Copyright Office
-
AIPLA Submits Comments to US Copyright Office Regarding Deferred Registration Examination Study
January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry related to the deferred registration examination study. The comments address perceived deficiencies in the current registration regime, benefits and drawbacks to offering a deferred examination option, legal or regulatory framework, filing fees, and more. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to U.S. Copyright Office Pursuant to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Related to CASE Act Regulations
November 10, 2021
On November 10, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to CASE Act regulations. Comments provided included support for requiring claimants to provide contact information in the initial notice form and support for charging filing fees for counterclaims. A staggered fee structure was again suggested, and support was provided for an initial notice in a form that includes information required by the statute and additional basic information. An opt-out mechanism for claimants who receive a counterclaim was not supported, and concern was expressed regarding implementation of a mechanism whereby a respondent who has opted out of a CCB proceeding can change their mind and opt back in.
-
AIPLA Submits Comments on Notification of Inquiry Regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations
April 26, 2021
On April 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on Notification of Inquiry regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations. As a general matter, AIPLA believes that it is important to keep the procedures as straight forward and accessible as possible to ensure this will be a new, simple, and low-cost process to resolve small copyright claims. AIPLA encourages the Copyright Claims Board to publish standardized forms and instructions. Additionally, AIPLA is in favor of providing a Second Notice through the U.S. Postal Service. For ease of delivery, AIPLA is in favor of a Designated Agent directory. Online submission of opt-out notices should be encouraged, but a paper option is also recommended. To strike an appropriate balance of discovery, AIPLA recommends that the CCB require a standardized, initial disclosure of relevant information. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,252
September 2, 2020
AIPLA's comments in response to the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office Notice and Request for Public Comment, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 -
Comments to Copyright Office on Registration Modernization
June 1, 2020
AIPLA supports and appreciates the Copyright Office’s efforts to modernize the copyright registration system. -
Recommendations on the Position of Register of Copyrights
March 23, 2020
AIPLA discusses the traits the association views as essential for the position of Register of Copyrights. -
Comments to Copyright Office Pursuant to Notification of Inquiry Regarding Online Publication
March 23, 2020
In AIPLA’s view, issues and confusion regarding “online” publication arise from the statute itself. If such issues are to be resolved, we believe that this is best done by Congress. -
Re: Comments Submitted Pursuant to “Notification of Inquiry,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52336 (Oct. 17, 2018)
October 17, 2018
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the United States Copyright Office (the “Office”) Notification of Inquiry, 83 Fed. Reg. 52336, issued October 17, 2018, concerning various proposed efforts to modernize the registration process (NOI). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Copyright Office Fees," September 21, 2018
September 21, 2018
While AIPLA recognizes the Copyright Office’s right and need to increase its fees periodically—and further recognizes that any proposed fee increase will ordinarily be met with some degree of reluctance by those incurring the increased expense—some of the Office’s proposed fee increases here raise certain questions and concerns for AIPLA members that we would like to bring to your attention. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Additional Comments Regarding Section 512 Study
February 21, 2017
Although the mechanisms of Section 512 are used now more than ever, many stakeholders believe the system can be improved substantially, and in a variety of ways that reflect the “great diversity among the categories of content creators and ISPs who comprise the Internet ecosystem.” -
AIPLA Comments on IT Modernization Plan
March 31, 2016
AIPLA supports funding the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts, including the goals reflected in the IT Plan, through a blend of fees for services and dedicated appropriated dollars. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Comments Regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,”
October 9, 2015
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) is pleased to have the opportunity to present its views on the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office request for comments regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,” 80 Fed. Reg. 32614 (June 9, 2015). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Copyright Protection for Certain Visual Works,"
July 23, 2015
AIPLA believes the ease of unauthorized copying online is a major challenge to the licensing of visual works. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notices of Inquiry Entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization; Request for Additional Comments and Announcement of Public Roundtables,”
May 21, 2014
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to submit these comments in response the above-referenced Notices of Inquiry concerning the Office’s ongoing assessment of orphan works and mass digitization. -
AIPLA Comments on Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions"
May 20, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer the following comments concerning the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry regarding “Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions” published in the March 22, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, 78 Fed. Reg. 17722. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Orphan Works and Mass Digitization"
February 4, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization” (the “NOI”), as published in the October 22, 2012 issue of the Federal Register. 77 Fed. Reg. 64555. -
AIPLA Comments on Remedies for Small Copyright Claims
January 16, 2012
AIPLA applauds efforts by Congress and the Copyright Office to ensure that copyright owners of all kinds–large and small–have the ability to effectively protect their rights in their works. -
AIPLA Comments to DMCA Rulemaking Regarding Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies
February 2, 2009
AIPLA agrees that, for certain classes of work, exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ("DMCA") anti-circumvention provisions are warranted. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry to Examine Issues Raised by “Orphan Works”
May 8, 2005
AIPLA agrees that difficulties in identifying and locating the owners of copyright in some “orphan works” present a genuine problem, and that society would benefit from greater access to such works.
Recent Advocacy
-
AIPLA Comments on Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions
June 18, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 17, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions. -
AIPLA Comments on Resources for Examining Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-Function Claim Limitations
June 17, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 17, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO on Resources for Examining Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-Function Claim Limitations. -
Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of "Trump Too Small" Trademark in Vidal v. Elster
June 14, 2024
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The decision contrasts with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on August 1, 2023.
-
AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order
August 26, 2022
Arlington, VA. August 26, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the proposed pilot program for instituting a Final Pretrial Conference (PFC) requirement in certain TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings. -
AIPLA Files Brief In Support of Neither Party Regarding Order Setting Schedule for Director Review
August 4, 2022
Arlington, VA. August 4, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in the two PTAB cases of OpenSky Industries, LLC, Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, and Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC, which USPTO Director Vidal has taken up to address what actions the USPTO Director should take when faced with assertions of an abuse of process or conduct that otherwise thwarts, as opposed to advances, the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. AIPLA’s brief argues that the review procedures implemented in these proceedings are adequate to address the rare instances of alleged abuse of process or alleged conduct contrary to the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. -
AIPLA Comments on the USPTO in Response to the Interim Process for Director Review
July 11, 2022
On July 11, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) offered its initial views to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in response to the Interim Process for PTAB Director Review. AIPLA appreciates the USPTO’s focus on improving fairness to all parties and achieving greater consistency and predictability in these proceedings.
-
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, Amicus Brief Filed 6/17/2022
June 20, 2022
AIPLA submitted an amicus brief in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869, the case addresses the role of transformativeness in the copyright fair use analysis. AIPLA urged three main points on the Court. First, the importance of a flexible, adaptable fair use doctrine, explaining that at least all four enumerated statutory fair use factors should be weighed and no one factor should be prioritized over all other factors found in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Second, AIPLA advocated for a more objective “reasonable perception” standard in determining a work’s purpose and meaning; which should mitigate against the impact of self-interested testimony and judicial preferences and yield more predictable outcomes. Third, AIPLA urged the Court to expressly reject a celebrity-plagiarist exception to copyright infringement because fair use should be applied equally to all and should not turn on whether an artist or their style is famous.
-
AIPLA Comments on Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments
February 4, 2022
The American Intellectual Property Law Association ("AIPLA") is pleased to submit comments to the "Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments issued on December 6, 20211 ("draft policy statement" or "draft") by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division ("DOJ"), the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") (together "the agencies"). -
AIPLA Submits Comments to US Copyright Office Regarding Deferred Registration Examination Study
January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry related to the deferred registration examination study. The comments address perceived deficiencies in the current registration regime, benefits and drawbacks to offering a deferred examination option, legal or regulatory framework, filing fees, and more. -
AIPLA Endorses Judge Leonard P. Stark for Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
December 16, 2021
On December 16, 2021, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted a letter to Chair Richard J. Durbin and Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in support of Judge Leonard P. Stark's nomination of Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The letter outlined the Association's White Paper ("Recommendations Regarding Nomination of Judges to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" dated September 2018), concluding that Judge Stark not only meets the criteria, but would bring essential experience to the Court. The letter provides an enthusiastic endorsement of Judge Stark, urging the Senate to move forward with his confirmation. -
USPTO Indefinitely Delays Implementation of the Voluntary Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Certification
December 16, 2021
On December 16, 2021, The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) indefinitely delayed implementation of the voluntary continuing legal education (CLE) certification for registered patent practitioners and individuals granted limited recognition to practice before the USPTO in patent matters. The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) assembled a joint committee task force to ensure that the proposed rules did not disproportionately impact patent agents and other practitioners for whom CLE self-certification would be a significant burden and/or legal risk, and to ensure that practitioners were made aware of requirements for the registration statement and the CLE self-certification.