Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020

Last updated
CASE Act of 2020
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleCopyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020
Citations
Public law Pub. L. No. 116–260, Div. Q, Title II, § 212
Statutes at Large 134 Stat. 2176
Codification
Titles affected17
U.S.C. sections created 17 U.S.C.   §§ 1501–1511
Legislative history

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the CASE Act) is a United States law that establishes a small claims court-type system within the United States Copyright Office, known as the Copyright Claims Board, for copyright owners to seek damages under US$30,000 for copyright violations.

Contents

The measure was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on May 1, 2019, [1] and was passed on October 22, 2019. [2] An identical version was introduced in the United States Senate on May 1, 2019. [3]

The CASE Act, along with two other IP-related bills, were included as part of a omnibus spending and COVID-19 relief bill in December 2020, which was passed by Congress on December 21, 2020. [4] President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on December 27, 2020. [5] Following the rule-making process within the copyright office, the board began hearing these claims in June 2022. [6]

Background

Under federal law, copyright infringement cases must be pursued in federal courts. This can be an expensive and time-consuming option for small copyright owners, particularly for rightsholders of written and visual works. Infringements became more significant with the popularity of the Internet which made sharing material, including those that violated copyrighted, much easier. [7]

While considering the matter of copyright protections for orphan works, the United States Congress recognized these challenges for smaller copyright owners in taking action to protect their own works. [8] In March 2006, the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing titled "Remedies for Small Claims Copyright", which concluded by instructing the United States Copyright Office to study potential solutions to the matter. [9] The copyright office published a report in September 2013 on alternatives to federal litigation for copyright infringements claims. The copyright office proposed the idea of a small claims tribunal system that could be run by the Office for copyright owners seeking damages up to US$30,000. [8]

Legislative history

Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced the CASE Act in 2016 [10] and 2017. [11] The House Committee on the Judiciary held a legislative hearing on the 2017 version of bill on September 27, 2018. [12]

Judy Chu (D-CA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced similar legislation on December 8, 2016, titled the Fairness for American Small Creators Act. [13]

The CASE Act of 2019 was introduced on May 1, 2019, in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2426) [14] by Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Doug Collins (R-GA); and for the first time in the Senate (S. 1273) [15] by Senators John Kennedy (R-LA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). Original House co-sponsors include: House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Committee on the Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Hank Johnson (D-GA), as well as Martha Roby (R-AL), Judy Chu (D-CA), Ben Cline (R-VA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

On October 22, 2019, the House passed H.R. 2426 by a vote of 410-6. [2] Fifteen Members of Congress did not vote. [16] The six "no" votes were: Justin Amash (I-MI), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Greg Gianforte (R-MT), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Ralph Norman (R-SC). [16]

On September 12, 2019, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the measure without amendment. [17]

The CASE Act, along with the Trademark Modernization Act and the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act introduced by Senator Thom Tillis that would make commercial streaming of certain types of copyrighted content qualify as a felony crime, were passed as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 on December 21, 2020. [18] Trump signed the bill into law on December 27, 2020. [5] [19]

The Copyright Office issued its final ruling on how the CASE Act would be implemented under the law were issued in March 2022, [20] with Copyright Claims Board available to hear cases starting June 16, 2022. [21]

Provisions

Following the framework proposed by the Copyright Office, the CASE Act establishes a Copyright Claims Board within the Copyright Office. [22] The Claims Board can decide copyright infringement claims filed by any copyright holder, declarations of non-infringement brought by users, and misrepresentation claims (under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). [23] This Board is made up of three attorneys, two of which must be knowledgeable in copyright law. [22] [24] For works timely registered with the Copyright Office, the maximum statutory damages are US$15,000 per work and US$30,000 per claim, while unregistered copyrighted works are eligible for half those amounts. [25] The Claims Board may not issue injunctions but can order a party to cease infringement if the parties agree. [26]

The process is voluntary; once a claim is filed, respondents have a sixty day period to opt-out. [7] [27] If the respondent does not opt out, the Claims Board will make a final determination and assessment of damages, if any. [28] [24] This method is not available to seek damages against infringement from federal or state governments or from foreign entities, nor for claims established in pending cases. [24] The CASE Act also contains a provision allowing libraries and archives to preemptively opt out of all Copyright Claims Board proceedings before anyone files a claim against them. [29]

Support

On June 26, 2019, in a statement to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Register of Copyrights Karyn A. Temple expressed the U.S. Copyright Office’s support for a small claims tribunal system. In her statement, she noted that “...low-dollar but still valuable copyrighted works are frequently infringed with impunity, and individual creators and small businesses often lacking [sic] an effective remedy... For this reason, the Copyright Office strongly supports a small claims tribunal structured along the lines of the proposal detailed in the Copyright Office’s 2013 report." [30]

The bipartisan legislation is also supported by groups such as the Copyright Alliance, [31] Professional Photographers of America, [32] American Society of Media Photographers, [33] International Authors Forum, [34] the Authors Guild [35] the Graphic Artists Guild, [36] the NAACP, AFL-CIO, [37] the American Conservative Union, [38] and the American Bar Association, [39] as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, [40] and thousands of independent creators and small businesses across the United States. Proponents of the bill support the Copyright Office’s findings that the small claims tribunal will provide a more financially accessible alternative to federal court, and will enable creators to protect their copyrighted material more effectively. Additionally, the Claims Board would be able to determine whether use of a copyrighted work constitutes fair use.

In response to criticism concerns, a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on July 30, 2019, Register Temple said, “I am pleased to note that the legislation that was recently passed out of the full Senate Judiciary Committee contains several provisions to help address these concerns... These provisions, combined with the extensive notice requirements and due process safeguards for respondents, would provide important safeguards against the use of the CCB by bad faith claimants.” [41]

Criticism

Public interest groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), [42] Public Knowledge, [43] and the Authors Alliance [44] have opposed the bill, claiming that the CASE Act is still not enough to appropriately protect individuals from "sophisticated actors" (corporations, copyright "trolls" and similar abusers). These critics argue that a copyright office tribunal established outside of the judicial system will be unconstitutional, an opt-out system from this tribunal will open up unknowing parties to be blindsided with little recourse, and the tribunal's statutory limits allow for outrageously steep penalties. [44] Other law experts stated that the larger copyright owners may target fair use and de minimis usages and coerce those using legal usage of copyrighted works to either stop using them or seek legal support for the tribunal. [7] Library Futures, which speaks on behalf of libraries, has critiqued that, though libraries and archives are protected, library workers are not. [45]

There was also criticism from those that supported small copyright creators, stating that the opt-out provision gives infringers too much power to reject the use of the Claims Court and force creators to use the federal courts to seek penalties. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States district court</span> Trial court of the U.S. federal judiciary

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district. Each district covers one U.S. state or a portion of a state. There is at least one federal courthouse in each district, and many districts have more than one. District court decisions are appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which they reside, except for certain specialized cases that are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A work of the United States government is defined by the United States copyright law, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties". Under section 105 of the Copyright Act of 1976, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Federal Claims</span> Court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It was established by statute in 1982 as the United States Claims Court, and took its current name in 1992. The court is the successor to trial division of the United States Court of Claims, which was established in 1855.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uruguay Round Agreements Act</span> US free trade law with implications for intellectual property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994. The Marrakesh Agreement was part of the Uruguay Round of negotiations which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

The copyright symbol, or copyright sign, ©, is the symbol used in copyright notices for works other than sound recordings. The use of the symbol is described by the Universal Copyright Convention. The symbol is widely recognized but, under the Berne Convention, is no longer required in most nations to assert a new copyright.

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act, H.R. 2033, S. 1957, and H.R. 2196, were bills of the same name introduced in the United States Congress that would have amended Title 17 of the United States Code to provide sui generis protection to fashion designs for a period of three years. The Acts would have extended protection to "the appearance as a whole of an article of apparel, including its ornamentation," with "apparel" defined to include "men's, women's, or children's clothing, including undergarments, outerwear, gloves, footwear, and headgear;" "handbags, purses, and tote bags;" belts, and eyeglass frames. In order to receive the three-year term of protection, the designer would be required to register with the U.S. Copyright Office within three months of going public with the design.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Term Extension Act</span> United States copyright law

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States in 1998. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyright.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jim Sensenbrenner</span> American politician (born 1943)

Frank James Sensenbrenner Jr. is an American politician who represented Wisconsin's 5th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 1979 to 2021. He is a member of the Republican Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1976</span> United States law

The Copyright Act of 1976 is a United States copyright law and remains the primary basis of copyright law in the United States, as amended by several later enacted copyright provisions. The Act spells out the basic rights of copyright holders, codified the doctrine of "fair use", and for most new copyrights adopted a unitary term based on the date of the author's death rather than the prior scheme of fixed initial and renewal terms. It became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act was submitted as a direct response to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy; intending to reverse it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop Online Piracy Act</span> Failed United States bill

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was a proposed United States congressional bill to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods. Introduced on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), provisions included the requesting of court orders to bar advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting business with infringing websites, and search engines from linking to the websites, and court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites. The proposed law would have expanded existing criminal laws to include unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

<i>United States v. LaMacchia</i>

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Innovation Act</span>

The Innovation Act of the 113th Congress is a bill that would change the rules and regulations surrounding patent infringement lawsuits in an attempt to reduce patent lawsuits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Innovation Act of the 114th Congress</span>

The Innovation Act of the 114th Congress is a bill that would change the rules and regulations surrounding patent infringement lawsuits in an attempt to reduce enforceability of patents.

References

  1. ↑ Jeffries, Hakeem S. (2019-10-23). "Actions - H.R.2426 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  2. 1 2 "Final vote results for roll ca;; 578". Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives . October 22, 2019. Archived from the original on October 23, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
  3. ↑ Kennedy, John (2019-09-12). "S.1273 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): CASE Act of 2019". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  4. ↑ "Congress Passes CASE Act as Part of COVID-19 Relief Bill". Billboard . Archived from the original on 2020-12-22. Retrieved 2020-12-24.
  5. 1 2 Copyright Alternative in Small–Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (CASE Act of 2020), Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  116–260 (text) (PDF), Div. Q, Title II, § 212, 134 Stat. 2176.
  6. ↑ "Copyright Claims Board". www.ccb.gov.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Grant, Daniel (March 27, 2020). "US copyright law comes under scrutiny as new legislation makes its way before Congress". The Art Newspaper . Archived from the original on December 24, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  8. 1 2 "Copyright small claims: a report of the register of copyrights" (PDF). United States Copyright Office. September 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 17, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  9. ↑ "Remedies for Small Claims Copyright Hearing" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  10. ↑ Jeffries, Hakeem S. (2016-07-27). "H.R.5757 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): CASE Act of 2016". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  11. ↑ Jeffries, Hakeem S. (2018-09-27). "H.R.3945 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): CASE Act of 2017". www.congress.gov. Archived from the original on 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  12. ↑ "H.R. 3945, the "Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2017"". Committee on the Judiciary - Democrats. 2018-09-27. Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  13. ↑ "Reps. Judy Chu and Lamar Smith Introduce Small Claims Reform for Creators". 8 December 2016. Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  14. ↑ H.R. 2426 Archived 2019-05-06 at the Wayback Machine , U.S. Congress.
  15. ↑ S. 1273 Archived 2020-04-14 at the Wayback Machine , U.S. Congress.
  16. 1 2 "FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 578". Archived from the original on 2019-10-23. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  17. ↑ "S. Rept. 116-105 - COPYRIGHT ALTERNATIVE IN SMALL-CLAIMS ENFORCEMENT (CASE) ACT OF 2019". Archived from the original on 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-11-06.
  18. ↑ Kelly, Makena (December 21, 2020). "Sweeping new copyright measures poised to pass in spending bill". The Verge . Archived from the original on December 21, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  19. ↑ Bennett, Kate; Liptak, Kevin; Mattingly, Phil; Luhby, Tami (December 27, 2020). "Trump signs coronavirus relief and government funding bill into law after lengthy delay". CNN . Retrieved December 27, 2020.
  20. ↑ Brachmann, Steve (March 14, 2022). "Copyright Office Issues Final Rules for CASE Act Copyright Claims Board Proceedings". IP Watchdog . Retrieved June 14, 2022.
  21. ↑ Setty, Riddhi (June 2, 2022). "Copyright Claims Board to Start Hearing Cases June 16". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved June 14, 2022.
  22. 1 2 17 U.S.C.   § 1502.
  23. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1504(c) .
  24. 1 2 3 Weller, Susan Neuberger (January 8, 2020). "Congress Considers Creation of a "Copyright Claims Board" as an Alternative to Handle Small Copyright Claims". National Law Review . Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  25. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1504(e)(1) .
  26. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1504(e)(2) .
  27. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1506(i) .
  28. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1506(t) .
  29. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 1506(aa) ; "Library and Archive Opt Out List". Copyright Claims Board. Retrieved May 2, 2022..
  30. ↑ "Statement of Karyn A. Temple, United States Register of Copyrights, Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives" (PDF). Copyright.gov. June 26, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 4, 2019. Retrieved November 1, 2019.
  31. ↑ "Copyright Small Claims". Copyright Alliance. Archived from the original on May 6, 2019. Retrieved May 6, 2019.
  32. ↑ "Big Day for Copyright Advocacy on Capitol Hill, says Professional Photographers of America (PPA)". PRWeb. Archived from the original on 2019-09-06. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  33. ↑ ASMP (2019-07-19). "Press Release: ASMP Applauds Senate Judiciary Committee for Passing the CASE Act (S. 1273)". ASMP. Archived from the original on 2019-08-09. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
  34. ↑ "US authors make CASE for small-claims court". International Authors Forum. 2019-07-17. Archived from the original on 2019-08-09. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
  35. ↑ "Please Support Small Copyright Claims (CASE Act)". The Authors Guild. 2019-07-09. Archived from the original on 2019-08-09. Retrieved 2019-08-09.
  36. ↑ "Update on the CASE Act". Graphic Artists Guild. Archived from the original on July 24, 2019. Retrieved July 24, 2019.
  37. ↑ "Letter Supporting Legislation That Would Protect Artistic Creators | AFL-CIO". aflcio.org. 10 October 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  38. ↑ ACU (2019-10-09). "ACU Leads Coalition Letter in Support of the CASE Act". ACU. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  39. ↑ The Case for the CASE Act Archived 2019-10-27 at the Wayback Machine - The Hill
  40. ↑ "U.S. Chamber Letter Supporting S. 1273 and H.R. 2426, "CASE Act"". U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2019-05-02. Archived from the original on 2019-11-14. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  41. ↑ "Statement of Karyn A. Temple, United States Register of Copyrights, Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate" (PDF). Copyright.gov. July 30, 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 4, 2019. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  42. ↑ Stoltz, Mitch; McSherry, Corynne (November 29, 2017). "Congress Shouldn't Turn the Copyright Office Into A Copyright Court". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on December 9, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  43. ↑ Stella, Shiva (May 1, 2019). "Public Knowledge Opposes Copyright Bill Creating Unaccountable "Small-Claims" Court". Public Knowledge. Archived from the original on July 14, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2019.
  44. 1 2 Sheehan, Kerry Maeve (June 4, 2019). "COPYRIGHT LAW HAS A SMALL CLAIMS PROBLEM. THE CASE ACT WON'T SOLVE IT". Authors Alliance. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2019.
  45. ↑ Shockey, Nick; Halperin, Jennie Rose. "Protect Library Workers from the CASE Act". Library Futures. Retrieved 23 September 2021.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.