Navigating the
Copyright
Claims Board
a practical guide for creators

Created for the Center for Cultural Innovation in collaboration with
the Juelsgaard Intellectual Property Clinic at Stanford Law School
Enter the guide →


Foreword

The Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI) was founded in 2001 to help level the playing field for individual artists by providing them with knowledge, networks, and financial tools to strengthen their self-sufficiency and creative independence. Since 2002, we have expanded and evolved our work to include Advocacy and the advancement of efforts that improve the conditions of artists and arts workers.

CCI approaches its advocacy work through the framework of power, opportunity, and protections. What upstream policy issues can we reimagine to ensure power is equally distributed, especially to those who have historically been disempowered? How can our efforts provide equal opportunities to artists, regardless of their background? And especially in the case of the Guide, how are we guaranteeing artists a sense of protection of their livelihood, culture, and dignity as vital participants in our society?

With this framing, we are focused not only on passing and reforming policy but also on ensuring its implementation is working as it was intended. The Copyright Claims Board Guide was developed out of this desire: to hold new policy and public resources accountable for what they were designed to do and to center the voices and needs of those they were designed to bring justice to.

CCI’s work is only possible because of our dedicated community and partnerships. Helping to turn the Guide into a reality were the amazing students and staff of Stanford University’s Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic, including:

Phil Malone, Clinic Director
Nina Srejovic, Clinical Supervising Attorney and Lecturer
Caitlin Cary Burke, Certified Clinical Law Student
Kiran Wattamwar, Certified Clinical Law Student

The Guide would also not have been possible without the support of the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Kenneth Rainin Foundation, as well as the hard work and dedication of the CCI team involved in stewarding this partnership:

Laura Poppiti, Deputy Director
Jennelyn Tumalad Bailon, Senior Program Associate
Jessica Mele, Principal, Jessica Mele Creative

To all who have helped CCI advance the cause of artists, cultural producers, and arts workers, thank you.


Angie Kim
President and CEO,
Center for Cultural Innovation



About the guide

Maybe you are a creator who feels their work was copied and wants to set things right. Maybe you recently received a claim that you copied someone else’s work. Or maybe you’re just curious about the Copyright Claims Board (CCB).

Regardless of what brought you here, this document is a starting point and a guide for creators. This guide helps you navigate the CCB, but it is not comprehensive, and there will be moments when outside resources are pointed to for additional guidance.

Images of three figures asking questions about their intellectual property issues

What is the Copyright Claims Board (CCB)?

In December 2020, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (CASE Act) gave the Copyright Office the power to establish the Copyright Claims Board (called the “CCB”) [12]. The CCB was established by the federal government with the goal of expanding “access to justice” making “the copyright system as understandable and accessible to as many members of the public as possible.” [13]

The Copyright Office’s approach to resolving copyright disputes online is the CCB. Three presiding officers, each with deep expertise in copyright law, make case determinations and lead the CCB. Court hearings and proceedings are conducted fully online, reducing the barrier to entry that can occur when proceedings occur in court. The CCB is designed for claimants to navigate without an attorney, though you are welcome to hire one. Although litigants can represent themselves in federal court, some may find this easier in the CCB’s claim process.

The CCB sees all kinds of copyright cases. As of 2023, the most common claims were for pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works.


A pie chart showing the distribution of types of work represented in CCB claims between 6/16/2022 to 10/31/2022
This chart is based on data provided by the Library of Congress [14].

Unlike federal court, the CCB’s jurisdiction is limited to claims for copyright infringement, noninfringement, and misrepresentation in situations involving notices sent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) [15], [16].

Notably, participation in the CCB is also fully voluntary. While a claimant (the person who brings the claim to the CCB) may raise a valid argument, a respondent (the person who responds to the claim) can decide whether to participate in CCB proceedings (more on this later). If a respondent chooses to opt out, a claimant can still bring a lawsuit against that respondent in federal court.

A respondent can also file a counterclaim, or a claim rebutting the claimant’s original claim. If a respondent files a counterclaim, it must be related to the original claim. Counterclaims are also limited to the types of claims in the CCB’s jurisdiction and must arise from the same “transaction or occurrence” (the same facts and circumstances) as the original claim.

Neither party can bring a claim before the CCB seeking more than $30,000 in total damages (more on this later, as well!).

Could the CCB be right for you?

The CCB is one among a few options you have to legally defend your intellectual property. The CCB's process is different from that of federal courts, and comes with its own eligibility requirements.

a flowchart of questions stepping through considerations a person might have when considering bringing a claim with the CCB

What are the tradeoffs of filing with the CCB?

There are some advantages and disadvantages to filing with the CCB as opposed to filing in federal court. Consider the following when you consider your claim:

👍 ADVANTAGES

  • There is no attorney required.
    • You can avoid attorney’s fees by filing with the CCB.
  • The CCB is a more approachable court system.
    • The CCB is entirely online, and there are some advantages to a digital court system. The CCB’s online forms have text boxes for input information.
    • The online forms will help you figure out the information you need to file a claim and navigate court proceedings.
  • There is a low filing fee—filing your claim and proceedings to an active case require $40 and $60, respectively.
  • The administration is fully remote, negotiating travel costs and conflicts with other commitments.
  • Decisions are made by a panel of experts on copyright who focus primarily on these cases.

👎 DISADVANTAGES

  • There is no attorney required.
    • Filing alone can sometimes be confusing, and it is important to remember that you need enough evidence to support a viable claim. This can be easier with the help of an attorney who can guide you through the process. Remember that you can also file with the CCB with an attorney.
  • Damages are limited to $30,000 per proceeding.
  • Respondents may not agree to litigate via the CCB.
  • Evidence to support your claim must be captured digitally.
    • To create a compelling claim, you need to capture all your communications and images digitally and in a format that will help the CCB officers assess your claim.

Is your claim eligible for the CCB?

Filing a successful claim with the CCB may not be as easy as it seems. Review the list below to determine if the CCB is right for you. All the following must be true for you to be eligible to bring a claim, in general:Filing a successful claim with the CCB may not be as easy as it seems. Review the list below to determine if the CCB is right for you. All the following must be true for you to be eligible to bring a claim, in general:

  • You and your respondent live in the United States.
    When filing a claim, you must provide a US-based address for each respondent. The CCB cannot decide cases against parties without a US address.
  • You have either an infringement, noninfringement, misrepresentation, or counterclaim.
    Counterclaims are filed by the respondent, who may disagree with your original claim.
  • You have registered your work at the Copyright Office.
    To learn more about registering your work, go to the Registering a Work FAQ provided by the Copyright Office.
  • The statute of limitations has not expired.
    Under the Copyright Act, a plaintiff must bring suit within three years of a claim of copyright infringement accruing. In other words, you should bring your claim within three years of when the copyright infringement began.
  • You have not exceeded your limit of 30 total claims within 12 months.
  • You have a right to file this case (e.g. you own the copyright you seek to enforce).
  • If you have previously filed this claim with the CCB, it has not been dismissed with prejudice or reached a final determination before it was closed. You also cannot file a claim if you received a final judgment on the same claim in a federal court.
  • The CCB or any court has not already reached a final decision on this claim, or the claim is currently pending before a court.
  • You are okay with a damages cap of $30,000 or $5,000 for smaller claims.
  • You are okay with knowing that your claim depends on a response by your respondents.
    Note: Respondents can opt out of CCB proceedings. If they opt out, you can refile in federal court either by yourself (as a pro se litigant) or with an attorney.

DAMAGES & SETTLEMENTS

When you file a claim, you’ll need to indicate the compensation you are owed. The list below summarizes some issues to consider:

  • The CCB only allows for actual or statutory damages. If you think you have a better chance of seeking higher damages in federal court, then the CCB may not be your best option.
  • If you are seeking damages under $5,000, you may want to consider filing under a simplified CCB “Smaller Claims” track. This track will involve only one presiding officer, who plays a more prominent role in the case. The CCB published a helpful table highlighting the key differences between this track and the default track in its handbook for Smaller Claims (Page 3).
  • A claimant bringing an infringement claim can seek an award of actual damages and the infringer’s profits, statutory damages, or no damages. The claimant must choose which type of awards they are seeking before the Board makes its final determination, and they should do this no later than when the claimant submits their written testimony in the proceeding. Statutory damages are capped at $15,000 per infringed work (not per infringement) or $7,500 if the work wasn’t registered in a timely manner (as described below under “Statutory Damages”). For more information on damages, see the CCB book on statutory damages.
  • If you choose to participate in CCB-facilitated settlement discussions, a Copyright Claims Officer other than the one handling the day-to-day aspects of the proceeding will be assigned to assist you at a settlement conference. For more information on settlements, see the CCB handbook on settlements (Page 4).

Helpful Terminology

The CCB frequently uses these terms in their forms, proceedings, and handbooks.

Term Definition
Claimant Someone who brings a claim to the CCB. Because a claimant begins the process, they are responsible for filing a claim, serving the claim, and for paying the required fees ($40 at first, and $60 when the case is ready to go active).
Respondent Someone against whom a claim is brought. They learn about a claim when a claimant serves them with notice and can opt out or make their own case with the CCB. Notice is a type of document that informs a defendant or respondent that the plaintiff or claimant is asking them to appear in court about a matter over which they take issue.
Relief Sought The redress or protections you are seeking the court or CCB to give you at the end of this process if you win. Unlike federal courts, the CCB can only grant monetary relief.
Damages Damages are your monetary relief if you prevail in your claim. When filing a claim, you will be asked to pick the kind of damages you are seeking (actual, or statutory; not both).

Example: You lost money because your sales were diverted to someone else’s product that copied protected aspects of your work.
Actual Damages Awards based on proven harms or losses you have suffered.
Statutory Damages Damages preset by law (e.g. in some cases, any copyright infringement can result in $15,000 awards per infringed work).
Infringement You may have an infringement claim if you believe that someone used your original and protected work. To bring a CCB infringement claim, you must (1) have a registered copyright for your work, (2) maintain exclusive rights over the work, and (3) someone else attempted to use your exclusive rights without your permission.

Example: You independently released a song (this is fixation) on SoundCloud a few years ago and registered it for copyright protection with the US Copyright Office. Recently, you discovered a new song whose lyrics and melody closely resemble yours. You want to be repaid for the profits of this song that you feel should be yours.
Noninfringement These claims are relevant if someone accuses you of unlawfully using or intending to use their protected work without permission. A noninfringement claim can give you a declaration from the CCB that your conduct is not (nor will be) copyright infringement. You do not need a registered copyright to bring a noninfringement claim.

Example: You wrote a play about a farmer’s plight that will soon be performed at a local theater and have not yet registered your work with the Copyright Office. Another playwright famous for a show related to farming found out and asked you to cancel the performances. In conversations with others, they accused you of copyright infringement. You want peace of mind and want to keep the performances on track.
Misrepresentation If “you believe the respondent said something false in a takedown notice or counter-notice to an online service provider, and this resulted in the online service provider taking content offline or putting it back online,” then you have a misrepresentation claim. [cite CCB book].

Example: Your products on Etsy were delisted. Investigating this, you learn that someone reported false statements to Etsy that your products infringed on someone else’s. You want to restore your products on Etsy and be repaid for the lost sales from when your products were delisted.
Counterclaims Claims that are filed by the respondent to oppose one of the claims listed above.

What is the claims process like?

This section of the Creator Guide summarizes information from the CCB’s handbooks. These handbook chapters offer specific information about each stage of a claim. For more information on the claims process, please consult the CCB’s complete list of handbooks [19].

Stage 1: Filing a Claim
Stage 2: Compliance Review

After you file a claim, a few things need to happen before the respondent is made aware of your claim. The CCB will review your claim to make sure it complies with the Copyright Claims Act, to which the CCB is bound, and follows CCB’s policies. Your claim must also be substantial enough for a respondent to answer. Many cases do not make it past compliance review. The CCB might review your filing for the following:

  1. Does your case present a copyright issue relevant to the CCB’s scope?
    1. The CCB mentions in its guidance that cases that are fundamentally about contractual disagreements are not within scope SOURCE: compliance review handbook p3
  2. Is your claim eligible?
  3. Are you asking for the kind of relief that the CCB can provide?
    1. The damages you seek do not exceed $30,000.
    2. You are not asking the CCB to issue an injunction.
    3. If you are filing a noninfringement claim, you are not requesting monetary relief.
  4. Did you provide a detailed “statement of material facts”? (More on this below!)
  5. Is the party necessary to the proceeding available?

If your claim passes compliance review, the CCB will issue a Notice of Compliance and Direction to Serve, taking you to the next step. If not, you will be notified about what is missing in your filing and have 30 days to amend it. If the amended claim still does not pass compliance after a second look, you will have one more opportunity to amend and refile within 30 days.

If this claim does not pass compliance review at this point, the CCB will dismiss your case without prejudice, but you can still re-file the same claim in the future. This means you can re-submit your claim to the CCB, and it will be considered again if you submit a new claim.

📄 Read more: CCB Handbook chapter on Compliance Review

Stage 3: Service

The CCB will provide you with a packet of information you must present to the respondent. You cannot include any other materials when sending this packet. Proper service includes an initial notice, the claim, and the opt-out form.

Presenting the respondent with the materials means that you have served the respondent. Importantly, you cannot serve the respondent yourself. A general rule to keep in mind is that if you are serving in person, you may not personally serve the documents. Only a person who is not a party to the proceeding can, and they must be over the age of eighteen.

Once you issue service, you will need to share evidence of service with the CCB within seven days of service. You have 90 days to issue service and file proof of service. Service can be challenging in the filing process because each state has its own service rules. It may be difficult for some participants to begin the process digitally but remember that service needs to be done in person and over mail. How service is accomplished will depend “on who the respondent is, where they are located, and whether they have a designated service agent.” The CCB advises that some claimants may want to consider hiring a process server who can sign a form confirming the service of the process.

You can issue service by the CCB’s designated methods or serve based on the applicable state law where the respondent lives. You can also give your respondent the option to waive service. If the respondent agrees to waive, you do not need to serve them. For more on how to serve respondents, visit the CCB’s service recommendations at SOURCE.

📄 Read more: CCB Handbook chapter on Service

Stage 4: Opt Out

After service, respondents have 60 days to opt out of the proceeding. If the respondent does opt out, the CCB will dismiss the claim and notify you. If you refile the same claim against the same respondent again, the CCB will dismiss it unless you and the respondent agree to have the claim refiled later. If the respondent does not opt-out and does not respond within this time frame, the claim will move forward and enter the “active phase” by default.

📄 Read more: CCB Handbook chapter on Opting Out

Stage 5: Second Payment

Once active, the CCB will issue an order directing you, the claimant, to pay a second filing fee of $60 on eCCB within fourteen days. Your proceeding will be delayed if you don’t submit the second filing fee on time.

Stage 6: Proceedings (Active Phase)

Next, the CCB will issue a Scheduling Order. It will include key dates and deadlines for each stage of this active phase. The respondent will explain their positions by filing a response and any counterclaims.

Prediscovery • You and your Copyright Claims Officer will meet in a virtual conference to discuss the process of presenting your case. The officer is one of the three officers who make up the CCB tribunal. Once again, they have deep experience in copyright law they hold a virtual conference with you and the respondent “to discuss the proceeding, how the steps of the proceeding will work, and whether the parties are interested in voluntarily resolving their claims through a settlement conference.”

Discovery • After your pre-discovery conference, you will enter discovery. During this period, the parties “exchange standard information and documents relevant to the issues in the proceeding.” Once the discovery period ends, “a Copyright Claims Officer holds a virtual conference to discuss the process of presenting your case to the CCB and may again discuss whether the parties are interested in voluntarily resolving their claims through a settlement conference.”

Hearings • If you decide you don’t want to settle, the parties “present their cases in the form of a) written position statements describing why they think they should win, b) statements from any witnesses, and c) their documentary evidence.”

📄 Read more: CCB Handbook Chapters 10-18on proceedings during the active phase

Stage 7: Final Determination

A determination concludes an active proceeding and explains the basis for the CCB’s decision. The CCB’s determination of your claim is called the “final determination,” but if you aren’t satisfied with a determination, you can seek reconsideration by the CCB, and if that is denied, you may request a review by the Register of Copyrights. You do not need an attorney for any of these proceedings.

A CCB determination is the CCB’s decision as to who wins the case and the damages to award, if any. It is in writing and includes an explanation of the facts and laws the CCB relied on to make the decision. Importantly, if the losing party does not comply with the determination, it can be enforced in federal court.

After a determination or an amended determination, each party has thirty days to submit a request to the CCB to reconsider or modify its determination. There is no filing fee for that request. When a request for reconsideration is made, the other parties have thirty days to file a response. Requests for reconsideration cannot be filed by a respondent or counterclaim respondent who defaulted and did not respond to the CCB’s proposed default determination (which would turn the proposed default determination into a final determination).

📄 Read more: CCB Handbook on Final Determinations

What makes a claim strong?

While the CCB’s filing forms will guide you through this process, there are some fields that you may want to consider more carefully. The strength of your claim is generally evaluated based on whether you can prove each element of that claim – you must satisfy all the elements of the claim to prevail in your case. The CCB’s presiding officers will look at the evidence submitted and your argument to determine whether you have satisfied these elements. Even when describing your claim in your initial filing, you may want to show the CCB officers that you will later be able to prove the essential elements of your copyright claim [20]. Remember to answer these questions about how you can support each element when drafting a claim.

Infringement Claims

Element Key Questions Key Evidence Example Evidence
You must have ownership of a valid (or pending) copyright. Did you assign the copyright to someone else? Are there multiple authors involved [18]? Was this a work for hire [21]? If so, you may not own the rights to the work. Proof that you, and you alone, created the work. A screenshot or picture of your work from the day that you signed your work with a date of creation; a screenshot or scan of your certificate of registration.
You must have exclusive license over at least one right in the work: the right to make copies, the right to prepare other works using this work (“derivative works”), the right to distribute, the right to publicly perform the work, the right to publicly display the work. Did you assign any of these rights to anyone else? It may no longer be exclusive. A copy of your copyright license. An image or screenshot of your exclusive license attached to your file.
The respondent used one of your exclusive rights without your permission, and they had an opportunity to be exposed to your work. Their work is also substantially like original elements of expression in your work. Can you prove the respondent is aware of your work?

Can you prove they were aware of it before they created their work?

If you and the respondent communicated, can you prove that you did not give them permission to use yours?

What makes their work substantially like yours?

Why is it unlikely to be a coincidence?
Images of your work and the infringing work.

Notes about a comparison of the similarities between the work.

If musical: images of notes and comments about similarities between the musical choices.
A screenshot demonstrating that the infringer follows your Spotify account.

A comparison of the similarities between notes of music by an expert in music (an academic or a trained musician, for example).

A guest list demonstrating that the offender came to view your sculpture at a gallery.



Noninfringement Claims

You may bring a noninfringement claim if the respondent accused you of infringing on their work, but you disagree and want to legally establish that your conduct does not establish infringement. Noninfringement claims are very similar to infringement claims, but with one key difference: you need to prove that you and the respondent are in a genuine dispute over whether there is infringement. If you can prove a dispute, the respondent will need to prove every element of infringement outlined above.

Element Key Evidence Example Evidence
The respondent told you that your activities were, are or will be infringing. A cease-and-desist letter from the respondent or other correspondence to indicate that you are in a copyright dispute.

Proof that you independently created this work, without influence of theirs.
A screenshot of the letter.

A cease-and-desist letter from the respondent or other correspondence to indicate that you are in a copyright dispute.
The respondent filed for a takedown of your content from an online service provider. The takedown notice of your content that is attributable to the respondent. A screenshot of the notice.
The respondent’s accusations have interfered with your activities. Proof that you changed your own plans because of the respondent’s accusations. Records that you changed your plans (e.g. you delayed the release of your own work) or changed your work in response to the respondent.
The respondent told someone else that your activities constituted infringement. Communications by the respondent with these accusations. A screenshot or copy of the communications sent.



Misrepresentation Claims

You can bring a claim of misrepresentation before the CCB “if you believe the respondent said something false in a takedown notice or counter-notice to an online service provider, and this resulted in the online service provider taking content offline or putting it back online.” Review the following examples of evidence to try to build a strong claim:

Element Key Questions Key Evidence Example Evidence
The respondent sent an online service provider either: a takedown notice claiming that your online content or activity is infringing or a counter-notice refuting infringement claims or claiming that the content was removed mistakenly. Do you have the takedown notice or counter-notice? The takedown notice. Screenshot or image of the notice.
The respondent made a misrepresentation, a false or incorrect factual statement, in the takedown notice or counter-notice. Can you identify where the misrepresentation is in the takedown or counter-notice?

Can you prove that this misrepresentation is false?
Documentation of the misrepresentation Screenshot of image of the notice with the incorrect statements highlighted and evidence showing that they are incorrect (dates, timelines, etc.).
The respondent knew that the misrepresentation was false. Can you prove that the respondent knew the statement was not true?

Could they know their statement was false?
Images or screenshot of statement by respondent. Screenshot of a conversation with the respondent in which they state the misrepresentation was false.
The misrepresentation was important to the online service provider’s decision to take down or repost the content. Can you show that the misrepresentation is central to an online service provider’s determination?

Why is this information relevant?
Information like an incorrect address or typos are likely not important to a takedown determination. Screenshot or image of emails sent between you and the service provider about the misrepresentation.
The online service provider relied on the misrepresentation. If the online service provider did not have this information, would they decide differently? Images or screenshots showing the difference between how the online service provider acted with the information as opposed to how they normally act. Screenshot or image of emails sent between you and the service provider about the misrepresentation.
You were harmed because of it. Can you prove that the takedown or restoration of the online content harmed you?

Were your sales down during this period?
Images of your month over month sales and a decrease in sales during the time in which the content was removed. Screenshots of your online storefront sales calculator.


Three characters share quick anecdotes about how they solved their problems using the CCB.

Where do claimants go wrong?

Certain points along the way to filing a CCB claim and pleading your case can be challenging because it can require remembering that your claim is active and thinking through forms of evidence. Remember to keep track of deadlines and state a viable claim. Keep in mind that the CCB officer will not know anything about your case outside of what you tell them, and they need concrete evidence to believe your story.

Review the checklist below to avoid common pitfalls in the CCB process:

  • Include a detailed description of your claim and how it fulfills each element, with screenshots and digital evidence supporting each assertion.
  • If you amend and refile, submit your refile by the deadline in your scheduling order.
  • Serve your respondent the materials given to you by the CCB and check the service rules in your respondent's state to ensure compliance with the specific service rules.
    Remember that your service will not comply if:
    • You or an involved party delivered a copy of the materials.
    • You included other materials in the service packet.
    • Your service did not comply with the CCB’s requirements, nor applicable state law where the respondent lives.
    • You filed for a waiver of service, and the respondent did not opt for the waiver. You did not issue service afterward or missed the deadline at this point.
    • You do not have all the required materials in the service packet.
    • You missed a deadline (must file proof of service within seven days of issuing notice, and complete all of this within 90 days from CCB’s Direction to Serve)
  • Pay the second filing fee of $60 within twenty-eight days (after fourteen days, a second fourteen-day order is issued).

Special Considerations: Generative AI

Copyright has changed dramatically with new technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nonfungible Tokens (NFTs). Because AI can easily copy the work of another source, and NFTs are intangible goods that can easily be copied, these technologies raise new copyright law issues.

If you feel that any of these technologies have infringed on your work or choose to use them in your work, you might want to consider a few things before bringing your claim to the CCB. This area of the law is evolving and subject to change.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & ART

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models, like those powering DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, are trained on images from all over the Internet. If you have posted images of your art online, AI tools have likely used these images to develop and create new images. AI thus creates two main copyright issues: inputs and outputs. Creators have argued that both AI inputs and outputs raise copyright issues.

Inputs • Because AI trains on images publicly available on the Internet, generative AI systems can learn from images in their training process. As a creator, you may worry that your protected work was used to enrich one of these models.

Outputs • AI can also generate images that appear substantially like an existing work or a creator’s unique art style. By training on existing images, generative AI borrows from pre-existing works.

If you see an image from AI that looks like a work you created, you may feel that the AI tool infringed your copyright. In our current copyright climate, AI developers may argue that AI-based images are “fair use” and do not infringe copyright protection [23]. Whether or not you can bring a claim of copyright infringement against an AI tool that generated an image like your own or used your image to generate a new image is still up for debate.



Can you own copyrights for works that you used GAI models to create?


If you used AI to create a new artwork or a portion of an artwork, whether you can claim copyright for your work depends on a variety of factors. The Copyright Office’s current position is that only human creators can earn copyright protection. AI (or even an animal!) creators are therefore excluded from protection [32], [23]. “When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application” [33].

On the other hand, in the case of works “containing AI-generated material, “the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form” [33]. In this sense, whether your AI work can earn copyright protection is a case-by-case inquiry [33]. The work must have sufficient human input to constitute human authorship and, consequently, copyright protections. For example, “a human may select or arrange AIgenerated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship” [33]. In sum, whether you can earn copyright protection for a work with partial AI influence will depend on how much AI was used in your work and how you used AI in your creative process. Simply inputting a prompt into an AI generator tool to create an image is probably not enough to earn authorship rights.



Can AI models own copyrights to the works that they are used to create?

It is “well established” that copyright can only protect work created by human authors [33]. AI models are not human and cannot own copyright rights [32], [23] based on the Copyright Office’s current policy. While the current copyright landscape for AI may be lagging the pace of AI development, it is important to remember that the Copyright Office has adapted many policies over the 20th and 21st centuries to accommodate new forms of technology. It may only be a matter of years before the Office begins to recognize AI’s impact on copyright law. One of the issues for the office may be the confluence of ideas and expression. For example, does a creator own the text they input into an AI image generator? It is important to remember, as well, that the amount of original expression within a work can determine copyright outcomes. If cases continue to raise issues related to AI and copyright, the office might reconsider how AI is interpreted.

NFTS & THE BLOCKCHAIN

Like AI art, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) invoke complicated copyright questions. NFTs allow creators to introduce artistic images onto the blockchain, seamlessly transferring ownership to an NFT. This seamless transfer of ownership also poses new challenges. Because of the blockchain’s decentralized design, when creators transfer NFTs to others, they must also transfer a “key” to the block holding the NFT. Once a buyer has this key, they technically own the NFT but may not own the copyright. An NFT creator must separately transfer the copyright ownership to a buyer to give them the rights associated with the copyright. As an NFT creator, it is your choice whether you want to transfer the exclusive rights that come with a registered copyright to a buyer.

If an NFT buyer uses an image in ways that exceed their rights (for example, if they do not own the copyright), you may want to bring an infringement claim. Ownership “over the intellectual property of an NFT is not always clearly defined” [34]. When an NFT is minted or sold, “a blockchain’s smart contract will automatically execute the transfer of ownership, including any rules applicable to the NFT like terms of purchase or resale opportunities” [34]. This “often means that when an NFT is traded, a license that informs collectors about what they can and can’t do with their new asset goes along with it” [34]. As legal scholars James Grimmelmann, Yan Ji, and Tyler Kell claim:

"If you buy an oil painting from an artist, you don’t also receive ownership of the copyright. Yes, you own the original, but the artist retains the copyright, and they can sell prints of it if they like. If you want to buy the copyright too, you’ll need to get a separate agreement. The same is true for NFTs. Unless an NFT explicitly gives owners copyright interests as opposed to just access to the artwork, owners should not assume that they have any rights to use the artwork or to stop others from using it [35]."

Individuals who plan to sell NFT artwork should also consider whether they also intend to sell the copyright protecting their artwork. They might want to only give buyers of their NFT the rights to use and display, but not their NFT, for example.

If you are the creator of an NFT, and you sold your work, you need to remember that the sale of your work does not automatically transfer copyrights. When selling your NFT, be sure to think about whether you want to sell the copyright too and, if you do, to include that in your sale. Once again, simply because your NFT was sold does not necessarily give buyers the right to copy your work.

More Resources

If you still need help determining whether the CCB is right for you, remember you have resources online to help you. Check out the following for more about the CCB and copyright law:




Endnotes


[1] See Protect Your Intellectual Property, International Trade Administration, https://www.trade.gov/protect-intellectual-property (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 2:06 PM).
[2] John P. McManus, Protecting Your Information: Forms of Intellectual Property, 4 (2012).
[3] Robert A. Gorman, Copyright Law, 1 (1991).
[4] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
[5] See Welcome to the Public Domain, Stanford Libraries, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/publicdomain/welcome/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 2:42 PM).
[6] See Fees, United States Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:17 PM).
[7] See Copyright in General, United States Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ (noting how copyright exists from the moment the work is created) (accessed Mar. 19, 2024, 3:31 PM).
[8] 17 U.S.C. § 102.
[9] See Copyright Basics, United States Copyright Office (rev. Sep. 2021), https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:12 PM).
[10] With the CCB specifically, you must have a registered or pending registered copyright to bring infringement claims but may not need one for noninfringement or misrepresentation claims.
[11] See What Photographers Should Know About Copyright, United States Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/engage/photographers/#:~:text=Registering%20Your%20Work (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:13 PM).
[12] See Copyright Small Claims and the Copyright Claims Board, United States Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/about/small-claims/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:13 PM).
[13] See Holland Gormley, The Copyright Claims Board Celebrates Its First Year, Library of Congress Blogs (Jun. 26, 2023), https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2023/06/the-copyright-claims-board-celebratesits-first-year/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:23 PM).
[14] See Nora Scheland, Checking in with the Copyright Claims Board Nearly Eighteen Months After Opening Day, Library of Congress Blogs (Nov. 6, 2023),https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2023/11/checking-in-with-the-copyright-claims-board-nearly-eighteenmonths-after-opening-day/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:25 PM).
[15] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office (December 1998), available at https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf.
[16] The DMCA establishes notice and takedown procedures. Copyright owners can submit notifications to service providers (under penalty of perjury) that content on their websites is infringing. Service providers can promptly remove or temporarily block access to the relevant content. If a person misrepresents important information that the service provider relies on to take down content, claimants whose content was taken down may be able to bring legal claims to remedy this.
[17] Copyright Claims Board, Starting a Misrepresentation Claim (Jan. 2, 2024), https://ccb.gov/handbook/Misrepresentation-Claim.pdf.
[18] If this is a work of “joint authorship,” any joint authors can enforce the copyright.
[19] See Copyright Claims Board Handbook, United States Copyright Office (Jan. 2, 2024), https://ccb.gov/handbook/ (accessed Mar. 19, 2024, 3:40 PM).
[20] See generally Compliance Review, CCB Handbook (Jan. 2, 2024), https://ccb.gov/handbook/Compliance.pdf (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 3:25 PM).
[21] “Employers” who commission work are “authors” under the law. Even if you created a work, you may not own it if it was done as a work for hire for an employer or someone else.
[22] Protecting Copyrighted Content Online: Understanding the Legal Process for Content Removal, DMCA (rev. Jun. 13, 2023), https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-a-DMCA-Takedown (accessed Mar. 20, 2024, 8:44 PM).
[23] See Adi Robertson, Who Owns AI Art?, The Verge (Nov. 15, 2023), https://www.theverge.com/23961021/ai-art-copyright-training-ownership-fair-use (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 4:14 PM).
[24] Vincent Van Gogh, The Starry Night, 1889, oil on canvas, 73.7 x 92.1 cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79802/.
[25] OpenAI DALL·E 2, Response to “create an image of a town with a moon in the background and make it look like a Van Gogh painting” (Mar. 2024).
[26] Melissa Heikkilä, This artist is dominating AI-generated art. And he’s not happy about it., MIT Technology Review (Sep. 16, 2022), https://perma.cc/Y5BW-AUD3 (accessed Mar. 19, 2024).
[27] Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1196 (2021) (citations omitted).
[28] See Stephen Wolfson, The Complex World of Style, Copyright, and Generative AI, Creative Commons (Mar. 23, 2023), https://perma.cc/M8AC-8HCP (noting how some case law does recognize copyright protections for works based on their style, and explaining how one case recognized that two works can become “substantially similar” if they share a “style of representation.”).
[29] See Malden Mills, Inc. v. Regency Mills, Inc., 626 F.2d 1112, 1113 (2d Cir. 1980) (finding two textile designs “substantially similar” and reversing the district court's opinion).
[30] In one recent case, a federal appeals court opinion and dissent clashed on whether its holding permitted a party to copyright their artistic style. Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1138 (9th Cir. 2018) (In a case upholding a jury’s finding that Robin Thicke’s song Blurred Lines infringed on Marvin Gaye’s Got to Give it Up, the majority affirmed that their holding did “not grant license to copyright a musical style.”) The the dissenting opinion asserted that the “majority allow[ed] the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style.”). Id. (J. Nguyen, dissenting).
[31] Artists including Greg Rutkowski have brought copyright claims to US courts to challenge their art styles being used by GAI models and companies. These cases are in progress, and a decision has not yet been reached. Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 23-CV-00201-WHO, 2023 WL 7132064 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023); Jarred Briggs, AI Tech Enables Industrial-Scale Intellectual-Property Theft, Say Critics, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 4, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-chatgpt-dall-e-microsoft-rutkowskigithub-artificial-intelligence-11675466857; Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Some Stability For AI Defendants: Judge Dismisses All But One Claim in Andersen et. al., v. Stability AI LTD., et. al. (Nov. 9, 2023), https://perma.cc/U8LM-MSB4
[32] See Blake Brittain, US Copyright Offices Denies Protection for Another AI-Created Image, Reuters (Sept. 18, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-copyright-office-denies-protectionanother-ai-created-image-2023-09-06/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 4:16 PM).
[33] Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (codified at 37 CFR 202), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-05321/p-24 (accessed Mar. 20, 2024).
[34] See Daniel Kuhn, Ryder Ripps, Bored Apes and ‘Owning’ an NFT, CoinDesk (date), https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/05/19/ryder-ripps-bored-apes-and-owning-an-nft/ (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 4:11 PM).
[35] See James Grimmelman et. al, Copyright Vulnerabilities in NFTs, The Initiative for CryptoCurrencies and Contracts (Mar. 21 2022), https://medium.com/initc3org/copyright-vulnerabilities-in-nfts317e02d8ae26 (accessed Mar. 18, 2024, 4:04 PM).
[36] See Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, No. CV 22-4355-JFW(JEMX), 2023 WL 3316748, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023).