state court tradition of referring to claims of modest economic value as “small claims,” many have adopted that term to reference the nature of the claims that are the focus of this Report, as does the Report itself. Such claims, however, are not small to the individual creators who are deprived of income or opportunity due to the misuse of their works, and the problem of addressing lower-value infringements is not a small one for our copyright system. But how would we structure an alternative process? Concerns of pragmatism and efficiency are core considerations, but they are not the only ones, and they must be viewed in the larger context of federal powers. Our Constitution protects both the role of the federal judiciary and the rights of those who participate in adjudicatory proceedings. These principles are enshrined in Article III and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, and in judicial interpretations of these and other constitutional provisions. Any alternative process must fit comfortably within the constitutional parameters. In light of the existing constitutional landscape, the challenges of the current system, and the views and insights of those who participated in this study, it appears that the most promising option to address small copyright claims would be a streamlined adjudication process in which parties would participate by consent. Perhaps not surprisingly, a number of the commenting parties viewed the Copyright Office as the logical and appropriate home for such a small claims system. In recent years, many have emphasized the potential of voluntary solutions to certain problems of copyright enforcement.11 In this case, a voluntary approach necessarily will fall short of a full-fledged judicial process, offering the complete panoply of copyright remedies, to which small copyright claimants could turn reliably and affordably to pursue infringers. Such a process is what our legal system would provide in an ideal world. But in the real world of constitutional and institutional limitations, a voluntary system with strong incentives for participation on both sides seems more attainable, at least in the near term. Importantly, such a voluntary approach would retain a mandatory backstop; parties who declined to consent to the alternative small claims proceeding could still be summoned to federal district court by a claimant who was able to take that path

Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act Regulations

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a notification of inquiry regarding its implementation of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act. The CASE Act establishes the Copyright Claims Board (‘‘CCB’’), an alternative forum in which parties may voluntarily seek to resolve certain copyright infringement and other claims. The Office must establish regulations to govern the CCB and its procedures, including rules addressing service of notice and other documents, waiver of personal service, notifications that parties are opting out of participating in the forum, discovery, a mechanism for certain claims to be resolved by a single CCB Officer, review of CCB determinations by the Register of Copyrights, publication of records, certifications, and fees. The statute also allows the Office to adopt several optional regulations, including regulations addressing claimants’ permissible number of cases, eligible classes of works, the conduct of proceedings, and default determinations. The statute vests the Office with general authority to adopt regulations to carry out its provisions. To assist in promulgating these regulations, the Office seeks public comment regarding the subjects of inquiry discussed in this notification. DATES: Initial written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 26, 2021. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 10, 2021

Certificate registration of a claim to copyright in a published book manufactured in the United States of America

Certificate of registration of a claim to copyright for James E. Allen's manuscript The Negro in New York