Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works, 37341-37347 [2020-12041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37341
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L61of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions
on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05–
1.
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Waterways.
2. In § 100.1102, in Table 1 to
§ 100.1102, revise item ‘‘9’’ to read as
follows:
■
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:
§ 100.1102 Annual Marine Events on the
Colorado River, between Davis Dam
(Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam
(Parker, Arizona).
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 TO § 100.1102
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9. Great Western Tube Float
Sponsor ..............................................................
Event Description ...............................................
Date ....................................................................
Location ..............................................................
Regulated Area ..................................................
*
*
*
Dated: June 3, 2020.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port San Diego.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 202
[Docket No. 2018–12]
Group Registration of Short Online
Literary Works
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is
amending its regulations to establish a
new group registration option for short
online literary works. This final rule
largely adopts the eligibility
requirements set forth in the Office’s
December 2018 notice of proposed
rulemaking, with certain updates. To
qualify for this option, each work must
contain at least 50 but no more than
17,500 words. The works must be
created by the same individual, or
jointly by the same individuals, and
each creator must be named as the
SUMMARY:
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
*
*
copyright claimant or claimants for each
work. The works must all be published
online within a three-calendar-month
period. If these requirements have been
met, the applicant may submit up to 50
works with one application and one
filing fee. The applicant must complete
an online application designated for a
group of ‘‘Short Online Literary Works’’
and upload a .ZIP file containing a
separate digital file for each work. The
Office will examine each work to
determine if it contains a sufficient
amount of creative authorship, and if
the Office registers the claim, the
registration will cover each work as a
separate work of authorship.
[FR Doc. 2020–12627 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
City of Parker, AZ.
River float.
One Saturday in June.
Parker, AZ.
The navigable waters of the Colorado River from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz
County Park.
DATES:
Effective August 17, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and
Associate Register of Copyrights; Robert
J. Kasunic, Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of Registration
Policy and Practice; Kevin R. Amer,
Deputy General Counsel; or Erik Bertin,
Deputy Director of Registration Policy
and Practice, by telephone at 202–707–
3000, or by email at regans@
copyright.gov, rkas@copright.gov,
kamer@copyright.gov, or ebertin@
copyright.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
I. Background
The Copyright Act authorizes the
Register of Copyrights to specify by
regulation the administrative classes of
works for the purpose of seeking a
registration and the deposit required for
each class.1 The Act also gives the
Register the discretion to allow groups
of related works to be registered with
one application and one filing fee.2 This
procedure is known as group
registration.3
This rulemaking was initiated in
response to a petition jointly submitted
by the National Writers Union
(‘‘NWU’’), the American Society of
Journalists and Authors, the Science
Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
Inc. (‘‘SFWA’’), and the Horror Writers
Association, requesting a rulemaking to
create a new group registration option to
accommodate works distributed online
by individual writers, that would not
qualify as contributions to periodicals.4
The petition requested that the Office
create a new group registration
procedure for ‘‘short-form works’’ which
1 17
U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
2 Id.
3 See
generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4.
NWU et al. Comments and Petition for
Rulemaking at 4 (Jan. 30, 2017) (the ‘‘Petition’’),
https://www.regulations.gov/
contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-00130003&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
4 See
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
37342
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
would allow individual writers to
submit one ‘‘application and fee every
three months.’’ 5 The Authors Guild, the
Association of Garden Communicators,
the Society of Children’s Book Authors
and Illustrators, the Songwriters Guild
of America, and the Textbook &
Academic Authors Association
endorsed this petition.6 They stated that
writers ‘‘urgently need a group
registration [option] for short pieces,
especially those disseminated online,’’
including ‘‘blogs, public Facebook posts
. . ., short articles, and even
copyrightable tweets.’’ 7
On December 21, 2018, the Office
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to establish a
new group registration option for ‘‘short
online literary works,’’ to be known as
‘‘GRTX.’’ 8 The NPRM proposed
allowing an applicant to register up to
50 literary works with one application
and one filing fee using the online
Standard Application designated for a
‘‘Literary Work.’’ Each work would have
to contain at least 100 words but no
more than 17,500 words. The works
would have to be created by the same
individual, and that individual must be
named as the copyright claimant for
each work. The works would have to be
published on a website or online
platform within a three-calendar-month
period.
In response to the NPRM, the Office
received comments from SFWA, the
Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild,
the Association of American Publishers
(‘‘AAP’’), NWU and National Press
Photographers Association (‘‘NWU/
NPPA’’), Patrice A. Lyons, Marcos Arias,
and Joseph Savage. The comments were
broadly favorable to the new group
registration option, but also requested
various modifications to the proposed
rule. In general, commenters were
interested in expanding eligibility for
this option to greater numbers of works.
Proposals included broadening the
word-count range for eligible works,
increasing the number of works that
may be included in the group, and
extending eligibility to joint works and
works made for hire.
Having carefully considered each of
the comments, the Office now issues a
5 Petition at 13–14; see also NWU et al. Comment
on Mandatory Deposit of Electronic Books and
Sound Recordings Available Only Online at 3–4, 8–
10, 17–19 (Aug. 18, 2016), https://
www.regulations.gov/
contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-00050009&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
6 Authors Guild et al. Comment at 8–9 (Nov. 17,
2017), https://www.regulations.gov/
contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2017-00090108&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
7 See id.
8 83 FR 65612 (December 21, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
final rule that closely follows the
proposed rule, with certain
modifications. First, the final rule
lowers the minimum number of words
each work must contain from 100 to 50
words. Second, the final rule allows
group registration of joint works,
provided that all works within the
application are jointly authored and the
joint authors are identical for each work.
Third, the rule requires claims under
this option to be submitted using a new
online application specifically for GRTX
filings, rather than on the Standard
Application, and makes certain
technical amendments in accordance
with that change. Finally, the rule
provides that works in the group should
be uploaded to the electronic
registration system in a .ZIP file
containing a separate file for each work,
rather than uploaded individually.
II. The Final Rule
A. Eligibility Requirements
1. Works That May Be Included in the
Group
The Copyright Act defines a ‘‘literary
work’’ as a work ‘‘expressed in words,
numbers, or other verbal or numerical
symbols or indicia, regardless of the
nature of the material objects . . . in
which [it is] embodied.’’ 9 The NPRM
provided that to qualify for the GRTX
group registration option, an eligible
literary work must contain a sufficient
number of words and may not be
comprised mainly of numbers or other
verbal or numerical symbols or indicia.
The Office noted that it would accept
deposit copies that contain text
combined with another form of
authorship, but that claims in any form
of authorship other than ‘‘text’’ would
not be permitted on the application due
to the additional time and effort
necessary to examine works containing
multiple forms of authorship.
Commenters generally accepted these
limitations. NWU/NPPA noted that
some authors, such as bloggers, find it
burdensome to register visual works
separately from related literary works.
However, NWU/NPPA did not request
that the GRTX group option be
expanded to include visual works, and
for reasons of administrability, the
Office is not prepared to do so with this
group registration option.10 The final
rule therefore retains the language
defining an eligible literary work as one
‘‘consisting of text.’’
With respect to the length of eligible
works, the proposed rule defined a
‘‘short’’ online literary work as one that
9 17
U.S.C. 101.
Comment at 2.
10 NWU/NPPA
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
contains at least 100 words and no more
than 17,500 words. The 100-word
threshold was intended to exclude short
phrases and slogans, which are
ineligible for copyright protection,11 as
well as other short forms of expression
that contain less than a paragraph of
text. The latter works are ill-suited to
group registration, the Office noted,
because assessing their copyrightability
would require the Office to engage in a
careful case-by-case analysis that could
undermine the efficiency that this
option is designed to promote. The
17,500-word upper limit was intended
to exclude novels, novellas, or other
longer works, which ‘‘are more likely to
require significant time to create and do
not lend themselves to a rapid and
continuous publication schedule.’’ 12
Several commenters proposed that the
Office modify one or both of these wordcount requirements. The Copyright
Alliance, the Authors Guild, SFWA, and
Joseph Savage requested that the Office
lower the 100-word threshold, pointing
to common types of short literary works
that might be excluded by such a rule,
including poems, blog and microblog
entries, and ‘‘bite-sized fiction.’’ 13 The
Copyright Alliance and the Authors
Guild proposed a 50-word threshold,
arguing that it would address the needs
for efficient review and examination
processes, while also accommodating a
broader variety of short literary works.14
The Office is persuaded by these
commenters that a 100-word threshold
might exclude many copyrightable
literary works that otherwise would be
eligible for group registration under this
option. At the same time, as these
commenters also recognized, some
lower limit is necessary to avoid
difficult and potentially timeconsuming questions over whether
extremely short works contain more
than de minimis expression. Ultimately,
the Office agrees with the Copyright
Alliance and the Authors Guild that a
50-word threshold strikes an
appropriate balance, and accordingly
has incorporated this change into the
final rule. This lower limit, of course,
applies only to eligibility for the GRTX
registration option; the Office is not
purporting to define a word-count-based
threshold to govern copyrightability
determinations for literary works
generally.
11 37
CFR 202.1(a).
FR at 65,614.
13 Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors
Guild Comment at 3–4; SFWA at 3; Joseph Savage
Comment at 2.
14 Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors
Guild Comment at 3–4. Neither SFWA nor Joseph
Savage proposed a specific lower limit.
12 83
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The Copyright Alliance, the Authors
Guild, and SFWA also requested that
the Office increase the proposed 17,500word upper limit.15 The Copyright
Alliance suggested a ceiling of at least
20,000 words, while the Authors Guild
and SFWA proposed 40,000 words. The
Authors Guild asserted that the 17,500
threshold is arbitrary and noted that
freelance articles written for online
publications are sometimes greater than
20,000 words. SFWA disagreed with the
Office’s decision to exclude novellas,
arguing that they are ‘‘distinct from
novels in both length and content,’’ and
noting that they are ‘‘frequently
published in the same venues and in the
same manner as . . . other forms of
short fiction.’’ 16
The Office understands that defining
a category of ‘‘short’’ literary works is
inherently imprecise and that some
online works of more than 17,500 words
may share common features with
shorter works. But the commenters
advocating the inclusion of novellas and
other longer-form works did not
demonstrate a particular need for group
registration of such works. They offered
nothing to contradict the Office’s
conclusion that, in contrast to blog
entries, social media posts, and the like,
novellas and similar lengthy works
typically are not created or updated on
a rapid and continuing basis.17
Moreover, contrary to the Author’s
Guild’s suggestion, the 17,500-word
limit was not chosen arbitrarily. As
discussed in the NPRM, it is based on
classifications that appear to be widely
established in the marketplace, as
indicated by their use in connection
with three well known literary
awards.18 Therefore, the final rule
retains the 17,500-word upper limit.
One commenter, Joseph Savage,
requested that the Office clarify whether
the GRTX option extends to written
interactions an author may have with
other parties in connection with an
online work—for example, postings in a
comments section in response to a work
on a social media platform.19 To the
extent this comment is asking whether
an applicant may include comments
authored by other persons within an
application, the answer is no, as the rule
requires that all works in the group be
created by the same individual or (as
discussed below) by the same joint
authors. An author could, however,
include his or own comments as
separate works within a group, provided
they satisfy the eligibility criteria.
2. Number of Works That May be
Included in the Group
The NPRM proposed that an applicant
be allowed to include up to 50 literary
works in each submission. Several
commenters requested modification of
this requirement. Marcos Arias
suggested that the limit be lowered to 10
works per application, arguing that a 50work limit would lead to lengthy
processing times and would not
significantly improve efficiency.20 Other
commenters sought to increase the
proposed limit. SFWA suggested that a
limit of 100 works would be more likely
to represent the output of an average
professional writer/blogger, based on an
estimate of one post per day.21 The
Copyright Alliance and the Authors
Guild similarly argued that the limit
should be designed to accommodate
writers who publish on a daily basis.22
NWU/NPPA suggested a limit of up to
500 works to accommodate authors who
frequently publish works on multiple
platforms.23
The Office understands commenters’
desire to increase the number of works
allowable within a single GRTX
application to accommodate daily
bloggers and other authors who create
and publish a high volume of works. For
the reasons discussed in the NPRM,
however, the Office continues to believe
that a limit of 50 works strikes an
appropriate balance between authors’
interests and the Office’s administrative
capabilities. The final rule therefore
retains this limitation. The Office
reiterates, however, that there is no limit
to the number of applications that may
be submitted. We are hopeful that that
option will mitigate much of this
concern.24
3. Title Information
The NPRM provided that an applicant
must provide a title for each work in the
group and a title for the group as a
whole. No commenters objected to these
requirements, and therefore they are
retained in the final rule. The NPRM
also included a requirement that the
applicant append the term ‘‘GRTX’’ to
20 Marcos
15 Copyright
Alliance Comment at 3; Authors
Guild Comment at 3–4; SFWA Comment at 2.
16 SFWA Comment at 2.
17 See 83 FR 65,614 (‘‘[I]t seems unlikely that
even a prolific author would be able to write, edit,
and publish 50 ‘long form’ works within a threemonth period.’’).
18 See 83 FR 65,614.
19 Joseph Savage Comment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
Arias Comment at 1.
Comment at 3.
22 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5 (proposing 90
works); Authors Guild Comment at 3 (proposing
100 works).
23 NWU/NPPA Comment at 4.
24 See SFWA Comment at 3 (‘‘We understand that
more than one application can be submitted, and
if the fee is reasonable, that would to some extent
address this concern.’’).
21 SFWA
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37343
the beginning of the group title, so that
the Office could differentiate these
applications from others filed on the
Standard Application. Because, as
discussed below, the Office is
implementing a new electronic
application specifically for GRTX, this
requirement is no longer necessary and
is not included in the final rule. The
final rule does, however, add a
requirement that the application specify
the total number of short online literary
works that are included in the group.
4. Author and Claimant
Under the proposed rule, to be
eligible for the GRTX option, the author
must be named as the copyright
claimant on the application, even if a
different party actually owns the
copyright in each work. The Copyright
Alliance and AAP both questioned this
requirement.25 While they
acknowledged that this practice will
advance the efficient examination of
each application by allowing the Office
to focus on each work’s copyrightability,
they expressed concern that it may
make for an inaccurate public record of
current ownership.26 The Office takes
these concerns seriously but believes
they are outweighed in this instance by
the need to provide an efficient
examination process. Where a copyright
claimant is not the author of the work,
the Copyright Act requires the
application to include a statement of
how claimant obtained ownership of the
copyright.27 Examiners reviewing
claims of this type would be required to
verify that the application contained a
legally sufficient statement to this
effect—a process that could involve
correspondence to resolve
discrepancies. Moreover, as noted in the
NPRM, requiring the author to be named
as the claimant is consistent with the
longstanding principle that an author
may always be named as the copyright
claimant, even if she does not own any
of the exclusive rights when the claim
is submitted.28
Furthermore, with respect to the
concern over potential inaccuracies in
the public record, it should be noted
that if someone other than the author
has acquired all the rights in the works,
a copyright registration is not
necessarily the best way to add that
information to the public record. In
most cases, registration simply provides
a ‘‘snapshot’’ of who owned the
25 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP
Comment at 2–3.
26 Copyright Alliance Comment at 5–6; AAP
Comment at 2–3.
27 17 U.S.C. 409(5).
28 See 83 FR at 65,615 (citing Compendium of
U.S. Copyright Office Practices sec. 619.7).
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
37344
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
copyright as of the effective date of
registration. Instead, a change in
ownership can be added to the public
record by recording the document that
transferred the copyright with the
Office.
The proposed rule also provided that
the works submitted under the GRTX
group option must be created by the
same individual, thus excluding joint
works from eligibility. SFWA contended
that this requirement would be a
problem for collaborations between two
or more authors.29 It requested that joint
authors be allowed to use GRTX, as long
as the collaborators are listed in the
copyright notice for each work.30
The Office understands that there may
be circumstances under which joint
authors produce the types of short
online literary works that may benefit
from the GRTX option. Therefore, the
final rule expands eligibility for the
option to joint authors of literary works,
in addition to individual authors. Under
this option, all literary works within an
application must be jointly authored,
and the joint authors must be identical
for each literary work. For example, a
group consisting of ten literary works
jointly authored by the same two
individuals, and one additional literary
work authored by those persons and a
third co-author, would not be eligible.
The Office intends to strictly enforce
this requirement to ensure an efficient
registration process. GRTX applications
for joint works that do not comply will
be refused without correspondence. To
facilitate compliance, the Office will
prepare public informational materials
warning of this consequence. It also
should be noted that any claim in
individual or joint authorship under
this option must be limited to ‘‘text’’
and cannot include other forms of
authorship that can be claimed on a
Standard Application for a literary
work.
Finally, the proposed rule excluded
works made for hire. As explained in
the NPRM, the GRTX option ‘‘is
intended to benefit individual writers
who publish their works on the internet,
but do not have the time or resources to
register their works with the Office. This
is less of a concern for corporate authors
or authors who are hired to create a
work for another party.’’ 31 Commenters
generally accepted this rationale, but the
Copyright Alliance and AAP
encouraged the Office to consider
expanding the GRTX option to include
29 SFWA
Comment at 3.
Comment at 3.
31 83 FR at 65,614.
30 SFWA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
certain smaller business entities who
may also face resource limitations.32
The Office appreciates the needs of
smaller entities who face similar
economic challenges in registration as
individual creators. However, the Office
does not currently have a mechanism to
differentiate those entities from larger
corporate authors for purposes of
registration. While the Office is open to
considering possible avenues through
which it could extend the GRTX option
to certain corporate authors in the
future, it does not have the tools
necessary to do so at this time. The final
rule accordingly retains the exclusion of
works for hire.
5. Publication Information
Under the proposed rule, eligible
works were required to be published as
part of a website or online platform
(such as an online newspaper, social
media website, or social networking
platform), and all had to be published
within a three-month calendar period.
The NPRM explained that a work would
satisfy this requirement if it was first
published online or simultaneously
published online and in physical form.
By contrast, a work would not be
eligible for GRTX if it was published
solely in physical form or if it was first
published in physical form and then
subsequently published online.33
The Copyright Alliance and the
Authors Guild argued that authors
should be allowed to register their
works under this option regardless of
whether they are published or
unpublished.34 The Copyright Alliance
noted that many authors struggle with
the complex legal distinctions between
published an unpublished works.35 The
Authors Guild asserted that the
distinction serves no apparent need and
exacerbates the potential for confusion.
These and other organizations requested
that the Office provide additional
guidance on what constitutes
publication in the online
environment.36
Commenters also argued that the facts
relevant to publication may be unknown
32 Copyright
Alliance Comment at 5; AAP
Comment at 2.
33 AAP requested clarification on whether other
qualifying online works would be eligible for this
option ‘‘if they reside on platforms behind a
paywall.’’ AAP Comment at 3. The fact that a work
is located behind a paywall would not disqualify
it from eligibility, provided it is ‘‘published as part
of a website or online platform.’’ Indeed, the final
rule expressly includes ‘‘online newspapers,’’
which commonly display articles behind paywalls.
34 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5; Authors
Guild Comment at 4–5.
35 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5.
36 Copyright Alliance Comment at 4–5; Authors
Guild Comment at 4–5; SFWA Comment at 3; AAP
Comment at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to certain authors. The Authors Guild,
the Copyright Alliance, and NWU/
NPPA commented that authors may
have no control over whether a
publisher distributes their works online
or in physical form and that such
authors may not know if their works
were first published online, first
published in physical form, or
simultaneously published online and in
print.37 NWU/NPPA accordingly
requested that the Office remove the
word ‘‘first’’ from the references to
online publication.38 The Authors Guild
requested that ‘‘simultaneous’’
publication be defined to mean
‘‘published within 30 days.’’ 39
The Office understands that
determinations regarding the fact and
timing of publication may present
difficult legal questions, especially in
the online context. However, the statute
requires that the registration application
include, for published works, the date
and nation of the work’s first
publication.40 In light of this
requirement, as well as the technical
constraints of the Office’s current
registration system, the Office believes
that the inclusion of both categories of
works in the GRTX option would
undermine the efficiency of the
examination process, and therefore the
final rule retains the publication
requirement.41 The Office notes,
however, that under its registration
practices, the Office ‘‘will accept the
applicant’s representation that website
content is published or unpublished,
unless that statement is implausible or
is contradicted by information provided
elsewhere in the registration materials
or in the Office’s records or by
information that is known to the
registration specialist.’’ 42 Further, the
Office is currently exploring issues
regarding publication more generally in
an effort to provide greater guidance to
registration applicants.43
Commenters further argued that the
rule should not be limited to works
published online but should also
provide for group registration of works
37 Authors Guild Comment at 4–5; Copyright
Alliance Comment at 4–5; NWU/NPA Comment at
5–6.
38 NWU/NPA Comment at 5–6.
39 Authors Guild Comment at 4–5.
40 17 U.S.C. 409(8).
41 The proposed rule required applicants to list
the earliest date that the works were published. In
light of additional functionality in the new GRTX
application that was not available in the Standard
Application, the final rule adds a requirement that
the applicant also list the latest date that the works
were published.
42 U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
Copyright Office Practices 1008.3 (F) (3d ed. 2017)
(‘‘Compendium (Third)’’).
43 See Online Publication, 84 FR 66,328 (Dec. 4,
2019).
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
published in physical form.44 NWU/
NPPA specifically noted that the
petition requested, in addition to a
group option for works in electronic
format, an option to register ‘‘multiple
written works by the same creator first
published on multiple dates, regardless
of whether they were published as
contributions to periodicals.’’ 45 The
primary focus of the petition and
supporting facts, however, was the need
for an accommodation for works
published in electronic format,46 and
the GRTX option was tailored to address
that demonstrated area of need. The
final rule therefore remains limited to
works published online.
B. Application Requirements
Under the rule as initially proposed,
applicants would have been required to
submit their claims using the online
Standard Application designated for a
‘‘Literary Work.’’ Since the close of the
comment period, however, the Office
has worked with the Library of
Congress’s Office of the Chief
Information Officer, and a new online
application is being developed
specifically for GRTX that applicants
will be able to access and submit
through the electronic registration
system (‘‘eCO’’). The final rule
accordingly has been updated to require
applicants to submit claims using that
application. The Office expects to
prepare an online tutorial to provide
guidance on using the new application
and will include help text within the
application itself. The Office also
intends to update the sections of the
Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office
Practices that discuss the Office’s
procedures for group registration to
address this new option.
The new application is expected to be
implemented into the eCO system by
August 2020. The Office has provided
for the final rule to take effect that
month and is publishing the rule now
to give authors of eligible works
sufficient advance notice of this new
option, so that they may gather their
data in anticipation of submitting
applications. Nevertheless, the
availability of the GRTX application is
ultimately dependent on the completion
of system development and may be
affected by unanticipated delays in that
process. The Office will issue a public
announcement when implementation is
complete and this option is available to
applicants.
44 Authors Guild Comment at 6; NWU/NPA
Comment at 6–7.
45 NWU/NPA Comment at 6–7.
46 See Petition at 13–14.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
The proposed rule included language
that would allow the Office to waive the
electronic filing requirement upon
written request in exceptional
circumstances.47 This provision has
been retained in the final rule. One
commenter requested that the Office
allow applicants to use paper forms
without obtaining a waiver, suggesting
that that option may be more efficient
for some applicants.48 The Office
concludes, however, that a general
requirement of electronic filing best
promotes the efficient use of
examination resources, and that the
waiver option adequately
accommodates applicants unable to
meet that requirement. As noted in the
NPRM, the Office expects such cases to
be rare given that creators of works
eligible for this option typically will be
capable of using the electronic
registration system.49
The proposed rule also required that
the applicant submit a sequentially
numbered list containing a title/file
name for each work in the group, and
that the list satisfy certain technical and
formatting requirements.50 Some
commenters urged the Office to provide
detailed instructional materials to
ensure that applicants are able to satisfy
these and other provisions.51 The Office
intends to provide such guidance in the
online materials noted above.
C. Deposit Requirements
Under the proposed rule, applicants
must submit one complete copy of each
work in the group, the copies must be
uploaded to the electronic registration
system in a specified file format, and all
of the files must be submitted in the
same format. No commenters took issue
with these requirements, which are
reflected in the final rule.
The proposed rule also required
copies to be submitted in an ‘‘orderly’’
manner, meaning that each work was to
be uploaded in a separate digital file.
The Authors Guild found this
requirement ‘‘unduly laborious and
unnecessary,’’ arguing that applicants
should be allowed to submit their works
in a single document with each work
starting on a new page, or, alternatively,
to provide a single upload using file
compression.52 In light of this comment,
and based on the Office’s experience
administering other recently adopted
group registration options, the Office
agrees that the regulatory language
47 83
FR at 65,615.
Arias Comment at 1.
49 83 FR at 65,615.
50 83 FR at 65,615.
51 See Authors Guild Comment at 6–7; Copyright
Alliance Comment at 3.
52 Authors Guild Comment at 6.
48 Marcus
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37345
should be amended to provide for
submission of works in a single upload.
The final rule still requires that each
work in the group be contained in a
separate digital file, but it provides that
they should be uploaded together in a
.ZIP file. The final rule retains the
requirement that the file name for each
work match the corresponding title
entered on the application.53
D. Filing Fee
The NPRM provided that the filing fee
for the GRTX option would be $55, the
fee applicable to claims submitted on
the Standard Application. It further
noted that the Office had recently
proposed to increase the Standard
Application fee to $75 and that if that
proposal were adopted, the new fee
would apply to GRTX claims.54
Subsequently, the Office submitted a
final proposed schedule and analysis of
fees to Congress in which it reduced the
proposed increase to $65.55 Based on
the comments received in the fee study
proceeding, and in light of the Office’s
inability under the current registration
system to charge different prices for
different types of works submitted on
the Standard Application, the Office
reiterated its recommendation that the
GRTX fee be the same as the Standard
Application fee.56
Following the 120-day statutory
period for congressional review,57 the
Office promulgated a final rule
implementing the proposed fee
schedule.58 The rule noted the Office’s
expectation that GRTX registrations
‘‘would require a workflow similar to
claims submitted on the Standard
Application’’ and that commenters in
the fee study proceeding generally
supported linking the two fees.59
Nevertheless, to avoid potential
confusion, the Office did not adopt the
GRTX fee as part of that rule, noting that
it instead would adopt the fee when it
issued a final rule implementing the
GRTX option.60
Although the Office is now providing
a standalone application for GRTX
53 See
83 FR at 65,616.
FR at 65,616.
55 U.S. Copyright Office, Proposed Schedule and
Analysis of Copyright Fees to Go into Effect in
Spring 2020 21 (2019) (‘‘Fee Study’’), available at
https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/
feestudy2018/proposed-fee-schedule.pdf.
56 Fee Study at 29.
57 See 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(5).
58 Copyright Office Fees, 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19,
2020).
59 Id. at 9380–81.
60 Id. The Office is following the same approach
in implementing its proposed new registration
option for a group of works on an album of music.
See Group Registration of Works on an Album of
Music, 84 FR 22,762 (May 20, 2019).
54 83
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
37346
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
submissions, it continues to believe it is
appropriate to charge the same fee as is
charged for Standard Application
filings. While the initial proposal was
made in part due to an inability to adopt
differential pricing for Standard
Application claims, the Office believes
that it is reasonable to set the GRTX fee,
at least initially, at the same fee, given
the similarities in expected workflow
associated with examining these claims.
The final rule therefore establishes a $65
fee. Given, however, that the Office now
has greater flexibility to adjust fees
specifically for this option, it will gather
additional data to determine if this
amount should be adjusted once this
option is implemented, including
aligning this fee to other group options
such as that relevant to contributions to
a periodical.
E. The Scope of a Group Registration
The NPRM provided that claims in
the selection, coordination, or
arrangement of the group as a whole
will not be permitted on the application,
and the group will not be considered a
compilation or a collective work for
purposes of sections 101, 103(b), or
504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act. No
commenters took issue with this aspect
of the NPRM.
F. Correspondence and Refusals
The NPRM stated that the Office may
refuse the entire claim if it is defective
on certain grounds, including, among
other reasons, if the applicant submits a
paper form; the applicant submits more
than 50 works; a work falls outside the
word-count parameters; the applicant
asserts a claim in ‘‘text’’ and another
form of authorship; works in the group
were published more than three months
apart; or the names provided in the
author and claimant fields do not
match. The Authors Guild and the
Copyright Alliance advocated a more
lenient review policy, urging the Office
to correspond with applicants to correct
errors of this type.61 The Office
recognizes that rejecting applications for
technical noncompliance can present
burdens for applicants, some of whom
may conclude that the cost of
submitting a new application is not
worth it. At the same time, the Office
must ensure that its examination
resources are used in a manner that
maintains the efficiency of group
registration. The Office therefore
reserves the right to refuse any
application that does not comply with
the requirements set forth in the final
rule, or modify the claim to become
compliant without communicating with
the applicant.
As noted, however, the Office intends
to issue additional instructional
materials to assist applicants in
determining their eligibility for this
option and in completing the
application. More generally, the Office
will continue to explore tools to assist
applicants as it moves toward
implementation of a next-generation
electronic registration system. The
Office is hopeful that these resources
will provide useful guidance to authors
interested in exercising this option and
will minimize the need for
correspondence.
■
G. Supplementary Registrations
*
*
*
*
(10) Registration of a claim in a
group of short online literary
works .........................................
A supplementary registration is a
special type of registration that may be
used ‘‘to correct an error in a copyright
registration or to amplify the
information given in a registration.’’ 62
The Office has created multiple versions
of a form that may be used to correct or
amplify information in registrations
made under specified group registration
options, but the Office has not yet
created a version for a registration of a
group of short online literary works.
Therefore, the final rule clarifies that
applicants should contact the Office of
Registration Policy & Practice to obtain
instructions before seeking a
supplementary registration involving
these types of claims.
This update constitutes a change to a
‘‘rule[] of agency . . . procedure[] or
practice.’’ 63 It does not ‘‘alter the rights
or interests of parties,’’ but merely
‘‘alter[s] the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their
viewpoints to the agency.’’ 64 It therefore
is not subject to the notice and comment
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 201
Copyright, General provisions.
37 CFR Part 202
Copyright, Preregistration and
registration of claims to copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Copyright Office amends
37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:
PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 201
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
62 17
U.S.C. 408(d).
U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
64 JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C.
Cir. 1994).
63 5
61 Authors Guild Comment at 6–7; Copyright
Alliance Comment at 2–3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Amend § 201.3 in table 1 to
paragraph (c) by redesignating
paragraphs (c)(10) through (27) as
paragraphs (c)(11) through (28),
respectively, and adding new paragraph
(c)(10).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation,
and related services, special services, and
services performed by the Licensing
Division.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c)
*
*
*
*
*
65
*
PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND
REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO
COPYRIGHT
3. The authority citation for part 202
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
4. Amend § 202.4 as follows:
a. Add paragraph (j).
b. In paragraph (n), in the first
sentence, remove ‘‘paragraphs’’ and add
in its place ‘‘paragraph’’ and in the
second sentence, remove ‘‘paragraphs
(c), (g), (h), (i), or (k)’’ and add in their
place ‘‘paragraph (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), or
(k)’’.
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
■
§ 202.4
Group Registration.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Group registration of short online
literary works. Pursuant to the authority
granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(2), the
Register of Copyrights has determined
that a group of literary works may be
registered in Class TX with one
application, the required deposit, and
the filing fee required by § 201.3(c) if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The group may include up to 50
short online literary works, and the
application must specify the total
number of short online literary works
that are included in the group. For
purposes of this section, a short online
literary work is a work consisting of text
that contains at least 50 words and no
more than 17,500 words, such as a
poem, short story, article, essay,
column, blog entry, or social media
post. The work must be published as
part of a website or online platform,
including online newspapers, social
media websites, and social networking
platforms. The group may not include
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 120 / Monday, June 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
computer programs, audiobooks,
podcasts, or emails. Claims in any form
of authorship other than ‘‘text’’ or
claims in the selection, coordination, or
arrangement of the group as a whole
will not be permitted on the application.
(2) All of the works must be published
within a three-calendar-month period,
and the application must identify the
earliest and latest date that the works
were published.
(3) All the works must be created by
the same individual, or jointly by the
same individuals, and each creator must
be named as the copyright claimant or
claimants for each work in the group.
(4) The works must not be works
made for hire.
(5) The applicant must provide a title
for each work and a title for the group
as a whole.
(6) The applicant must complete and
submit the online application
designated for a group of short online
literary works. The application may be
submitted by any of the parties listed in
§ 202.3(c)(1).
(7) The applicant must submit one
complete copy of each work. The works
must be assembled in an orderly form
with each work in a separate digital file.
The file name for each work must match
the title as submitted on the application.
All of the works must be submitted in
one of the electronic formats approved
by the Office, and must be uploaded to
the electronic registration system in a
.ZIP file. The file size for each uploaded
.ZIP file must not exceed 500
megabytes.
(8) The applicant must submit a
sequentially numbered list containing a
title/file name for each work in the
group. The list must also include the
publication date and word count for
each work. The numbered list must be
contained in an electronic file in Excel
format (.xls), Portable Document Format
(PDF), or other electronic format
approved by the Office, and the file
name for the list must contain the title
of the group and the case number
assigned to the application by the
electronic registration system (e.g.,
‘‘Title Of Group Case Number
16283927239.xls’’).
(9) In an exceptional case, the
Copyright Office may waive the online
filing requirement set forth in paragraph
(j)(6) of this section or may grant special
relief from the deposit requirement
under § 202.20(d), subject to such
conditions as the Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of the Office of
Registration Policy and Practice may
impose on the applicant.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Jun 19, 2020
Jkt 250001
§ 202.6
[Amended]
5. Amend § 202.6 by adding ‘‘or for a
group of short online literary works
registered under § 202.4(j),’’ after
‘‘§ 202.4(c),’’ in paragraph (e)(2).
■
Dated: May 26, 2020.
Maria Strong,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director
of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2020–12041 Filed 6–19–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 282
[EPA–R06–UST–2018–0704; FRL–10009–
03–Region 6]
Texas: Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions and Incorporation by
Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the State
of Texas’s Underground Storage Tank
(UST) program submitted by the State.
EPA has determined that these revisions
satisfy all requirements needed for
program approval. This action also
codifies EPA’s approval of Texas’s State
program and incorporates by reference
those provisions of the State regulations
that we have determined meet the
requirements for approval. The
provisions will be subject to EPA’s
inspection and enforcement authorities
under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA
Subtitle I and other applicable statutory
and regulatory provisions.
DATES: This rule is effective August 21,
2020, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by July 22, 2020. If EPA
receives adverse comment, it will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register, as of August 21, 2020, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37347
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: lincoln.audray@epa.gov.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–UST–2018–
0704. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov, or email. The
Federal https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
email comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties, and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA
may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
The index to the docket for this action
is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov.
You can view and copy the
documents that form the basis for this
codification and associated publicly
available docket materials are available
either through www.regulations.gov or
at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite #500,
Dallas, Texas 75270. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures
due to COVID–19. We recommend that
you telephone Audray Lincoln,
Environmental Protection Specialist, at
(214) 665–2239, before visiting the
Region 6 office. Interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
office at least two weeks in advance.
E:\FR\FM\22JNR1.SGM
22JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 120 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37341-37347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 202
[Docket No. 2018-12]
Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulations to
establish a new group registration option for short online literary
works. This final rule largely adopts the eligibility requirements set
forth in the Office's December 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking, with
certain updates. To qualify for this option, each work must contain at
least 50 but no more than 17,500 words. The works must be created by
the same individual, or jointly by the same individuals, and each
creator must be named as the copyright claimant or claimants for each
work. The works must all be published online within a three-calendar-
month period. If these requirements have been met, the applicant may
submit up to 50 works with one application and one filing fee. The
applicant must complete an online application designated for a group of
``Short Online Literary Works'' and upload a .ZIP file containing a
separate digital file for each work. The Office will examine each work
to determine if it contains a sufficient amount of creative authorship,
and if the Office registers the claim, the registration will cover each
work as a separate work of authorship.
DATES: Effective August 17, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and
Associate Register of Copyrights; Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register
of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice; Kevin
R. Amer, Deputy General Counsel; or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of
Registration Policy and Practice, by telephone at 202-707-3000, or by
email at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify
by regulation the administrative classes of works for the purpose of
seeking a registration and the deposit required for each class.\1\ The
Act also gives the Register the discretion to allow groups of related
works to be registered with one application and one filing fee.\2\ This
procedure is known as group registration.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
\2\ Id.
\3\ See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking was initiated in response to a petition jointly
submitted by the National Writers Union (``NWU''), the American Society
of Journalists and Authors, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of
America, Inc. (``SFWA''), and the Horror Writers Association,
requesting a rulemaking to create a new group registration option to
accommodate works distributed online by individual writers, that would
not qualify as contributions to periodicals.\4\ The petition requested
that the Office create a new group registration procedure for ``short-
form works'' which
[[Page 37342]]
would allow individual writers to submit one ``application and fee
every three months.'' \5\ The Authors Guild, the Association of Garden
Communicators, the Society of Children's Book Authors and Illustrators,
the Songwriters Guild of America, and the Textbook & Academic Authors
Association endorsed this petition.\6\ They stated that writers
``urgently need a group registration [option] for short pieces,
especially those disseminated online,'' including ``blogs, public
Facebook posts . . ., short articles, and even copyrightable tweets.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See NWU et al. Comments and Petition for Rulemaking at 4
(Jan. 30, 2017) (the ``Petition''), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0013-0003&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
\5\ Petition at 13-14; see also NWU et al. Comment on Mandatory
Deposit of Electronic Books and Sound Recordings Available Only
Online at 3-4, 8-10, 17-19 (Aug. 18, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0005-0009&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
\6\ Authors Guild et al. Comment at 8-9 (Nov. 17, 2017), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2017-0009-0108&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2018, the Office published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NPRM'') to establish a new group registration option for
``short online literary works,'' to be known as ``GRTX.'' \8\ The NPRM
proposed allowing an applicant to register up to 50 literary works with
one application and one filing fee using the online Standard
Application designated for a ``Literary Work.'' Each work would have to
contain at least 100 words but no more than 17,500 words. The works
would have to be created by the same individual, and that individual
must be named as the copyright claimant for each work. The works would
have to be published on a website or online platform within a three-
calendar-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 83 FR 65612 (December 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, the Office received comments from SFWA,
the Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, the Association of American
Publishers (``AAP''), NWU and National Press Photographers Association
(``NWU/NPPA''), Patrice A. Lyons, Marcos Arias, and Joseph Savage. The
comments were broadly favorable to the new group registration option,
but also requested various modifications to the proposed rule. In
general, commenters were interested in expanding eligibility for this
option to greater numbers of works. Proposals included broadening the
word-count range for eligible works, increasing the number of works
that may be included in the group, and extending eligibility to joint
works and works made for hire.
Having carefully considered each of the comments, the Office now
issues a final rule that closely follows the proposed rule, with
certain modifications. First, the final rule lowers the minimum number
of words each work must contain from 100 to 50 words. Second, the final
rule allows group registration of joint works, provided that all works
within the application are jointly authored and the joint authors are
identical for each work. Third, the rule requires claims under this
option to be submitted using a new online application specifically for
GRTX filings, rather than on the Standard Application, and makes
certain technical amendments in accordance with that change. Finally,
the rule provides that works in the group should be uploaded to the
electronic registration system in a .ZIP file containing a separate
file for each work, rather than uploaded individually.
II. The Final Rule
A. Eligibility Requirements
1. Works That May Be Included in the Group
The Copyright Act defines a ``literary work'' as a work ``expressed
in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia,
regardless of the nature of the material objects . . . in which [it is]
embodied.'' \9\ The NPRM provided that to qualify for the GRTX group
registration option, an eligible literary work must contain a
sufficient number of words and may not be comprised mainly of numbers
or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia. The Office noted that
it would accept deposit copies that contain text combined with another
form of authorship, but that claims in any form of authorship other
than ``text'' would not be permitted on the application due to the
additional time and effort necessary to examine works containing
multiple forms of authorship. Commenters generally accepted these
limitations. NWU/NPPA noted that some authors, such as bloggers, find
it burdensome to register visual works separately from related literary
works. However, NWU/NPPA did not request that the GRTX group option be
expanded to include visual works, and for reasons of administrability,
the Office is not prepared to do so with this group registration
option.\10\ The final rule therefore retains the language defining an
eligible literary work as one ``consisting of text.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 17 U.S.C. 101.
\10\ NWU/NPPA Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the length of eligible works, the proposed rule
defined a ``short'' online literary work as one that contains at least
100 words and no more than 17,500 words. The 100-word threshold was
intended to exclude short phrases and slogans, which are ineligible for
copyright protection,\11\ as well as other short forms of expression
that contain less than a paragraph of text. The latter works are ill-
suited to group registration, the Office noted, because assessing their
copyrightability would require the Office to engage in a careful case-
by-case analysis that could undermine the efficiency that this option
is designed to promote. The 17,500-word upper limit was intended to
exclude novels, novellas, or other longer works, which ``are more
likely to require significant time to create and do not lend themselves
to a rapid and continuous publication schedule.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 37 CFR 202.1(a).
\12\ 83 FR at 65,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters proposed that the Office modify one or both of
these word-count requirements. The Copyright Alliance, the Authors
Guild, SFWA, and Joseph Savage requested that the Office lower the 100-
word threshold, pointing to common types of short literary works that
might be excluded by such a rule, including poems, blog and microblog
entries, and ``bite-sized fiction.'' \13\ The Copyright Alliance and
the Authors Guild proposed a 50-word threshold, arguing that it would
address the needs for efficient review and examination processes, while
also accommodating a broader variety of short literary works.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at
3-4; SFWA at 3; Joseph Savage Comment at 2.
\14\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at
3-4. Neither SFWA nor Joseph Savage proposed a specific lower limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office is persuaded by these commenters that a 100-word
threshold might exclude many copyrightable literary works that
otherwise would be eligible for group registration under this option.
At the same time, as these commenters also recognized, some lower limit
is necessary to avoid difficult and potentially time-consuming
questions over whether extremely short works contain more than de
minimis expression. Ultimately, the Office agrees with the Copyright
Alliance and the Authors Guild that a 50-word threshold strikes an
appropriate balance, and accordingly has incorporated this change into
the final rule. This lower limit, of course, applies only to
eligibility for the GRTX registration option; the Office is not
purporting to define a word-count-based threshold to govern
copyrightability determinations for literary works generally.
[[Page 37343]]
The Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, and SFWA also requested
that the Office increase the proposed 17,500-word upper limit.\15\ The
Copyright Alliance suggested a ceiling of at least 20,000 words, while
the Authors Guild and SFWA proposed 40,000 words. The Authors Guild
asserted that the 17,500 threshold is arbitrary and noted that
freelance articles written for online publications are sometimes
greater than 20,000 words. SFWA disagreed with the Office's decision to
exclude novellas, arguing that they are ``distinct from novels in both
length and content,'' and noting that they are ``frequently published
in the same venues and in the same manner as . . . other forms of short
fiction.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at
3-4; SFWA Comment at 2.
\16\ SFWA Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office understands that defining a category of ``short''
literary works is inherently imprecise and that some online works of
more than 17,500 words may share common features with shorter works.
But the commenters advocating the inclusion of novellas and other
longer-form works did not demonstrate a particular need for group
registration of such works. They offered nothing to contradict the
Office's conclusion that, in contrast to blog entries, social media
posts, and the like, novellas and similar lengthy works typically are
not created or updated on a rapid and continuing basis.\17\ Moreover,
contrary to the Author's Guild's suggestion, the 17,500-word limit was
not chosen arbitrarily. As discussed in the NPRM, it is based on
classifications that appear to be widely established in the
marketplace, as indicated by their use in connection with three well
known literary awards.\18\ Therefore, the final rule retains the
17,500-word upper limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 83 FR 65,614 (``[I]t seems unlikely that even a
prolific author would be able to write, edit, and publish 50 `long
form' works within a three-month period.'').
\18\ See 83 FR 65,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter, Joseph Savage, requested that the Office clarify
whether the GRTX option extends to written interactions an author may
have with other parties in connection with an online work--for example,
postings in a comments section in response to a work on a social media
platform.\19\ To the extent this comment is asking whether an applicant
may include comments authored by other persons within an application,
the answer is no, as the rule requires that all works in the group be
created by the same individual or (as discussed below) by the same
joint authors. An author could, however, include his or own comments as
separate works within a group, provided they satisfy the eligibility
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Joseph Savage Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Number of Works That May be Included in the Group
The NPRM proposed that an applicant be allowed to include up to 50
literary works in each submission. Several commenters requested
modification of this requirement. Marcos Arias suggested that the limit
be lowered to 10 works per application, arguing that a 50-work limit
would lead to lengthy processing times and would not significantly
improve efficiency.\20\ Other commenters sought to increase the
proposed limit. SFWA suggested that a limit of 100 works would be more
likely to represent the output of an average professional writer/
blogger, based on an estimate of one post per day.\21\ The Copyright
Alliance and the Authors Guild similarly argued that the limit should
be designed to accommodate writers who publish on a daily basis.\22\
NWU/NPPA suggested a limit of up to 500 works to accommodate authors
who frequently publish works on multiple platforms.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Marcos Arias Comment at 1.
\21\ SFWA Comment at 3.
\22\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5 (proposing 90 works);
Authors Guild Comment at 3 (proposing 100 works).
\23\ NWU/NPPA Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office understands commenters' desire to increase the number of
works allowable within a single GRTX application to accommodate daily
bloggers and other authors who create and publish a high volume of
works. For the reasons discussed in the NPRM, however, the Office
continues to believe that a limit of 50 works strikes an appropriate
balance between authors' interests and the Office's administrative
capabilities. The final rule therefore retains this limitation. The
Office reiterates, however, that there is no limit to the number of
applications that may be submitted. We are hopeful that that option
will mitigate much of this concern.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See SFWA Comment at 3 (``We understand that more than one
application can be submitted, and if the fee is reasonable, that
would to some extent address this concern.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Title Information
The NPRM provided that an applicant must provide a title for each
work in the group and a title for the group as a whole. No commenters
objected to these requirements, and therefore they are retained in the
final rule. The NPRM also included a requirement that the applicant
append the term ``GRTX'' to the beginning of the group title, so that
the Office could differentiate these applications from others filed on
the Standard Application. Because, as discussed below, the Office is
implementing a new electronic application specifically for GRTX, this
requirement is no longer necessary and is not included in the final
rule. The final rule does, however, add a requirement that the
application specify the total number of short online literary works
that are included in the group.
4. Author and Claimant
Under the proposed rule, to be eligible for the GRTX option, the
author must be named as the copyright claimant on the application, even
if a different party actually owns the copyright in each work. The
Copyright Alliance and AAP both questioned this requirement.\25\ While
they acknowledged that this practice will advance the efficient
examination of each application by allowing the Office to focus on each
work's copyrightability, they expressed concern that it may make for an
inaccurate public record of current ownership.\26\ The Office takes
these concerns seriously but believes they are outweighed in this
instance by the need to provide an efficient examination process. Where
a copyright claimant is not the author of the work, the Copyright Act
requires the application to include a statement of how claimant
obtained ownership of the copyright.\27\ Examiners reviewing claims of
this type would be required to verify that the application contained a
legally sufficient statement to this effect--a process that could
involve correspondence to resolve discrepancies. Moreover, as noted in
the NPRM, requiring the author to be named as the claimant is
consistent with the longstanding principle that an author may always be
named as the copyright claimant, even if she does not own any of the
exclusive rights when the claim is submitted.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP Comment at 2-3.
\26\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5-6; AAP Comment at 2-3.
\27\ 17 U.S.C. 409(5).
\28\ See 83 FR at 65,615 (citing Compendium of U.S. Copyright
Office Practices sec. 619.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with respect to the concern over potential
inaccuracies in the public record, it should be noted that if someone
other than the author has acquired all the rights in the works, a
copyright registration is not necessarily the best way to add that
information to the public record. In most cases, registration simply
provides a ``snapshot'' of who owned the
[[Page 37344]]
copyright as of the effective date of registration. Instead, a change
in ownership can be added to the public record by recording the
document that transferred the copyright with the Office.
The proposed rule also provided that the works submitted under the
GRTX group option must be created by the same individual, thus
excluding joint works from eligibility. SFWA contended that this
requirement would be a problem for collaborations between two or more
authors.\29\ It requested that joint authors be allowed to use GRTX, as
long as the collaborators are listed in the copyright notice for each
work.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ SFWA Comment at 3.
\30\ SFWA Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office understands that there may be circumstances under which
joint authors produce the types of short online literary works that may
benefit from the GRTX option. Therefore, the final rule expands
eligibility for the option to joint authors of literary works, in
addition to individual authors. Under this option, all literary works
within an application must be jointly authored, and the joint authors
must be identical for each literary work. For example, a group
consisting of ten literary works jointly authored by the same two
individuals, and one additional literary work authored by those persons
and a third co-author, would not be eligible. The Office intends to
strictly enforce this requirement to ensure an efficient registration
process. GRTX applications for joint works that do not comply will be
refused without correspondence. To facilitate compliance, the Office
will prepare public informational materials warning of this
consequence. It also should be noted that any claim in individual or
joint authorship under this option must be limited to ``text'' and
cannot include other forms of authorship that can be claimed on a
Standard Application for a literary work.
Finally, the proposed rule excluded works made for hire. As
explained in the NPRM, the GRTX option ``is intended to benefit
individual writers who publish their works on the internet, but do not
have the time or resources to register their works with the Office.
This is less of a concern for corporate authors or authors who are
hired to create a work for another party.'' \31\ Commenters generally
accepted this rationale, but the Copyright Alliance and AAP encouraged
the Office to consider expanding the GRTX option to include certain
smaller business entities who may also face resource limitations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 83 FR at 65,614.
\32\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office appreciates the needs of smaller entities who face
similar economic challenges in registration as individual creators.
However, the Office does not currently have a mechanism to
differentiate those entities from larger corporate authors for purposes
of registration. While the Office is open to considering possible
avenues through which it could extend the GRTX option to certain
corporate authors in the future, it does not have the tools necessary
to do so at this time. The final rule accordingly retains the exclusion
of works for hire.
5. Publication Information
Under the proposed rule, eligible works were required to be
published as part of a website or online platform (such as an online
newspaper, social media website, or social networking platform), and
all had to be published within a three-month calendar period. The NPRM
explained that a work would satisfy this requirement if it was first
published online or simultaneously published online and in physical
form. By contrast, a work would not be eligible for GRTX if it was
published solely in physical form or if it was first published in
physical form and then subsequently published online.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ AAP requested clarification on whether other qualifying
online works would be eligible for this option ``if they reside on
platforms behind a paywall.'' AAP Comment at 3. The fact that a work
is located behind a paywall would not disqualify it from
eligibility, provided it is ``published as part of a website or
online platform.'' Indeed, the final rule expressly includes
``online newspapers,'' which commonly display articles behind
paywalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copyright Alliance and the Authors Guild argued that authors
should be allowed to register their works under this option regardless
of whether they are published or unpublished.\34\ The Copyright
Alliance noted that many authors struggle with the complex legal
distinctions between published an unpublished works.\35\ The Authors
Guild asserted that the distinction serves no apparent need and
exacerbates the potential for confusion. These and other organizations
requested that the Office provide additional guidance on what
constitutes publication in the online environment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5; Authors Guild Comment at
4-5.
\35\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5.
\36\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5; Authors Guild Comment at
4-5; SFWA Comment at 3; AAP Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also argued that the facts relevant to publication may
be unknown to certain authors. The Authors Guild, the Copyright
Alliance, and NWU/NPPA commented that authors may have no control over
whether a publisher distributes their works online or in physical form
and that such authors may not know if their works were first published
online, first published in physical form, or simultaneously published
online and in print.\37\ NWU/NPPA accordingly requested that the Office
remove the word ``first'' from the references to online
publication.\38\ The Authors Guild requested that ``simultaneous''
publication be defined to mean ``published within 30 days.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Authors Guild Comment at 4-5; Copyright Alliance Comment at
4-5; NWU/NPA Comment at 5-6.
\38\ NWU/NPA Comment at 5-6.
\39\ Authors Guild Comment at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office understands that determinations regarding the fact and
timing of publication may present difficult legal questions, especially
in the online context. However, the statute requires that the
registration application include, for published works, the date and
nation of the work's first publication.\40\ In light of this
requirement, as well as the technical constraints of the Office's
current registration system, the Office believes that the inclusion of
both categories of works in the GRTX option would undermine the
efficiency of the examination process, and therefore the final rule
retains the publication requirement.\41\ The Office notes, however,
that under its registration practices, the Office ``will accept the
applicant's representation that website content is published or
unpublished, unless that statement is implausible or is contradicted by
information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the
Office's records or by information that is known to the registration
specialist.'' \42\ Further, the Office is currently exploring issues
regarding publication more generally in an effort to provide greater
guidance to registration applicants.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 17 U.S.C. 409(8).
\41\ The proposed rule required applicants to list the earliest
date that the works were published. In light of additional
functionality in the new GRTX application that was not available in
the Standard Application, the final rule adds a requirement that the
applicant also list the latest date that the works were published.
\42\ U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office
Practices 1008.3 (F) (3d ed. 2017) (``Compendium (Third)'').
\43\ See Online Publication, 84 FR 66,328 (Dec. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters further argued that the rule should not be limited to
works published online but should also provide for group registration
of works
[[Page 37345]]
published in physical form.\44\ NWU/NPPA specifically noted that the
petition requested, in addition to a group option for works in
electronic format, an option to register ``multiple written works by
the same creator first published on multiple dates, regardless of
whether they were published as contributions to periodicals.'' \45\ The
primary focus of the petition and supporting facts, however, was the
need for an accommodation for works published in electronic format,\46\
and the GRTX option was tailored to address that demonstrated area of
need. The final rule therefore remains limited to works published
online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Authors Guild Comment at 6; NWU/NPA Comment at 6-7.
\45\ NWU/NPA Comment at 6-7.
\46\ See Petition at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Application Requirements
Under the rule as initially proposed, applicants would have been
required to submit their claims using the online Standard Application
designated for a ``Literary Work.'' Since the close of the comment
period, however, the Office has worked with the Library of Congress's
Office of the Chief Information Officer, and a new online application
is being developed specifically for GRTX that applicants will be able
to access and submit through the electronic registration system
(``eCO''). The final rule accordingly has been updated to require
applicants to submit claims using that application. The Office expects
to prepare an online tutorial to provide guidance on using the new
application and will include help text within the application itself.
The Office also intends to update the sections of the Compendium of
U.S. Copyright Office Practices that discuss the Office's procedures
for group registration to address this new option.
The new application is expected to be implemented into the eCO
system by August 2020. The Office has provided for the final rule to
take effect that month and is publishing the rule now to give authors
of eligible works sufficient advance notice of this new option, so that
they may gather their data in anticipation of submitting applications.
Nevertheless, the availability of the GRTX application is ultimately
dependent on the completion of system development and may be affected
by unanticipated delays in that process. The Office will issue a public
announcement when implementation is complete and this option is
available to applicants.
The proposed rule included language that would allow the Office to
waive the electronic filing requirement upon written request in
exceptional circumstances.\47\ This provision has been retained in the
final rule. One commenter requested that the Office allow applicants to
use paper forms without obtaining a waiver, suggesting that that option
may be more efficient for some applicants.\48\ The Office concludes,
however, that a general requirement of electronic filing best promotes
the efficient use of examination resources, and that the waiver option
adequately accommodates applicants unable to meet that requirement. As
noted in the NPRM, the Office expects such cases to be rare given that
creators of works eligible for this option typically will be capable of
using the electronic registration system.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 83 FR at 65,615.
\48\ Marcus Arias Comment at 1.
\49\ 83 FR at 65,615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule also required that the applicant submit a
sequentially numbered list containing a title/file name for each work
in the group, and that the list satisfy certain technical and
formatting requirements.\50\ Some commenters urged the Office to
provide detailed instructional materials to ensure that applicants are
able to satisfy these and other provisions.\51\ The Office intends to
provide such guidance in the online materials noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 83 FR at 65,615.
\51\ See Authors Guild Comment at 6-7; Copyright Alliance
Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deposit Requirements
Under the proposed rule, applicants must submit one complete copy
of each work in the group, the copies must be uploaded to the
electronic registration system in a specified file format, and all of
the files must be submitted in the same format. No commenters took
issue with these requirements, which are reflected in the final rule.
The proposed rule also required copies to be submitted in an
``orderly'' manner, meaning that each work was to be uploaded in a
separate digital file. The Authors Guild found this requirement
``unduly laborious and unnecessary,'' arguing that applicants should be
allowed to submit their works in a single document with each work
starting on a new page, or, alternatively, to provide a single upload
using file compression.\52\ In light of this comment, and based on the
Office's experience administering other recently adopted group
registration options, the Office agrees that the regulatory language
should be amended to provide for submission of works in a single
upload. The final rule still requires that each work in the group be
contained in a separate digital file, but it provides that they should
be uploaded together in a .ZIP file. The final rule retains the
requirement that the file name for each work match the corresponding
title entered on the application.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Authors Guild Comment at 6.
\53\ See 83 FR at 65,616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Filing Fee
The NPRM provided that the filing fee for the GRTX option would be
$55, the fee applicable to claims submitted on the Standard
Application. It further noted that the Office had recently proposed to
increase the Standard Application fee to $75 and that if that proposal
were adopted, the new fee would apply to GRTX claims.\54\ Subsequently,
the Office submitted a final proposed schedule and analysis of fees to
Congress in which it reduced the proposed increase to $65.\55\ Based on
the comments received in the fee study proceeding, and in light of the
Office's inability under the current registration system to charge
different prices for different types of works submitted on the Standard
Application, the Office reiterated its recommendation that the GRTX fee
be the same as the Standard Application fee.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 83 FR at 65,616.
\55\ U.S. Copyright Office, Proposed Schedule and Analysis of
Copyright Fees to Go into Effect in Spring 2020 21 (2019) (``Fee
Study''), available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/feestudy2018/proposed-fee-schedule.pdf.
\56\ Fee Study at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 120-day statutory period for congressional
review,\57\ the Office promulgated a final rule implementing the
proposed fee schedule.\58\ The rule noted the Office's expectation that
GRTX registrations ``would require a workflow similar to claims
submitted on the Standard Application'' and that commenters in the fee
study proceeding generally supported linking the two fees.\59\
Nevertheless, to avoid potential confusion, the Office did not adopt
the GRTX fee as part of that rule, noting that it instead would adopt
the fee when it issued a final rule implementing the GRTX option.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(5).
\58\ Copyright Office Fees, 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19, 2020).
\59\ Id. at 9380-81.
\60\ Id. The Office is following the same approach in
implementing its proposed new registration option for a group of
works on an album of music. See Group Registration of Works on an
Album of Music, 84 FR 22,762 (May 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Office is now providing a standalone application for
GRTX
[[Page 37346]]
submissions, it continues to believe it is appropriate to charge the
same fee as is charged for Standard Application filings. While the
initial proposal was made in part due to an inability to adopt
differential pricing for Standard Application claims, the Office
believes that it is reasonable to set the GRTX fee, at least initially,
at the same fee, given the similarities in expected workflow associated
with examining these claims. The final rule therefore establishes a $65
fee. Given, however, that the Office now has greater flexibility to
adjust fees specifically for this option, it will gather additional
data to determine if this amount should be adjusted once this option is
implemented, including aligning this fee to other group options such as
that relevant to contributions to a periodical.
E. The Scope of a Group Registration
The NPRM provided that claims in the selection, coordination, or
arrangement of the group as a whole will not be permitted on the
application, and the group will not be considered a compilation or a
collective work for purposes of sections 101, 103(b), or 504(c)(1) of
the Copyright Act. No commenters took issue with this aspect of the
NPRM.
F. Correspondence and Refusals
The NPRM stated that the Office may refuse the entire claim if it
is defective on certain grounds, including, among other reasons, if the
applicant submits a paper form; the applicant submits more than 50
works; a work falls outside the word-count parameters; the applicant
asserts a claim in ``text'' and another form of authorship; works in
the group were published more than three months apart; or the names
provided in the author and claimant fields do not match. The Authors
Guild and the Copyright Alliance advocated a more lenient review
policy, urging the Office to correspond with applicants to correct
errors of this type.\61\ The Office recognizes that rejecting
applications for technical noncompliance can present burdens for
applicants, some of whom may conclude that the cost of submitting a new
application is not worth it. At the same time, the Office must ensure
that its examination resources are used in a manner that maintains the
efficiency of group registration. The Office therefore reserves the
right to refuse any application that does not comply with the
requirements set forth in the final rule, or modify the claim to become
compliant without communicating with the applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Authors Guild Comment at 6-7; Copyright Alliance Comment at
2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, however, the Office intends to issue additional
instructional materials to assist applicants in determining their
eligibility for this option and in completing the application. More
generally, the Office will continue to explore tools to assist
applicants as it moves toward implementation of a next-generation
electronic registration system. The Office is hopeful that these
resources will provide useful guidance to authors interested in
exercising this option and will minimize the need for correspondence.
G. Supplementary Registrations
A supplementary registration is a special type of registration that
may be used ``to correct an error in a copyright registration or to
amplify the information given in a registration.'' \62\ The Office has
created multiple versions of a form that may be used to correct or
amplify information in registrations made under specified group
registration options, but the Office has not yet created a version for
a registration of a group of short online literary works. Therefore,
the final rule clarifies that applicants should contact the Office of
Registration Policy & Practice to obtain instructions before seeking a
supplementary registration involving these types of claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 17 U.S.C. 408(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This update constitutes a change to a ``rule[] of agency . . .
procedure[] or practice.'' \63\ It does not ``alter the rights or
interests of parties,'' but merely ``alter[s] the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'' \64\ It
therefore is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
\64\ JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir.
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 201
Copyright, General provisions.
37 CFR Part 202
Copyright, Preregistration and registration of claims to copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office
amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:
PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
0
2. Amend Sec. 201.3 in table 1 to paragraph (c) by redesignating
paragraphs (c)(10) through (27) as paragraphs (c)(11) through (28),
respectively, and adding new paragraph (c)(10).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, and related services,
special services, and services performed by the Licensing Division.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(10) Registration of a claim in a group of short online 65
literary works..............................................
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 202--PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
0
3. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
0
4. Amend Sec. 202.4 as follows:
0
a. Add paragraph (j).
0
b. In paragraph (n), in the first sentence, remove ``paragraphs'' and
add in its place ``paragraph'' and in the second sentence, remove
``paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), or (k)'' and add in their place
``paragraph (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (k)''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 202.4 Group Registration.
* * * * *
(j) Group registration of short online literary works. Pursuant to
the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(2), the Register of
Copyrights has determined that a group of literary works may be
registered in Class TX with one application, the required deposit, and
the filing fee required by Sec. 201.3(c) if the following conditions
are met:
(1) The group may include up to 50 short online literary works, and
the application must specify the total number of short online literary
works that are included in the group. For purposes of this section, a
short online literary work is a work consisting of text that contains
at least 50 words and no more than 17,500 words, such as a poem, short
story, article, essay, column, blog entry, or social media post. The
work must be published as part of a website or online platform,
including online newspapers, social media websites, and social
networking platforms. The group may not include
[[Page 37347]]
computer programs, audiobooks, podcasts, or emails. Claims in any form
of authorship other than ``text'' or claims in the selection,
coordination, or arrangement of the group as a whole will not be
permitted on the application.
(2) All of the works must be published within a three-calendar-
month period, and the application must identify the earliest and latest
date that the works were published.
(3) All the works must be created by the same individual, or
jointly by the same individuals, and each creator must be named as the
copyright claimant or claimants for each work in the group.
(4) The works must not be works made for hire.
(5) The applicant must provide a title for each work and a title
for the group as a whole.
(6) The applicant must complete and submit the online application
designated for a group of short online literary works. The application
may be submitted by any of the parties listed in Sec. 202.3(c)(1).
(7) The applicant must submit one complete copy of each work. The
works must be assembled in an orderly form with each work in a separate
digital file. The file name for each work must match the title as
submitted on the application. All of the works must be submitted in one
of the electronic formats approved by the Office, and must be uploaded
to the electronic registration system in a .ZIP file. The file size for
each uploaded .ZIP file must not exceed 500 megabytes.
(8) The applicant must submit a sequentially numbered list
containing a title/file name for each work in the group. The list must
also include the publication date and word count for each work. The
numbered list must be contained in an electronic file in Excel format
(.xls), Portable Document Format (PDF), or other electronic format
approved by the Office, and the file name for the list must contain the
title of the group and the case number assigned to the application by
the electronic registration system (e.g., ``Title Of Group Case Number
16283927239.xls'').
(9) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the
online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (j)(6) of this section
or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under Sec.
202.20(d), subject to such conditions as the Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and
Practice may impose on the applicant.
* * * * *
Sec. 202.6 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 202.6 by adding ``or for a group of short online
literary works registered under Sec. 202.4(j),'' after ``Sec.
202.4(c),'' in paragraph (e)(2).
Dated: May 26, 2020.
Maria Strong,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright
Office.
Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2020-12041 Filed 6-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
