Authors Alliance Submits Joint Letter with Katie Fortney Re: Copyright Claims Board

Authors Alliance has closely followed the development of the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) since the CASE Act was proposed in Congress. We have reported to the community on how the USCO initially sought feedback on developing regulations to govern CCB procedures, when the first judgement was out in 2023, and how we assessed the performance of CCB after one year as well as after two years. The development and workings of CCB are of great interest to independent creators, small businesses, and educators alike, because of its promise to resolve copyright disputes quickly for smaller claims; we must ensure that the CCB fulfills this promise to serve authorial interests.

Last Friday, Katie Fortney and Authors Alliance jointly submitted a comment in response to the USCO’s notice of inquiry on the CCB. In the comment, we acknowledged the CCB’s efforts to create user-friendly processes and commended its commitment to making the system accessible to non-lawyers. Nevertheless, significant improvements are needed to ensure fairness and efficiency for all participants. Drawing on empirical research on the publicly available data over the CCB’s first two years, our comment offers a detailed critique of how the CCB is functioning in practice.

Conceived as a copyright “small claims” court where infringement claims would be efficiently and cost-effectively adjudicated, the Copyright Claims Board nevertheless is issuing judgments at a very slow speed, while also issuing an alarming number of dismissals and default judgements. We recommended in the letter that the CCB provides better educational information for claimants and respondents alike, provides better data on the CCB proceedings, and aims to truly enable a voluntary and fair dispute resolution system, among other things.

We urged the CCB to bolster its educational resources, data transparency, as well as improving the functionality of its filing system. Many claims are dismissed for fixable errors, especially related to registration, and we suggested better integration between registration and claims systems. Along the same lines of improving the efficiency and functionality of CCB, our comment called for mobile-friendly informational packets and clearer guidance for both claimants and respondents throughout their participation in the CCB. 

Our comment also questioned the CCB’s alleged “voluntary” nature, pointing out that many respondents are unaware of their right to opt out and are being swept into proceedings without fully understanding the consequences. Nearly half of the cases with final determinations ended in default judgments, often with disproportionately high damage awards. We refer to a CCB case in our comment_, where a respondent expressed a desire to not have her case be heard by the CCB but was not permitted to opt out. We believe the continued rigidity in handling opt-out requests will undermine the legitimacy of the CCB. 

The CCB needs a more flexible opt-out system, and communications to the claimant and respondents need to provide them with more thorough information to allow for educated decisions throughout their voluntary participation in the CCB system. 

As the CCB continues to evolve, we will keep watching this space and advocating for improvements that make the process both fair and accessible. Our goal is to ensure that all parties can participate in the CCB process with clarity and confidence. No one should be forced into a CCB proceeding they don’t understand or didn’t knowingly choose. Everyone deserves a system that is transparent, voluntary, and committed to equitable dispute resolution.