Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
"There are no small roles, only small actors." — Konstantin Stanislavski
Paraphrasing the famous line from the father of modern acting technique, in establishing the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) on June 16, the Copyright Office effectively declared that there are no small copyrights, only small copyright infringement claims. Time will tell whether this new stage will serve as a well-respected and well-run forum for copyright owners, seeking redress (perhaps a summer "Shakespeare in the Park" to continue shamelessly flogging this analogy) or the legal equivalent of a cruise ship dinner theater. But regardless of the eventual reputation of the CCB, copyright holders and would now be well advised to familiarize themselves with this new forum for resolving copyright infringement claims and to consider its benefits and potential downsides in bringing or defending copyright infringement actions.
Congress passed the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) in December 2020. The CASE Act provided for the Copyright Office to establish the CCB, a three-member tribunal, to resolve certain copyright disputes that involve up to $30,000 in total damages, and any statutory damages are limited to $15,000 per work infringed. (The CCB offers an even more streamlined process called a "smaller claims proceeding" if the claimant is seeking $5,000 or less in monetary relief (excluding attorneys' fees and costs.) The proceedings before the CCB are entirely voluntary. Both parties must agree to participate. If the parties agree to participate, the CCB can consider a number of claims, including for infringement of one of the exclusive rights in the Copyright Act (see, 17 U.S.C. §106). The CCB is prohibited from hearing a number of claims, but most notably:
Once the parties have agreed to proceed before the CCB, the matter will move forward rapidly. The respondent will file a response to the claim. Discovery will begin with the parties required to use the CCB's standard interrogatories and document requests (Good cause will have to be shown to the CCB to have additional relevant discovery, including requests for admission.). No depositions are allowed. Pre-discovery and post-discovery conferences are conducted virtually. There is no formal motion practice. As with motion practice, there are no formal rules of evidence followed by the CCB. Once discovery is completed, the proceedings before the CCB are conducted by means of written submission, hearings, and conferences carried out through telecommunications or video — no in-person attendance is required. In reaching a determination, the CCB can consider: 1) documentary and other nontestimonial evidence; and 2) testimonial evidence. (A request for a review of determination by the Register of Copyrights requires an additional fee.)
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?