[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14242-14257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06883]



[[Page 14241]]

Vol. 84

Tuesday,

No. 68

April 9, 2019

Part III





Library of Congress





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Copyright Office





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





37 CFR Part 201





Noncommercial Use of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings That Are Not Being 
Commercially Exploited; Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 14242]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. 2018-8]


Noncommercial Use of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings That Are Not Being 
Commercially Exploited

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a final rule regarding 
the Classics Protection and Access Act, title II of the Orrin G. Hatch-
Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act. In connection with the 
establishment of federal remedies for unauthorized uses of sound 
recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 (``Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings''), Congress established an exception for certain 
noncommercial uses of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings that are not being 
commercially exploited. To qualify for this exception, a user must file 
a notice of noncommercial use after conducting a good faith, reasonable 
search to determine whether the Pre-1972 Sound Recording is being 
commercially exploited, and the rights owner of the sound recording 
must not object to the use within 90 days. After soliciting three 
rounds of public comments through a notice of inquiry and a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the Office is issuing final regulations 
identifying the specific steps that a user should take to demonstrate 
she has made a good faith, reasonable search. The rule also details the 
filing requirements for the user to submit a notice of noncommercial 
use and for a rights owner to submit a notice opting out of such use.

DATES: Effective May 9, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 
Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected] or 
Anna Chauvet, Associate General Counsel, by email at 
[email protected]. Each can be contacted by telephone by calling 
(202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Title II of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization 
Act, H.R. 1551 (``MMA''), the Classics Protection and Access Act, 
created chapter 14 of the copyright law, title 17, United States Code, 
which, among other things, extends remedies for copyright infringement 
to owners of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972 (``Pre-
1972 Sound Recordings''). Under the provision, rights owners are 
eligible to recover statutory damages and/or attorneys' fees for the 
unauthorized use of their Pre-1972 Sound Recordings if certain 
requirements are met. To be eligible for these remedies, rights owners 
must typically file schedules listing their Pre-1972 Sound Recordings 
(``Pre-1972 Schedules'') with the U.S. Copyright Office (the 
``Office''), which are indexed into the Office's public records.\1\ 
This requirement is ``designed to operate in place of a formal 
registration requirement that normally applies to claims involving 
statutory damages.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(f)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II).
    \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 115-651, at 16 (2018); see S. Rep. No. 115-
339, at 18 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MMA also creates a new mechanism for users to obtain 
authorization to make noncommercial uses of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings 
that are not being commercially exploited. Under section 1401, a person 
may file a notice with the Copyright Office proposing a specific 
noncommercial use after taking steps to determine whether the recording 
is, at that time, being commercially exploited by or under the 
authority of the rights owner.\3\ Specifically, before determining that 
the recording is not being commercially exploited, a person must first 
undertake a ``good faith, reasonable search'' of both the Pre-1972 
Schedules indexed by the Copyright Office and music services ``offering 
a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or streaming.'' \4\ At 
that point, the potential user may file a notice identifying the Pre-
1972 Sound Recording and nature of the intended noncommercial use with 
the Office (a ``notice of noncommercial use'' or ``NNU''), and this 
notice is also indexed into the Office's public records.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A)-(B).
    \4\ Id. at 1401(c)(1)(A).
    \5\ Id. at 1401(c)(1)(B), (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the rights owner of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording may 
file a notice with the Copyright Office ``opting out'' of (i.e., 
objecting to) the requested noncommercial use (``Pre-1972 Opt-Out 
Notice''), and a user nonetheless engaging in such use may be subject 
to liability under section 1401(a).\6\ A rights owner has 90 days from 
the date the NNU is indexed into the Office's public records to file a 
Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notice.\7\ If, however, the rights owner does not opt-
out within 90 days, the user may engage in the noncommercial use of the 
Pre-1972 Sound Recording without violating section 1401(a).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 1401(c)(1). The Office notes that a rights owner may 
opt out of the proposed use for any reason.
    \7\ Id. at 1401(c)(1)(C).
    \8\ Id. at 1401(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MMA requires the Copyright Office to issue regulations 
identifying the ``specific, reasonable steps that, if taken by a 
[noncommercial user of a Pre-1972 Sound Recording], are sufficient to 
constitute a good faith, reasonable search'' of the Office's records 
and music services to support a conclusion that a relevant Pre-1972 
Sound Recording is not being commercially exploited.\9\ A user 
following these ``specific, reasonable steps'' will satisfy the 
statutory requirement of conducting a good faith search, even if the 
sound recording is later discovered to be commercially exploited.\10\ 
Other searches may also satisfy this statutory requirement, but the 
user would need to independently demonstrate how she met the 
requirement if challenged.\11\ The Office must also issue regulations 
``establish[ing] the form, content, and procedures'' for users to file 
NNUs and rights owners to file Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 1401(c)(3)(A).
    \10\ Id. at 1401(c)(4)(B).
    \11\ Id. at 1401(c)(4)(A)-(B).
    \12\ Id. at 1401(c)(3)(B), (5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 16, 2018, the Office issued a notice of inquiry 
(``NOI'') soliciting comments regarding the specific steps a user 
should take to demonstrate she has made a good faith, reasonable 
search; the filing requirements for the user to submit an NNU; and the 
filing requirements for a rights owner to submit a Pre-1972 Opt-Out 
Notice objecting to such use.\13\ On February 5, 2019, the Office 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') soliciting comments 
on proposed regulations regarding these same issues.\14\ In response to 
the NPRM, the Office received nine comments, discussed further 
below.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 83 FR 52176 (Oct. 16, 2018) (``NOI''). Twenty-five comments 
were received in response to the NOI.
    \14\ 84 FR 1661 (Feb. 5, 2019) (``NPRM'').
    \15\ The comments received in response to the NOI and NPRM are 
available online at https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=COLC-2018-0008. References to these comments are by party name 
(abbreviated where appropriate), followed by ``Initial,'' ``Reply,'' 
or ``NPRM Comment,'' as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having reviewed and carefully considered the comments, the Office 
now issues a final rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Public Knowledge alludes to the Office's need to address 
concerns raised in its written comments. Public Knowledge NPRM 
Comment at 10 n.13. The Office believes the NPRM and final rule 
reflect careful and appropriate consideration of comments as 
required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14243]]

II. Final Rule

    The final rule governs three specific areas: (i) The ``specific, 
reasonable steps that, if taken by a [noncommercial user of a Pre-1972 
Sound Recording], are sufficient to constitute a good faith, reasonable 
search'' to support a conclusion that a relevant Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording is not being commercially exploited; (ii) the form, content, 
and procedures for a user, having made such a search, to file an NNU; 
and (iii) the form, content, and procedures for a rights owner to file 
a Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notice.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(3)(A), (B). The final rule also confirms 
that 37 CFR 201.4 does not govern the filing of NNUs and Pre-1972 
Opt-Out Notices. Similarly, the final rule makes a technical edit to 
reflect that the filing of notices of use of sound recordings under 
statutory license (17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114) are not governed by 37 CFR 
201.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in more detail by the NPRM, the Office confirms that 
the noncommercial use exception under section 1401(c) is supplementary 
and does not negate other exceptions and limitations that may be 
available to a prospective user, including fair use and the exceptions 
for libraries and archives.\18\ Regarding fair use specifically, the 
Office notes that although certain noncommercial uses may constitute 
fair use, not all may be fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose 
and character of the use against the other fair use factors.\19\ 
Similarly, the Office confirms that the noncommercial use exception 
should not affect application of the section 108(h) exception available 
for libraries and archives performing a reasonable investigation 
regarding the availability of published works in the last twenty years 
of their copyright term.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NPRM at 1662-63 & n.19 (noting many comments urging this 
approach). See 17 U.S.C. 1401(f)(1)(A); id. at 1401(c)(2)(C), 
(c)(5)(B).
    \19\ See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 584-
85 (1994) (noting ``the commercial or nonprofit educational 
character of a work is `not conclusive' '' to fair use (quoting Sony 
Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 448 
(1984))); H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 66 (1976) (same).
    \20\ NPRM at 1662-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to promulgating this rule, the Copyright Office intends 
to prepare additional public resources regarding Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings and the new noncommercial use exception, such as a public 
circular.

A. Good Faith, Reasonable Search

    The proposed rule identified five steps (six in the case of Alaska 
Native and American Indian ethnographic sound recordings) that, if 
taken, would support a conclusion that a relevant Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording is not being commercially exploited.\21\ The final rule 
largely adopts the proposed rule, with some adjustments in response to 
public comment, including one additional step. Consistent with the 
statute's directive to provide ``specific'' steps that are 
``sufficient, but not necessary'' to demonstrate a Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording is not being commercialized, the rule adopts a ``checklist'' 
approach for users to search across categories rather than an ``open-
ended'' approach to better provide certainty to users.\22\ Users should 
progressively search through a set number of categories if and until a 
match is found, with a match evidencing commercial exploitation of the 
Pre-1972 Sound Recording.\23\ The categories to be searched are listed 
in recommended search order, to reduce the likelihood of duplicative 
searching.\24\ In cases where the type of recording (e.g., classical 
music or ethnographic sound recordings) warrants searching an 
additional resource or more particularized search criteria, these 
criteria are included on a tailored basis, as applicable to a 
particular genre.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 1663-68; 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(3)(A).
    \22\ NPRM at 1663.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id. at 1663, 1669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments received overwhelmingly praised the proposed rule, 
describing it as ``balanced,'' \26\ ``measured,'' \27\ ``thoughtful and 
realistic,'' \28\ and a ``common-sense approach.'' \29\ A number of 
stakeholders favored the Office's ``checklist'' approach; \30\ for 
example, EFF stated that the ``proposed five- or six-step search 
methodology for identifying commercial exploitation is generally 
reasonable,'' \31\ and A2IM and RIAA ``believe the checklist-based 
approach aptly balances users' need for simplicity with rights owners' 
need for thoroughness.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 1 (``The Copyright 
Alliance commends the Copyright Office for crafting a balanced rule 
that aligns with the statutory requirements and takes into account 
the rights of sound recording owners and interests of potential 
users.'').
    \27\ Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 1 (the proposed rule 
``represents a measured effort to allow potential users to 
effectively avail themselves'' of the noncommercial use exception; 
``applaud[ing the Office] for carefully considering all of the 
diverse viewpoints that were reflected in the comments . . .'').
    \28\ Future of Music Coalition (``FMC'') NPRM Comment at 1 (``we 
are grateful for the thoughtful and realistic approach'').
    \29\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 2.
    \30\ See, e.g., Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 1 (``we 
applaud the Office for taking the checklist-based approach''); 
Recording Academy at 2 (``The steps are also thoughtfully sequenced 
so that a potential user is more likely to find a commercial use 
quickly and with a minimal amount of effort.'').
    \31\ EFF NPRM Comment at 1.
    \32\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule preserves this basic framework, with a few 
adjustments discussed below, including an additional step for locating 
uses on YouTube authorized by the rightsholder. In sum, the final rule 
requires searching the following:

    1. The Copyright Office's database of Pre-1972 Schedules;
    2. One of the following major search engines: Google, Yahoo!, or 
Bing;
    3. One of the following major streaming services: Amazon Music 
Unlimited, Apple Music, Spotify, or TIDAL;
    4. YouTube, for authorized uses;
    5. The SoundExchange ISRC database;
    6. Amazon.com, and, where the prospective user reasonably 
believes the recording implicates a listed niche genre, an 
additional listed online retailer of physical product; and
    7. In the case of ethnographic Pre-1972 Sound Recordings of 
Alaska Native or American Indian tribes, searching through 
contacting the relevant tribe, association, and/or holding 
institution.

    As reflected by the bulk of the comments received, the Office 
concludes that the final rule steps are reasonable to expect of an 
individual user, yet exhaustive enough to qualify that user for a safe 
harbor as to the search's sufficiency from the perspective of rights 
owners' interests. As noted in the NPRM, the Office is concerned that 
limiting sources to be searched to only the most commercially popular 
services might obscure perspectives of smaller, less mainstream 
creators and independent services who play a vital role in ensuring 
that a diverse array of cultural contributions are created and made 
available to the public.\33\ The final rule attempts to account for the 
diversity of models while prioritizing services with intuitive search 
capabilities and minimizing resources where a subscription is required 
to access the search function; the categories to be searched--with the 
potential exception of certain interactive streaming services, which 
are statutorily required to be included--are all available at no cost 
to the user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NPRM at 1663; see FMC Reply at 1-2; Copyright Alliance 
Initial at 1 (discussing relationship between ``existing general and 
niche markets''); A2IM & RIAA Reply at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further ensure the specific steps are reasonable and not 
duplicative, the final rule clarifies that the user only needs to keep 
progressively searching the categories of sources until she has located 
the sound recording (i.e., once she finds the sound recording in one 
category, which evidences commercial exploitation, she can stop 
searching), or

[[Page 14244]]

exhausted her search options by searching each of the successive 
categories without finding the sound recording (i.e., finding no 
commercial exploitation).\34\ Public Knowledge contends that ``the 
proposed search steps, taken together, are extremely likely to be 
duplicative of one another.'' \35\ The steps in the final rule, 
however, are purposely listed in recommended order of searching, with 
the understanding that searches of the Office's database of Pre-1972 
Schedules and search engines may render searching on a streaming 
service or other service (i.e., subsequent search categories) 
unnecessary.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Hunter NPRM Comment at 2 (``It is unclear if the rule 
requires the person searching to look at each category, or to search 
the categories in order until they have found the recording, or 
exhausted their options.'').
    \35\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 4-5; Public Knowledge Ex 
Parte Letter at 1.
    \36\ NPRM at 1665. See also FMC Ex Parte Letter at 1 (suggesting 
``that a search is not duplicative just because it yields the same 
results on multiple platforms--as soon as a positive result is 
found, the searcher is able to stop.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, a search for ``Eleanor Rigby'' in the Copyright 
Office's database currently returns one result for this Beatles 
recording, and also provides contact information for Capitol Records as 
the listed rights owner. A prospective user will therefore learn at 
step one that the safe harbor is unavailable for this recording, and 
also how to contact the rights owner to potentially negotiate a 
permissive use. Similarly, taking Public Knowledge's example, if a user 
searches ``Don't Fence me In'' by Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters 
on Google.com, and the results show the recording being commercially 
exploited on services offering sound recordings for sale or streaming, 
the user does not need to continue onto the next steps.\37\ But, where 
search engine results do not show the recording being commercially 
exploited on a section 1401(c)(1)(A) service, the user should proceed 
to the next steps, which the Office has concluded, based on the public 
comments and its own research, lack an ``extreme likelihood of 
duplication'' for those rarer recordings that are not readily located 
through the initial steps.\38\ The Office also concludes that the steps 
are generally reasonable, in part because they can be conducted 
relatively quickly to provide certainty for a potentially long-lasting 
safe harbor, using publicly available resources ``without creating an 
account or paying a fee.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 6. ``Don't Fence Me In'' 
is currently unlisted in the Office's database, but the top 
Google.com result shows it ``available on'' Play Music, Deezer, and 
iHeartRadio. Google, https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22don%27t+fence+me+in%22+andrews+sisters (last visited Mar. 29, 
2019).
    \38\ Public Knowledge may conflate the likelihood of duplicated 
results for broadly exploited recordings with the likelihood of 
duplication for less pervasively available recordings (as shown by 
its choice to search for ``Billboard number one singles,'' see 
Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 6). In the former scenario, the 
user will quickly stop searching, but the rule is necessarily more 
concerned with the latter cases, as the statute asks users to search 
multiple ``services,'' suggesting a more robust search is 
appropriate to capture less broad but nonetheless bona fide 
commercial exploitations. See FMC Ex Parte Letter at 1 (stating the 
statute was ``written to protect the full diversity of 
rightsholders, big and small, famous and obscure,'' and that 
Billboard number one singles ``don't represent a reasonable proxy 
for the full diversity of impacted recordings'').
    \39\ EFF NPRM Comment at 2. It is not clear which step Public 
Knowledge believes requires ``subscription fees''; as explained in 
the NPRM, the Office took the suggestion of Public Knowledge and 
others to craft steps that minimize or eliminate the need for users 
to establish paid subscription accounts, despite persuasive comments 
from rightsholder groups suggesting that it would not be 
inappropriate to require such searching before engaging in the 
proposed uses. Compare Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 7 with NPRM 
at 1664 & n.40. Instead, the Office included steps such as the IRSC 
database and search engine searching to provide a similar level of 
comprehensiveness while minimizing potential user burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the broadly positive comments received and other 
specific suggestions from other commenters (including broad-ranging 
comments from NCAI) that are discussed below in reference to particular 
steps, Public Knowledge raises additional general objections to the 
proposed rule. Public Knowledge contends that the Office lacks 
authority to include searches of ``search engines, SoundExchange's ISRC 
database, and physical product retailers'' as part of a search ``on 
services offering a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or 
streaming.'' \40\ As noted in the NPRM, searches of a search engine and 
the ISRC lookup tool are expected to serve as a reasonable proxy for 
searches on a wide array of the statutorily identified services that 
offer a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or streaming, in 
an effort to avoid duplicative searching.\41\ As explained in the NPRM, 
the Office does not read section 1401(c) so narrowly as to preclude 
searching resources--such as the SoundExchange ISRC lookup tool or 
major search engines--that are used ``to determine whether'' a Pre-1972 
Sound Recording is being commercially exploited on services offering a 
comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or streaming.\42\ Such 
cross-platform tools can quickly reveal information relevant to whether 
a recording is being used on a variety of services unequivocally 
involved in commercially exploiting these sound recordings. To exclude 
reliance upon these sources would hamper the Office's ability to craft 
a smaller list of ``specific, reasonable steps'' that a user may take 
before filing a NNU.\43\ As such, the rule does not stray outside of 
the statutory language; each step is to be used as a finding aid for 
the statutory category of ``services offering a comprehensive set of 
sound recordings for sale or streaming,'' rather than expanding this 
category. As noted in the NPRM, the Office has concluded that it is 
more reasonable (and less burdensome, more intuitive, cost-effective, 
and overall user-friendly) to ask users to conduct one search engine 
search that captures multiple streaming services, rather than 
individually searching multiple additional interactive services, and to 
ask users to search the ISRC database, rather than any of the over 
3,100 non-interactive services that are exploiting Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 2-4.
    \41\ NPRM at 1665, 1667; see also Public Knowledge NPRM Comment 
at 5 (claiming that searching on Google or the IRSC database tool is 
``extremely likely--perhaps practically certain--to find commercial 
exploitation of any recording that would also appear in a direct 
search of a streaming service.''). Cf. Public Knowledge Initial at 2 
(suggesting search requirements should be ``proportional'').
    \42\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Compare Public 
Knowledge NPRM Comment at 2 n.1 (``The most generous reading of the 
search engine and ISRC requirements are that they serve as a 
reasonable proxy for locating works on `services offering a 
comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or streaming.' '').
    \43\ For example, a Google search for the 1947 Famous Blue Jay 
Singer's recording ``I'm Bound for Canaan Land'' reveals the work 
available through Play Music and Deezer, two services the Office is 
not requiring to be searched. Similarly, a search for the 1950 Kings 
of Harmony recording ``God Shall Wipe All Tears Away'' reveals that 
the recording is available for purchase through Apple Music, 
Amazon.com, and sites such as singers.com. It appears, however, that 
those recordings would not presently be returned in a search of the 
Office's database, Spotify, or authorized YouTube results, and so 
the search engine step is an expedient way of confirming that the 
sound recording is in fact being commercially exploited through 
section 1401(c)(1)(A) services, rather than the Office requiring 
users to subscribe to and search these additional services.
    \44\ See NPRM at 1665-66. Put another way, given the current 
marketplace, it does not appear ``reasonable'' for the Office to 
ignore these additional interactive and non-interactive streaming 
and for-sale services in crafting the list of steps, and so the 
Office has picked a reasonable way to search these services, as the 
statute requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, and as noted in the NPRM, the noncommercial use exception is 
not intended to displace the important role of licensed transactions to 
facilitate the use of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.\45\

[[Page 14245]]

Copyright Alliance, supported by A2IM and RIAA, suggests that the 
Office require a user to directly notify a rights owner if that owner 
can be located.\46\ While the Office strongly supports resolving uses 
through voluntary agreements, requiring prospective users to generally 
contact rights owners appears outside the scope of this rulemaking. The 
statute asks the Office to promulgate a list of ``specific, reasonable 
steps'' that would constitute a search for a given sound recording in 
the Office's records and on services offering a comprehensive set of 
sound recordings for sale or streaming.\47\ With the exception of the 
special case of ethnographic sound recordings, where undisputed 
comments suggest the available ownership information for these 
recordings is particularly poor, the Office has concluded that 
searching the listed services is the more reasonable approach. The 
Office does, however, encourage users to contact rights owners that can 
be identified (including even after learning that a work is being 
commercially exploited) to facilitate permissive uses of these 
recordings, including for licensed fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. at 1664. See, e.g., A2IM & RIAA Initial at 1-2 
(suggesting that in many cases, voluntary licensing may prove more 
efficient within a short timeframe than this exception); Copyright 
Alliance Initial at 2-3; SoundExchange Initial at 2.
    \46\ Copyright Alliance Initial at 2-3, 5. In response to the 
proposed rule, Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA contend that while 
the Office declined to generally require users to contact rights 
owners directly, the Office adopted a similar requirement with 
respect to ethnographic Pre-1972 Sound Recordings of Alaska Native 
or American Indian tribes, by requiring a search through contacting 
the relevant tribe, association, and/or holding institution. A2IM & 
RIAA NPRM Comment at 4; Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 2. As 
discussed below, ethnographic field recordings (and the metadata 
surrounding such recordings) are uniquely situated. See also NPRM at 
1667-68; U.S. Copyright Office, Federal Copyright Protection For 
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings 52 (2011), https://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf (``Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Report'').
    \47\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A), (c)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Office reaffirms its commitment to periodically 
updating this list of specific steps to take into account changes in 
the music marketplace.\48\ A2IM and RIAA request that the Office 
``publish [notices of inquiry] at some regular interval seeking public 
input on whether the list of specific steps'' needs updating, or 
``establish a mechanism by which rights owners and/or users can 
petition the Office to seek review of the existing list of specific 
steps and consider whether updates are warranted.'' \49\ Like other 
agencies, the Office accepts petitions proposing rule changes.\50\ 
Given the extensive comments aired in this rulemaking, the Office 
anticipates the current rule to hold for the near term. But should 
market changes render the list of specific search steps in the final 
rule unworkable, the Office encourages stakeholders to petition the 
Office for changes at that time, and the Office will also take 
initiative to refresh this list should it become aware of the need to 
adjust in response to material changes in the marketplace.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Report and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by 
the Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees, at 25 (2018), https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/mma_conference_report.pdf (``Conf. Rep.'') (search must be based on 
``services available in the market at the time of the search'').
    \49\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 6.
    \50\ 5 U.S.C. 553(e) (providing that ``[e]ach agency shall give 
an interested person the right to petition for the . . . amendment . 
. . of a rule'').
    \51\ The Office is not at this time exploring ``whether it 
possesses the authority to institute a limited renewal requirement, 
under which entries in [Pre-1972 Schedules] would be subject to a 
periodic renewal in the same vein as DMCA agent designations.'' 
Public Knowledge Reply at 17; see NPRM at 1664, n.53. In response to 
the NPRM, multiple commenters assert that the statute does not 
extend such authority. See, e.g., A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 11; 
Copyright Alliance Comment at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Required Sources To Search
1. Searching the Copyright Office's Database of Pre-1972 Schedules
    First, section 1401(c) requires that the search must include 
searching for the Pre-1972 Sound Recording in the Copyright Office's 
database of Pre-1972 Schedules.\52\ The Office has issued a final rule 
governing how rights owners may file Pre-1972 Schedules and how they 
are made publicly available through an online database.\53\ For each 
sound recording, the Pre-1972 Schedule must include the rights owner's 
name, the sound recording title, and the featured artist, as well as 
the International Standard Recording Code (``ISRC'') (if known and 
practicable), and rights owners may opt to include additional 
information, such as album title, version, and alternate artist 
name(s).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A)(i), (f)(5)(A).
    \53\ 84 FR 10679 (Mar. 22, 2019).
    \54\ 37 CFR 201.35(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office did not receive any comments suggesting changes to the 
manner of searching the Office's database of Pre-1972 Schedules, and 
the final rule adopts this aspect of the proposed rule without 
substantive change. The final rule requires users to search for the 
title and featured artist(s) of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording. If the 
user knows any of the following attributes of the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording, the search must also include: Alternate artist name(s), 
alternate title(s), album title, and the International Standard 
Recording Code (``ISRC''). The user may also optionally search any 
other attributes known to the user of the sound recording, such as 
label or version.
2. Searching With a Major Search Engine
    Second, the proposed rule asked the user to search for the Pre-1972 
Sound Recording using at least one major search engine, namely: Google, 
Yahoo!, or Bing, to determine whether the sound recording is being 
commercially exploited.\55\ As noted in the NPRM, users are widely 
accustomed to conducting internet searches, and such searching is free 
and may render searching on a streaming service or other service 
unnecessary.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NPRM at 1665. See A2IM & RIAA Initial at 5; Copyright 
Alliance Initial at 4; FMC Reply at 6 (each suggesting that major 
search engines should be searched).
    \56\ NPRM at 1665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EFF asks the Office to clarify that ``a reasonable search for 
commercial exploitation using a search engine does not require an 
exhaustive reading of every web page returned as a result of such 
search,'' and that ``reading the first 1-2 pages of results and drawing 
reasonable inferences from those results, including following those 
links whose name or accompanying text suggest that commercial 
exploitation might be found there'' should be sufficient.\57\ The 
Office agrees with this suggestion, with the caveat that depending upon 
the specific results, it may be reasonable for the user to search more 
than 1-2 pages (although in other cases these first two pages will 
likely be sufficient). The Office's regulations and instructions will 
address this issue, and clarify that the purpose of this search is to 
determine whether the Pre-1972 Sound Recording is being commercially 
exploited (i.e., by being offered for sale in download form or as a new 
(not resale) physical product, or through a streaming service), and not 
simply whether the internet includes web pages discussing the 
recording, such as musicological, historical, or other commentary about 
the work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ EFF NPRM Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Searching on a Digital Streaming Service
    Third, the proposed rule asked the user to search at least one of 
the following streaming services, each of which offers tens of millions 
of tracks: Amazon Music Unlimited, Apple Music, Spotify, or TIDAL. The 
Office proposed these streaming services because there appeared to be 
agreement from commenters on these services in particular.\58\ These 
services currently

[[Page 14246]]

offer some of the largest repertoires of tracks and ``receive digital 
feeds from the major labels, large indie labels and significant 
distributors.'' \59\ The Office invited public comment on whether 
Google Play Music and/or Deezer should be included in the list of 
streaming services, as they also offer large repertoires of tracks. 
These two services, however, were not identified as possible sources 
from the majority of commenters.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NPRM at 1665 & n.64 (citing comments).
    \59\ A2IM & RIAA Initial at 5.
    \60\ NPRM at 1665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office also invited comment on whether users should be required 
to search a greater number of streaming services as part of a good 
faith, reasonable search.\61\ In response, some stakeholders contend 
that a search should include more than one streaming service.\62\ A2IM 
and RIAA propose searching two streaming services, but as part of two 
searches of services ``grouped into two separate lists,'' one 
comprising ``the four/five major streaming services,'' and the second 
comprising services with ``a more `specialized' repertoire.'' \63\ They 
also contend that Deezer should be included in the group of 
``specialized'' streaming services,\64\ along with Bandcamp.\65\ The 
comments, however, do not provide any examples of recordings that would 
not otherwise be found through the list of proposed steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Id.
    \62\ FMC NPRM Comment at 2 (``We would support including a 
greater number of streaming services, anticipating that the 
marketplace may continue to move in a more fragmented and 
specialized direction in potentially unpredictable ways.''); 
Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 3 (stating that ``searching only 
one subscription service is not sufficient''). A spectrum of 
commenters suggested, however, that the rule should not require a 
user to search all streaming services. A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7 
(proposing users search on two services); EFF Initial at 4 
(contending it is ``[r]easonable to include some subset'' of 
services); Hunter NPRM Comment at 2 (advocating ``to include as many 
services as possible in the list of digital streaming services . . . 
to make sure that the statute allows people to be able to search 
whatever music streaming service that they have.''). Cf. Internet 
Archive Initial at 1 (suggesting that a good faith, reasonable 
search ``should entail performing a few high quality searches on a 
small number of large services rather than performing a low quality 
search across a large number of services''); Public Knowledge 
Initial at 5, App. (proposing search of ``no more than one to two'' 
services). Commenters also noted that searching multiple streaming 
services might be duplicative. A2IM & RIAA Initial at 7; Public 
Knowledge Initial at 2.
    \63\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 2.
    \64\ Id.
    \65\ See id. at 2-3 & n.3; see also Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Office concludes that requiring 
searches of all these streaming services, or another category of 
streaming services, would likely be largely redundant. As noted above, 
a search using a search engine may indicate that the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording is available for streaming on various streaming services, 
rendering further searching unnecessary; Google, for example, appears 
to index Deezer, Play Music, and Spotify.\66\ While these services' 
repertoires are not identical, rather than requiring users to search 
additional services, the final rule limits the number of streaming 
services to be searched, but includes qualitatively different sources 
to search. In addition, the Office's determination to add YouTube as a 
separate search step may identify commercial exploitations of less 
mainstream recordings, reducing the need for a separate search of a 
streaming service with a ``specialized'' repertoire. As with all of 
these steps, the Office will consider adjusting this rule if conditions 
develop that demonstrate a need for adjustment, including adding 
additional steps (or removing steps), or the amount of services to be 
searched in each step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The record also suggests it may be premature to include 
Google Play Music in the regulatory category, which may soon migrate 
to YouTube Music. See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 2 (stating they do 
not oppose including Google Play Music, but requesting Google Play 
Music and YouTube Music be included as ``Google is widely expected 
to migrate Google Play Music users to YouTube Music sometime in 
2019''). See also Ara Wagoner, YouTube Music vs. Spotify: Which is 
the Better Streaming Music Service?, Android Central, (June 19, 
2018), https://www.androidcentral.com/youtube-music-vs-spotify 
(stating that YouTube Music ``doesn't give out a hard number for the 
songs in its catalog'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Searching YouTube for Authorized Uses
    The proposed rule did not request that the user search services 
comprised of user-generated content, such as YouTube.\67\ In response 
to the NOI, commenters IMSLP.ORG and Public Knowledge maintained that a 
search should not include services permitting user-uploaded content 
because such services include unauthorized uses of Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings, which do not constitute commercial exploitation ``by or 
under the authority of the rights owner'' as required by section 
1401(c)(1)(A).\68\ By contrast, Recording Academy urged the Office to 
include YouTube.\69\ While the Office noted that legislative history 
states that ``it is important that a user . . . make a robust search, 
including user-generated services,'' \70\ the Office expressed concern 
that a user conducting a section 1401(c) search on a service permitting 
user-uploaded content may have no way of knowing if the use of a Pre-
1972 Sound Recording is ``by or under the authority of the rights 
owner,'' a condition required by the statute.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ NPRM at 1668-69.
    \68\ IMSLP.ORG Reply at 2; Public Knowledge Reply at 11.
    \69\ Recording Academy Reply at 4.
    \70\ NPRM at 1668 n.111 (citing Conf. Rep. at 25). Public 
Knowledge asserts that the document characterized by the Office as a 
``Conference Report'' is not valid legislative history and is ``not 
a persuasive source of authority to anything beyond the personal 
opinions of Representative Goodlatte.'' Public Knowledge Reply at 8; 
Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 7. Neither case cited suggests the 
wholesale dismissal of subsequent legislative history, as Public 
Knowledge advocates. See Quern v. Mandley, 436 U.S. 725, 736 n.10 
(1978) (concerning Congress's understanding of a preexisting statute 
established by a prior Congress); Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 860 
F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (7th Cir. 1988) (affidavits prepared for 
litigation by a lobbyist and a Member of the House of 
Representatives years after the relevant statute was enacted did not 
constitute legislative history). In this case, the timing of the 
``Report and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the 
Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees,'' which was signed and issued by the principal House 
Sponsor and Chairman of Judiciary Committee on October 19, 2018, 
eight days after the MMA was enacted into law, suggests that it is 
entirely proper to afford it some interpretive value as legislative 
history.
    \71\ NPRM at 1668-69; 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the proposed rule, multiple stakeholders suggest 
that a good faith, reasonable search should include a separate search 
for a Pre-1972 Sound Recording on YouTube.\72\ While A2IM, RIAA, and 
Copyright Alliance recognize that YouTube may include unauthorized uses 
of works,\73\ A2IM and RIAA note that ``all of the major record labels 
and certain indie labels--which collectively account for the vast 
majority of copyrighted sound recording--currently have licenses with 
YouTube.'' \74\ A2IM, RIAA, and Copyright Alliance explain that YouTube 
does in many cases indicate when a work has been licensed.\75\ 
Specifically, ``a user can access information that may be useful in 
helping to identify whether content on YouTube is licensed or claimed 
simply by clicking on the `Show More' option that appears below each 
video and

[[Page 14247]]

referencing the `Licensed to YouTube by' field.'' \76\ They also 
indicate that additional recordings may be commercially exploited on 
YouTube with the authorization of the sound recording rights owner that 
are unavailable on other services.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 4 (``YouTube must be added as 
an additional, separate step in the list of categories users are 
required to search.''); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 2 
(stating it is ``essential that the Copyright Office add a YouTube 
search as an additional separate step.''); Recording Academy NPRM 
Comment at 3 (``Academy strongly urges the Copyright Office to add a 
search of YouTube as one additional step in the checklist in the 
final rule.'').
    \73\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 5-6 (stating ``there certainly 
are instances of unauthorized content on YouTube and other [user-
generated content] services''); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 3 
(stating ``that user-generated services may include both 
unauthorized and authorized copies of works and that it may not 
always be readily apparent to a user whether a work on such a 
service is being commercially exploited by the authority of the 
rights owner'').
    \74\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 5.
    \75\ Id.; Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 3.
    \76\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 5.
    \77\ Id. (``Including YouTube in the list of categories may also 
help to address the Office's concern about obscuring the perspective 
of smaller, less mainstream creators, . . . many of whom post their 
content on YouTube.''); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 3 
(stating that ``in many instances . . . works, though being 
commercially exploited on YouTube, would not be available on other 
authorized services''). The Office's own searches bear this out. For 
example, a search on YouTube for Elizabeth Cotten's 1959 recording 
``Freight Train'' or Daniel Santos & Sonora Matancera's 1950 
recording ``Carolina Cao'' reveals they are licensed to YouTube by 
The Orchard, an entity that comments suggested ``does not make its 
catalog publicly available.'' A2IM & RIAA Initial at 6; see 
Elizabeth Cotten--Freight Train, YouTube (Jan. 27, 2014), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8UN_6AUgCw; Daniel Santos & Sonora 
Matancera--Carolina Cao ((copyright)1950), YouTube (Apr. 10, 2010), 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXppKWTaw_I. Both ``Carolina Cao'' 
and the recording ``I'm Bound for Canaan Land'' discussed above 
appear to be currently unavailable on services like Spotify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review, because the ``Show More'' option will indicate when a 
work has been licensed ``by or under the authority of the rights 
owner,'' and because YouTube is a predominant service for the 
consumption of music in the United States,\78\ the final rule includes 
YouTube as a separate search category for those uses that are 
authorized by the sound recording rights owner. If a user locates the 
use of a Pre-1972 Sound Recording and the ``Show More'' option 
indicates that the work has been licensed, the user should consider the 
sound recording being commercially exploited.\79\ If a user locates the 
use of a Pre-1972 Sound Recording and the ``Show More'' option does not 
indicate whether the work has been licensed, the user should continue 
to progressively search in the other search categories until and if the 
sound recording is found.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ YouTube, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube 
(last visited Mar. 29, 2019) (``As of February 2017, there were more 
than 400 hours of content uploaded to YouTube each minute, and one 
billion hours of content being watched on YouTube every day. As of 
August 2018, the website is ranked as the second-most popular site 
in the world . . .''). See also A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 5 
(stating that YouTube is ``the predominant user-generated service in 
the U.S. and abroad''); Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 3 (stating 
that in 2018, YouTube ``accounted for almost half of all on-demand 
music streaming globally, more than every other streaming service 
combined'').
    \79\ For example, a search for the 1927 recording ``Blue Yodel 
(T for Texas)'' by Jimmie Rodgers suggests that some results are 
licensed by RCA/Legacy (T For Texas (Blue Yodel #1)--Jimmie Rodgers, 
YouTube (Jan. 22, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_3NC_kVmhk), while other results reveal no licensing 
information after clicking ``Show More'' (Jimmie Rodgers--Blue Yodel 
No 1 (T For Texas), YouTube (Jun. 17, 2006), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEIBmGZxAhg). Similar results were returned 
for other recordings, such as Patsy Montana's 1935 recording ``I 
Want to Be a Cowboy's Sweetheart'' and Link Wray's 1958 ``Rumble.''
    \80\ The Office considered that the ``Show More'' window can 
include licensing information unrelated to the sound recording, such 
as music publishing or performance licensing information. If a user 
is unfamiliar with the licensor, she should feel empowered to 
conduct additional diligence (such as a search engine search) to 
confirm whether the entity listed is likely to represent sound 
recording interests (e.g., a record label or distribution entity 
like CD Baby, TuneCore, or The Orchard). While this commingling of 
licensing information results is inelegant for purposes of this 
rulemaking, the Office considered the risks of both false positive 
and false negative results, and determined that the better course is 
to ask prospective users to bear these additional and manageable 
clearance activities, rather than neglect a source that many 
comments pointed out is actively commercially exploiting relevant 
recordings under authorization of the rights owner. The Office will 
consider providing additional guidance on this point to aid users in 
public education materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Searching With the SoundExchange ISRC Lookup Tool
    Fifth, the rule asks the user to search for the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording using the free online ISRC lookup tool (located at https://isrc.soundexchange.com/#!/search) to search SoundExchange's database, 
which contains information for more than 27 million sound recordings, 
including Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.\81\ As detailed in the NPRM, an 
overwhelming number of stakeholders representing rights owners 
initially recommended inclusion of the SoundExchange ISRC lookup tool 
as an important category of search,\82\ and urged inclusion as a 
mandatory step in response to the proposed rule.\83\ As noted above, 
Public Knowledge objects to including this lookup tool, alleging that 
it is not itself a ``service[] offering a comprehensive set of sound 
recordings for sale or streaming.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ NPRM at 1666-67; SoundExchange Initial at 2-3.
    \82\ See A2IM & RIAA Initial at 5 (rights owners provide 
metadata to SoundExchange ``for royalty collection, which is a form 
of commercial exploitation''); Copyright Alliance Initial at 5 
(``SoundExchange's ISRC search tool should be searched, as it 
provides a vast library of information concerning sound recordings 
that are submitted by rights owners and their authorized 
representatives to SoundExchange for the purpose of collecting 
royalties, which is a form of commercial exploitation''); 
SoundExchange Initial at 2-14; FMC Reply at 6 (stating that 
inclusion of a sound recording in this database ``is an unambiguous 
indicator that a recording is being commercially exploited''); 
Recording Academy Reply at 3 (``SoundExchange's ISRC Search tool is 
indispensable to a good faith, reasonable search.'').
    \83\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 6; Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 2.
    \84\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 2-3 & n.1; Public 
Knowledge Reply at 10 (citing 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM, and the above discussion of Public Knowledge's general 
objections, explain in detail the propriety of including this step as 
part of a reasonable search. Because the ISRC lookup tool allows users 
to freely and easily search a deep trove of sound recording information 
that rights owners themselves have submitted in connection with 
commercializing those recordings--including on multiple streaming 
services--the Office again concludes it is desirable and appropriate to 
include this tool as a step in a sufficient good faith, reasonable 
search. Requiring a prospective user to search the ISRC lookup tool is 
thus expected to serve as a reasonable proxy for searches on a wide 
array of services that offer a comprehensive set of sound recordings 
for sale or streaming, and specifically, to address commenters' 
concerns that it is otherwise difficult to determine exploitation by 
non-interactive services that offer limited user search capability.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A); (3). Compare Copyright 
Alliance Reply at 2-3; FMC Reply at 4; and Recording Academy Reply 
at 3 (expressing concerns related to rights owner interests) with 
EFF Initial at 4 and Public Knowledge Initial at 2 (expressing 
concerns related to user perspectives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the final rule includes the ISRC lookup tool as a 
mandatory step.
6. Searching Sellers of Physical Product
    Sixth, a user should search for the Pre-1972 Sound Recording on at 
least one major seller of physical product, namely Amazon.com, and if 
the user reasonably believes that the sound recording is of a niche 
genre such as classical music (including opera) or jazz, one smaller 
online music store offering recordings in that niche whose repertoires 
are searchable online, namely: ArkivJazz, ArkivMusic (classical), 
Classical Archives, or Presto (classical).\86\ The Office invited 
public comment on whether there are additional genres that similarly 
warrant searching another online music service.\87\ In response, A2IM 
and RIAA stated they ``are not aware of specific online music services 
or other sources that users could search to find recordings in other 
niche genres, such as blues and gospel, that are not available in the 
services already identified [in the proposed rule].'' \88\ Accordingly, 
the final rule adopts this aspect of the proposed rule without 
substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ NPRM at 1667.
    \87\ Id.
    \88\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Knowledge particularly objects to this search step, 
contending that the

[[Page 14248]]

statute's use of the word ``services'' is ``plainly a proxy for digital 
outlets.'' \89\ In support, it references the definition of ``service'' 
in section 115(e)(29) to claim that searches under section 1401(c) 
should be limited to outlets ``transmit[ting] music to customers in 
some electronic form as opposed to providing a market for physical 
copies.'' \90\ The Office does not find this to be the better 
interpretation of the statute. Section 1401(c) expressly contemplates 
searches of multiple services, including those offering sound 
recordings ``for sale'' \91\ in addition to streaming. While the Office 
agrees that the term ``services'' suggests a focus on online sources, 
as opposed to physical storefronts, it would be improper to ignore 
evidence of commercial exploitation through sales of physical 
product.\92\ The plain language of the statute is not qualified ``for 
digital sale'' or ``digital commercial exploitation.'' Indeed, section 
1401(c) does not include the word ``digital'' at all. Nor does 
legislative history suggest that the section 1401(c) exception is 
conditioned upon whether there is ``digital'' commercial exploitation 
of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.\93\ Given this background, it would be 
odd to read the word ``digital'' into a statutory chapter concerned 
with recordings that predate the digital age. Further, the definition 
of ``services'' referenced by Public Knowledge is expressly limited to 
section 115 and does not apply to section 1401.\94\ Finally, assuming 
arguendo that ``services'' is indeed a proxy for ``digital outlet,'' it 
is not clear why Amazon.com, potentially the largest e-commerce company 
in the world, would not be considered a ``digital outlet.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 3 n.1.
    \90\ Id. (citing Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music 
Modernization Act, Pub. L. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676, 3721-22 
(codified at 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(29) (2018)).
    \91\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(A)(ii); see id. at 1401(c)(3)(A) 
(directing the Register to issue regulations identifying ``services 
offering a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or 
streaming'' to be searched).
    \92\ See Hugh McIntyre, Report: Physical Albums Sell 
Significantly Better Than Digital Ones, Forbes (Mar. 28, 2018), 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2018/03/28/physical-albums-sell-significantly-better-than-digital-ones-even-today (``All 
forms of physical purchases added up to $1.5 billion in the U.S. 
last year. CD sales experienced a big hit, losing 10 million sales 
from the year prior, though at 87.6 million copies moved, they still 
performed better than their digital counterparts. As has been the 
case for several years now, vinyl remains the one format of music 
that must be bought outright that continues to grow by any 
noticeable measure . . . .'').
    \93\ See Conf. Rep. at 25 (``Subsection (c) creates a process 
for requesting from rights owners, at their sole discretion, 
permission to engage in noncommercial uses of pre-1972 sound 
recordings that are not otherwise commercially exploited.'').
    \94\ 17 U.S.C. 115(e) (limiting definitions to section 115). 
Congress's intent to have separate definitions for sections 115 and 
1401 is further evidenced by those sections having different 
definitions of the identical term ``covered activity.'' Compare 17 
U.S.C. 115(e)(7) with id. at 1401(l).
    \95\ See Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_internet_companies (listing Amazon.com at #1 on a 
list of ``largest internet companies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Searches for Ethnographic Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
    The NPRM reflected concerns regarding the noncommercial use of 
ethnographic Pre-1972 Sound Recordings raised by the National Congress 
of American Indians (``NCAI''), the oldest and largest national 
organization made up of Alaska Native and American Indian tribal 
government, and Professors Trevor Reed, Jane Anderson, and Robin Gray, 
who have worked on legal and cultural issues surrounding pre-1972 
ethnographic sound recordings. NCAI asserted that ``[t]he lack of 
complete and accurate information typically available on copyright 
interests in ethnographic sound recordings, and the cultural 
sensitivity of the contents of many ethnographic sound recording 
collections, merits consideration of special opt-out rules carefully 
tailored to the specific needs of Native American communities.'' \96\ 
As NCAI explains further:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ NCAI Reply at 1.

    Often such recordings are the result of anthropological or 
ethnographical gatherings of sound recordings, frequently capturing 
ceremonial or otherwise culturally significant songs. Further, due 
to the circumstances of how these recordings were conducted--often 
without any documentation of the free and prior informed consent of 
the tribal practitioners/performers--tribes today are unaware of 
much of the content that they potentially hold valid copyright 
claims over.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Id.

    Similarly, Professors Reed, Anderson, and Gray explain that 
``scholars have extensively documented the inequalities and ethical 
dilemmas surrounding early ethnographic field recording,'' claiming 
that ``ownership interests in pre-1972 ethnographic sound recordings 
are presumed to have vested in and remained with the performers who 
recorded them under the common-law rule,'' but that unrelated holding 
institutions (e.g., libraries, archives, museums, and universities) 
typically possess the master recordings.\98\ Those professors suggest 
that regulations governing the noncommercial use exception under 
section 1401(c) ``must be carefully tailored to the informational 
disadvantages Native American tribes and tribal members face as they 
attempt to locate and protect their rights to ethnographic sound 
recordings.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Reed, Anderson & Gray Reply at 2.
    \99\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Office is sensitive to the need to ensure that 
regulations governing the noncommercial use of Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings do not adversely impact Alaska Native and American Indian 
tribes or communities. The Office previously noted that ethnographic 
field recordings ``are an enormous source of cultural and historical 
information, and come with their own unique copyright issues,'' \100\ 
and that ``librarians and archivists who deal with ethnographic 
materials must abide by the cultural and religious norms of those whose 
voices and stories are on the recordings.'' \101\ The Office 
appreciates that the public ownership record for these recordings may 
be less developed and less likely to be indexed, and that as a result, 
searches that are otherwise reasonable for a prospective user may fail 
to identify that a specific ethnographic recording is being 
commercially exploited by the rights owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Report at 52.
    \101\ Id. at 61 (citing Rob Bamberger and Sam Brylawski, Nat'l 
Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress, The State 
of Recorded Sound Preservation in the United States: A National 
Legacy at Risk in the Digital Age 19 (2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for ethnographic Pre-1972 Sound Recordings of Alaska 
Native or American Indian tribes or communities, the proposed rule 
asked the user to contact the Alaska Native or Native American tribe 
and, if known to the user, the relevant holding institution to aid in 
determining whether the sound recording is being commercially 
exploited.\102\ Specifically, the proposed rule asked the user to make 
contact by using contact information known to the user if applicable, 
and also by using the contact information provided in NCAI's tribal 
directory.\103\ If no information is listed or the tribe is unknown to 
the user, the user would contact NCAI itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Reed, Anderson & Gray Reply at 2 (suggesting that the 
marketplace lacks ``inaccurate and unreliable information about 
these sound recordings,'' necessitating tribal consultation). For 
example, the professors' comment suggests that making contact may be 
valuable to provide title, artist, or other information relevant to 
a particular recording.
    \103\ See Tribal Directory, Nat'l Cong. of Am. Indians, http://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory (last visited Mar. 29, 2019) 
(providing searchable directory by tribe name, area, and keyword).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No commenter opposed this extra search step for ethnographic sound 
recordings. Indeed, FMC expressed its ``wholehearted[] support [of] the 
extra step in the search requirement for

[[Page 14249]]

ethnographic sound recordings.'' \104\ Regarding the proposed 
regulatory language, NCAI suggests that the final rule define ``Alaska 
Native or American Indian tribes,'' ``at a minimum,'' to those that are 
``federally recognized,'' and to strike the word ``communities'' from 
any such definition.\105\ NCAI also asks that for users who do not know 
the contact information for a tribe, the final rule direct users to the 
U.S. Department of the Interior's list of federally recognized tribes, 
which is published annually in the Federal Register,\106\ and the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs' tribal leaders 
directory, which provides contact information for each federally 
recognized tribe.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ FMC NPRM Comment at 2.
    \105\ NCAI NPRM Comment at 3-4.
    \106\ Id. at 4; see, e.g., 84 FR 1200-05 (Feb. 1, 2019).
    \107\ NCAI NPRM Comment at 4; Tribal Leaders Directory, U.S. 
Dep't of the Interior, Indian Affairs, https://www.bia.gov/tribal-leaders-directory (last visited Mar. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Office appreciates that these issues are nuanced and 
is committed to addressing them in a sensitive and thoughtful manner. 
The Office must also be careful, however, not to exceed its regulatory 
authority, by, for example, prohibiting the use of Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes without the 
relevant tribe's permission, preventing the recordings from entering 
the public domain, declaring that tribal law governs Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, or imposing a 
fee requirement on users to pay tribes for conducting commercial 
exploitation searches.\108\ The Office notes, however, that its 
inability to issue regulations beyond the scope of this rulemaking does 
not affect the ability of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to 
raise such issues before the courts or Congress. The Office further 
notes that tribes themselves may choose to impose fees on users to 
offset any administrative burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Compare NCAI NPRM Comment at 4-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the regulatory authority granted to the Office, the Office 
has adjusted the final rule to reflect NCAI's comments. The final rule 
defines ``Alaska Native or American Indian tribes'' as those federally 
recognized by being included in the U.S. Department of the Interior's 
list of federally recognized tribes. If the user does not locate the 
relevant sound recording in the Copyright Office's database of Pre-1972 
Schedules or other search categories, the final rule asks the user to 
contact the Alaska Native or Native American tribe and, if known to the 
user, the relevant holding institution to aid in determining whether 
the sound recording is being commercially exploited. Specifically, the 
final rule asks the user to make contact by using contact information 
known to the user, if applicable, and also by using the contact 
information provided in the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of 
Indian Affairs' tribal leaders directory.
    The Office believes that this search step is a reasonable burden to 
ask prospective users of such expressions of cultural heritage in light 
of the complicated history of some of these sound recordings. The 
Office also expects that the notification requirement will prove useful 
to rights owners who wish to exercise discretion to opt out of the 
noncommercial use by filing notice in the Copyright Office.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Sources Not Required To Be Searched
    The Office's proposed rule did not include additional search steps 
or services proposed by some commenters at the notice of inquiry stage, 
specifically:

 Additional comprehensive streaming services beyond the one 
the user elects to search from the proposed rule's list of services
 Terrestrial or internet radio services, including non-
interactive services subject to the section 114 license
 The to-be-created Mechanical Licensing Collective database 
\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ The Office is open to revisiting the MLC database once it 
is up and running.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Dogstar Radio, which offers searchable playlists from 
Sirius XM
 Online databases of U.S. performing rights organizations
 Other comprehensive databases offered by private actors 
(e.g., Songfile, Rumblefish, Songdex, Cuetrak, Crunch Digital)
 IMDB.com
 Video streaming services
 The SXWorks NOI Tools
 Music distribution services (e.g., CDBaby, Tunecore)
 Predominantly foreign music services
 SoundCloud or Bandcamp
 Niche streaming services (e.g., Idagio, Primephonic) \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ NPRM at 1668.

    The Office reiterates that the steps in the final rule, including 
the requirement to search major search engines, may likely reveal some 
of the very same information contained in the above services, and 
therefore should result in identifying a vast amount of the Pre-1972 
Sound Recordings being commercially exploited at the time searches are 
conducted. At the same time, the Office recognizes that these locations 
may provide relevant information to users wishing to obtain additional 
information, including further information about recordings that are 
being commercially exploited in order to facilitate permissive 
transactions. A2IM and RIAA urge the Office to list ``all of the non-
mandatory sources in one place'' as additional, optional sources that 
users may wish to search.\112\ While the Office does not believe that 
regulatory text is the best place for this information to reside, the 
Office will include these sources in other publications, such as its 
educational resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Search Terms and Strategy
1. General Rule
    The proposed rule asked users to search on the title and featured 
artist(s) of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording in the various search 
categories.\113\ If the user knows any of the following attributes of 
the Pre-1972 Sound Recording, and the source has the capability for the 
user to search such attributes, the user should also search: Alternate 
artist name(s), alternate title(s), album title, and the International 
Standard Recording Code (``ISRC'').\114\ The user was encouraged to 
optionally search any other attributes known to the user of the sound 
recording, such as label or version.\115\ The Office determined that 
narrowing a search by these attributes may inform a user's good faith, 
reasonable determination whether or not a Pre-1972 Sound Recording is 
being commercially exploited.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ NPRM at 1669.
    \114\ Id.
    \115\ Id.
    \116\ Id.; see EFF Initial at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM, responding to a relatively general statement by 
IMSLP.org, invited public comment on whether the final rule should 
address whether users should be able to use officially-supported APIs 
to search and locate a Pre-1972 Sound Recording on a streaming 
service.\117\ EFF maintains that the final rule ``should promote and 
encourage the development of third-party tools and services that can 
assist in performing a reasonable search for commercial exploitation,'' 
and clarify that ``searches of the various databases listed in the 
proposed rule can be conducted through any computer-accessible or 
human-accessible interface.'' \118\ Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA 
assert that the final rule does not need to expressly include the use 
of APIs.\119\ Copyright Alliance

[[Page 14250]]

also expresses concern ``that such search capabilities will enable bulk 
submissions of NNUs, placing a burden on rights owners comparable to 
the burden placed on individual songwriters and music publishers when 
reviewing bulk Notices of Intention to Obtain Compulsory License under 
17 U.S.C. 115.'' \120\ FMC also expressed concern that searches with 
APIs may ``result in undesirable false negatives'' that may go 
unnoticed if searches are automated.\121\ While not commenting on 
IMSLP.org's statement, the Internet Archive had previously submitted a 
comment drawing on its own experience ``automating the process of 
searching for commercial availability at scale,'' noting it was ``more 
complex than we anticipated,'' but that ``human searchers would 
generally not make the same sorts of mistakes'' that necessitated 
refinements in Internet Archive's code.\122\ Given these concerns 
regarding the use of APIs or other automated searching, the final rule 
does not expressly permit the use of APIs in conducting a good faith, 
reasonable search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ NPRM at 1666.
    \118\ EFF NPRM Comment at 2.
    \119\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 3 (stating that distinctions 
between a user ``conduct[ing] an otherwise sufficient search of a 
service like Spotify using an API that is otherwise voluntarily 
provided by the service, rather than some other interface to the 
service (e.g., a desktop or mobile user interface), . . . [do] not 
seem worth mentioning in regulations''); Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 2 (``We see no reason why the rule needs to encourage 
APIs or other specific means for searching.'').
    \120\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 2.
    \121\ FMC NPRM Comment at 2 (giving example of using the Sonos 
application to search Apple Music and Spotify for Ethel Merman's 
recording of ``Everything's Coming Up Roses,'' with the incorrect 
song being located on Spotify).
    \122\ Internet Archive Initial at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, at EFF's suggestion, the Office amended the 
rule to clarify the scope of searching via search engines.\123\ The 
final rule is otherwise retained without substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ EFF NPRM Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Classical Music Sound Recordings
    Because classical music sound recordings require more information 
to sufficiently identify the sound recording, the proposed rule 
required the user to search on additional attributes for those types of 
sound recordings.\124\ Under the proposed rule, a user wishing to 
determine whether a Pre-1972 Sound Recording of classical music is 
being commercially exploited must search on the composer and opus 
(i.e., the work's title) and the conductor, featured performers, or 
ensemble, depending upon the work (i.e., the work's ``featured 
artist'').\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ NPRM at 1669.
    \125\ Id. at 1669, 1676; see also Anastasia Tsioulcas, Why Can't 
Streaming Services Get Classical Music Right?, NPR The Record (June 
4, 2015, 10:50 a.m.), https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/04/411963624/why-cant-streaming-services-get-classical-music-right (last visited Mar. 29, 2019) (describing the metadata 
conundrum in classical music and difficulty searching streaming 
services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office invited public comment on whether other genres of sound 
recordings require searching additional terms to identify the sound 
recording sufficiently. A2IM and RIAA confirm that they are not aware 
of any such additional genres.\126\ FMC suggested ``adding film, TV, 
and theater soundtracks . . . as the quality of metadata implementation 
is sometimes inconsistent, if generally improving,'' \127\ but did not 
provide examples where the proposed search terms would fail to identify 
a recording being commercially exploited, or suggest specific search 
criteria to address soundtrack uses. Without more information, the 
Office declines to adjust the general criteria and the final rule 
adopts this aspect of the proposed rule without substantive change. If 
evidence develops that the adopted search criteria are insufficient, 
the Office will consider subsequent adjustments to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 4.
    \127\ FMC NPRM Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Remastered Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
    In the NPRM, the Office suggested that should the user find a 
``remastered'' version of a Pre-1972 Sound Recording through searching 
in any of the categories listed in the proposed rule, such a finding 
likely evidences commercial exploitation of the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording.\128\ The Office noted that ``remastering'' a sound recording 
may consist of mechanical contributions or contributions that are too 
minimal to be copyrightable, and that it would thus be prudent for a 
user to consider a 1948 track that was remastered and reissued in 2015 
to qualify as a Pre-1972 Sound Recording.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ NPRM at 1669.
    \129\ Id. (citing U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. 
Copyright Office Practices sec. 803.9(F)(3) (3d ed. 2017) 
(``Compendium (Third)'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A2IM and RIAA agree that finding a ``remastered'' version likely 
evidences commercial exploitation of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording, and 
ask for the Office's regulations to ``make this a clear presumption.'' 
\130\ The Office has provided clarifying language in its regulatory 
definition of ``Pre-1972 Sound Recording.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Other Considerations
1. Searches for Foreign Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
    Stakeholders questioned whether the section 1401(c) exception 
applies to foreign Pre-1972 Sound Recordings (i.e., Pre-1972 Sound 
Recordings originating outside the United States). As detailed in the 
NPRM, certain foreign Pre-1972 Sound Recordings have been granted 
copyright protection in the United States through the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, and the MMA does not reference foreign sound recordings 
specifically.\131\ Noting conflicting comments, the NPRM stated 
``[w]hether the noncommercial use exception under section 1401(c) can 
immunize content actionable under title 17 for restored works that are 
foreign Pre-1972 Sound Recordings may ultimately be a matter for the 
courts to resolve.'' \132\ In response, A2IM, RIAA, and Copyright 
Alliance contend the state of the law is clear, and that because 
foreign sound recordings restored under section 104A ``enjoy full 
federal copyright protection,'' they are not subject to the section 
1401(c) exception for noncommercial use.\133\ They urge the Office to 
communicate to prospective users ``(1) the fact that certain pre-72 
sound recordings may be protected by copyright under Section 104(a) and 
thus not subject to the limitation in 1401(c), and (2) the existence of 
the Copyright Office's records of [notices of intent to enforce] for 
restored works, which would show whether a particular pre-72 sound 
recording is a restored work under Section 104(a).'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ NPRM at 1670.
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 12 (``To the extent that a 
sound recording meets the requirements to be covered by Section 
104(A), those recordings enjoy full federal copyright protection, 
not the sui generis intellectual property right created by Section 
1401. Accordingly, they are not subject to use pursuant to the 
Section 1401(c) exception.''); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 7 
(``We disagree that the applicability of 17 U.S.C. 1401(c) to 
foreign pre-72 sound recordings restored under Section 104(a) is 
uncertain. Sound recordings restored under Section 104(a) enjoy full 
federal copyright protection.'').
    \134\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 12. Users may locate 
notices of intent to enforce by searching the Office's public 
catalog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NPRM noted, section 1401 provides sui generis protection 
running parallel to any copyright protection afforded to foreign Pre-
1972 Sound Recordings under section 104A.\135\ While the Office 
appreciates A2IM, RIAA, and Copyright Alliance's perspective, this 
rulemaking does not require the Office to interpret whether

[[Page 14251]]

the noncommercial use exception is or is not applicable to these 
restored foreign sound recordings. Regardless, because protection and 
enforcement for foreign restored rights is fact-intensive--implicating 
the specific country, date and location of publication, duration of 
term in both the United States and the country, and compliance with 
formalities--the Office reiterates that prospective users of foreign 
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings should proceed cautiously before relying on 
the section 1401(c) exception.\136\ The Office will provide general 
guidance in its NNU form instructions regarding the noncommercial use 
exception and the parallel protection afforded to certain foreign sound 
recordings, including how to search the Office's records to determine 
whether a particular Pre-72 Sound Recording is a restored work under 
section 104A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ NPRM at 1670; see Conf. Rep. at 15; see also IFPI Initial 
at 1-2.
    \136\ Conversely, the MMA does not address whether restored 
sound recordings that were given protection under the URAA, then 
subsequently fell out of term in their home countries would receive 
additional sui generis protection under section 1401(c). See also 84 
FR 9053, 9060 (Mar. 13, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reliance on Third-Party Searches
    The proposed rule did not permit a user to rely on a search 
conducted by a third party, unless the third party conducted the search 
as the user's agent.\137\ As explained in the NPRM, reliance upon a 
third-party search is unlikely to be reasonable because that party may 
have conducted an inadequate search, or the Pre-1972 Sound Recording 
may become subject to commercial exploitation after a third party has 
conducted a search, but before another user desires to use the same 
sound recording for a noncommercial use under section 1401(c).\138\ In 
addition, a user must certify that she conducted a good faith, 
reasonable search when submitting an NNU, and a user cannot certify the 
actions of an unrelated third party.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ NPRM at 1670.
    \138\ Id.; see A2IM & RIAA Reply at 9.
    \139\ NPRM at 1670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office received one comment from the Copyright Alliance, 
agreeing with the decision not to permit a user to rely on third-party 
searches.\140\ The final rule adopts this aspect of the proposed rule 
without substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Timing of Completing a Search Before Filing an NNU
    To ensure that search results are not stale, the rule requires the 
user (or the user's agent) to conduct a search under section 1401(c) no 
later than 90 days before submitting an NNU with the Office.\141\ The 
Office did not receive any comments regarding this proposed 90-day 
period, and so the final rule adopts this aspect of the proposed rule 
without substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See NPRM at 1670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Notices of Noncommercial Use (NNUs)

i. Form and Content of NNUs
1. Overview of Final Rule
    The final rule largely adopts the provisions of the proposed rule 
regarding which information must be provided in NNUs, with some 
adjustments in response to public comment.
    Commenters initially disagreed on whether a user should be required 
to document her search, such as by submitting screen shots from 
searched websites.\142\ Under the proposed rule, users would not have 
to submit documentation of searches to the Copyright Office as part of 
conducting a good faith, reasonable search.\143\ In response, A2IM and 
RIAA request that users be required to ``save evidence of their 
searches for three years from the date of their first use of the work, 
in much the way that the Internal Revenue Service requires taxpayers to 
save documentation that supports a tax return for at least three 
years.''\144\ Copyright Alliance suggests that users be required to 
provide a ``list of the search terms that they used or other evidence 
of their searches.''\145\ Although the final rule does not require 
users to submit documentation of their searches or provide the search 
terms used, it adds regulatory language encouraging users to keep 
records of their searches for at least three years in case of dispute 
(i.e., if challenged, users may need to provide evidence that they in 
fact conducted a good faith, reasonable search).\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Compare Copyright Alliance Initial at 6 (user should be 
required to document the search); IMSLP.ORG Reply at 1 (same); A2IM 
& RIAA Initial at 21 (same); with Public Knowledge Reply at 14 
(section 1401(c) does not require documentation of the search for 
the safe harbor to apply); EFF Reply at 4 (same); Wikimedia 
Foundation Reply at 3 (any documentation only becomes relevant if 
the adequacy of the search comes into dispute). See also FMC Reply 
at 5 (requiring a user to upload screenshots is an ``inelegant 
solution'').
    \143\ NPRM at 1672.
    \144\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7.
    \145\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 4.
    \146\ See id. (``[T]he Copyright Office should provide clear 
language to users that if a use is subsequently challenged in court, 
users would need to demonstrate they engaged in a good faith, 
reasonable search, so they should document their search and retain 
that documentation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA also request that users be 
required to list ``the current or last-known rights owner,'' such as a 
record label, to the extent that the information is known or can be 
reasonably discovered by the user.\147\ Copyright Alliance suggests 
that such a requirement ``would greatly assist rights owners--
particularly those with large catalogs--in being able to determine when 
one of their recordings is the subject of an NNU,'' and that ``merely 
listing track title and artist on an NNU will in some cases provide 
inadequate notice, since some artists may have recorded the same track 
for different record labels.'' \148\ A2IM and RIAA contend that ``where 
a user is accessing a pre-72 sound recording from an old 33 or 78 rpm 
record and that record has a label affixed to it, the user should have 
no trouble identifying the name of the record label that released that 
recording and including that information in an NNU.'' \149\ The Office 
agrees, noting that in cases where a user possesses a physical copy of 
the work, she may have ready access to record label and other 
information that would improve the public record regarding these 
recordings if included on the NNU (and decrease potential false 
positive opt-outs by owners of different performances or versions). 
Accordingly, the final rule requires the user to provide the current or 
last-known rights owner (e.g., record label), if known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 6; Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 4; see also FMC NPRM Comment at 3 (``It would be very 
helpful for any available information about the label to be 
included--this would help avoid false negatives and false positives 
because of the frequency of re-recordings that artists often made 
over the course of their careers for multiple rightsholders.'').
    \148\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 4; see also A2IM & RIAA 
NPRM Comment at 6 (``Merely listing the track title and artist, 
where additional information is readily available to the user, would 
impose an undue and unsustainable burden on rights owners, who would 
be forced to research each title covered by an NNU to determine if 
it belonged to them.'').
    \149\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule stated that an NNU may not include a 
proposed use for more than one Pre-1972 Sound Recording unless all of 
the sound recordings include the same featured artist and were released 
on the same pre-1972 album or other unit of publication.\150\ Copyright 
Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA request that users should not be permitted to 
include all sound recordings released on a ``greatest hits'' or 
compilation album, which may include recordings owned by multiple 
rights owners if the featured artist switched labels throughout her

[[Page 14252]]

career.\151\ The NPRM recognized that where multiple rights owners own 
the various Pre-1972 Sound Recordings listed in one NNU, it may be 
difficult for rights owners as well as prospective users to evaluate 
opt-outs to proposed noncommercial uses.\152\ Accordingly, the final 
rule states that an NNU may not include a proposed use for more than 
one Pre-1972 Sound Recording unless all of the sound recordings include 
the same featured artist and were released on the same pre-1972 album 
or unit of publication, and in the case of ``greatest hits'' or 
compilation albums, all of the listed sound recordings on the NNU share 
the same record label or other rights owner information.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ NPRM at 1671. A ``unit of publication'' exists where 
multiple works are physically bundled or packaged together and first 
published as an integrated unit. U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 34: 
Multiple Works, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/.
    \151\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7; Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 4.
    \152\ NPRM at 1671.
    \153\ This requirement is similar to the requirement when 
registering multiple works under the unit of publication option. See 
U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 34: Multiple Works, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/ (``The copyright claimant for all of the 
works claimed in the unit is the same.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA request that the user must 
specify the start and end dates of the proposed use, not merely ``when 
the use will occur.'' \154\ The final rule adopts this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7; Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 5; see NPRM at 1671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the final rule requires the user to provide:

    (1) The user's full legal name, and whether the user is an 
individual person or corporate entity, including whether the entity 
is a tax-exempt organization as defined under the Internal Revenue 
Code;
    (2) The title and featured artist(s) of the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording desiring to be used; \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ As noted above, classical music metadata raises unique 
issues. For such proposed uses, the prospective user should include 
information that is similar to the attributes the user is asked to 
search upon for title and featured artist(s) before claiming the 
statutory safe harbor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If known, the current or last-known rights owner (e.g., 
record label), alternate artist name(s), alternate title(s), album 
title, and ISRC; and
    (4) A description of the proposed noncommercial use, including a 
summary of the project and its purpose, how the Pre-1972 Sound 
Recording will be used in the project, the start and end dates of 
the use, and where the proposed use will occur (i.e., the U.S.-based 
territory of the use).

    Finally, the rule substantively adopts the provision of the 
proposed rule requiring the individual submitting the NNU to certify 
that she has appropriate authority to submit the NNU, that the user 
desiring to make noncommercial use of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording (or 
the user's agent) conducted a good faith, reasonable search within the 
last 90 days without finding commercial exploitation of the sound 
recording, and that all information submitted to the Office in the NNU 
is true, accurate, and complete to the best of the individual's 
knowledge, information, and belief, and is made in good faith.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ NPRM at 1671-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the specific steps under the final rule are sufficient, but 
not necessary, to demonstrate that a user has conducted a good faith, 
reasonable search under the section 1401(c) exception,\157\ the NNU 
certification alternatively allows the user to certify that she 
conducted a good faith, reasonable search for, but did not find, the 
sound recording in the Copyright Office's database of indexed schedules 
listing right owners' Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, or on services 
offering a comprehensive set of sound recordings for sale or 
streaming.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(4)(B) (``Taking the specific, reasonable 
steps identified by the Register of Copyrights . . . shall be 
sufficient, but not necessary, for a filer to satisfy the 
requirement to conduct a good faith, reasonable search . . . '').
    \158\ See Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 9 (advocating for 
same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Determining Whether a Use Is Noncommercial
    The section 1401(c) exception applies only to noncommercial uses of 
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.\159\ Section 1401(c) does not define 
``noncommercial,'' and although other parts of title 17 refer to 
``commercial'' or ``non-commercial'' uses, nowhere in the statute are 
they defined terms.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1); Conf. Rep. at 25 (``Subsection (c) 
applies only to noncommercial uses.'').
    \160\ See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 107(1); 108(a)(1), (c), (h)(2)(A); 
109(a), (b)(1)(A); 110(4), (8); 506(a); see also Kernochan Center 
Reply at 2-3 (discussing various statutory provisions); 37 CFR 
201.40(b)(1)(i)(B) (2018) (regulatory exception for certain uses of 
motion pictures in noncommercial videos). But cf. 17 U.S.C. 
901(a)(5) (defining ``commercially exploit'' with respect to mask 
works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stakeholders initially disagreed on whether or to what extent the 
Office should provide guidelines on what constitutes ``noncommercial'' 
use.\161\ In the NPRM, the Office acknowledged that defining 
``noncommercial'' in relation to section 1401 is complex,\162\ and 
sought to identify certain touchstones through its public education 
functions that could help filers and other interested parties evaluate 
whether a use is noncommercial for purposes of this exception.\163\ The 
NPRM further noted that ``it is not the Office's intention to constrain 
resolution of gray areas or edge cases through private negotiation or, 
if necessary, the courts.'' \164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Compare A2IM & RIAA Reply at 6 (``[I]t is vitally 
important for both users and rights owners that the Office issue 
guidelines to help users recognize appropriate uses of section 
1401(c) and help rights owners assess the NNUs that get filed.''), 
and FMC Reply at 6 (noting prevalence of incorrect understanding of 
copyright published by users in connection with user-uploaded 
content on YouTube), with Kernochan Center Reply at 3-4 (providing a 
run-down of key court opinions with ``differing conclusions as to 
what constitutes commercial versus noncommercial use''), and 
Wikimedia Foundation Reply at 3 (cautioning against creating 
``complex presumptions'' for specific anticipated fact patterns, and 
suggesting that terms like ``noncommercial'' are defined in fact-
specific contexts that are still being explored by courts).
    \162\ NPRM at 1672.
    \163\ Id. at 1672-73.
    \164\ Id. at 1672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, commenters provided additional insights regarding 
proposed considerations to be included in the Office's guidelines.\165\ 
For example, the Organization for Transformative Works (``OTW'') noted 
that the ``guidelines will be extremely useful to individuals and small 
businesses that don't have familiarity with copyright law or the 
resources to reach out to someone who does,'' while urging the Office 
to stress the approach, as articulated in the NPRM, that such 
guidelines are informational in nature and not hard-and-fast 
rules.\166\ OTW recommended that the Office ``emphasize that the fact 
that a creator makes money from their art or craft does not necessarily 
make any particular use commercial,'' and disagreed that ``measurable 
benefit'' is a workable standard when considering educational 
uses.\167\ In addition, OTW would take the opposite approach of A2IM, 
RIAA, and FMC, who each strongly advocated that a work being 
commercially exploited by a platform (e.g., though advertising) must be 
considered a commercial use of that recording, even if the work was 
uploaded by a user who does not herself ``monetize'' or otherwise 
economically benefit from the upload.\168\ EFF further suggests that 
the Office note that while posting on the ``open, accessible internet'' 
is not a ``private home use,''

[[Page 14253]]

neither is it ``presumptively commercial.'' \169\ The Office will 
consider these comments as it develops a public circular or other 
general materials to help filers and other interested parties in 
evaluating whether a use is noncommercial for purposes of the section 
1401(c) exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See, e.g., A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 11-12; EFF NPRM 
Comment at 3; FMC NPRM Comment at 3; OTW NPRM Comment at 2.
    \166\ OTW NPRM Comment at 1.
    \167\ Id. at 2-3.
    \168\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 11-12 (asking for Office's 
guidelines on noncommercial use to ``make clear that all publicly 
accessible videos available on YouTube are considered commercial''); 
FMC NPRM Comment at 3 (stating that ``if a use is not being 
monetized by the uploader, it may indeed still be commercially 
exploited by the platform on which it appears''). See also OTW NPRM 
Comment at 3 (``The mere fact that a platform is making money from a 
user's use should not be enough to make the use commercial.'').
    \169\ EFF NPRM Comment at 3 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Filing of NNUs, Including Copyright Office Review
    The final rule adopts the provisions of the proposed rule in 
regards to the filing of NNUs and the Office's level of review. As with 
similar types of filings made with the Office, the final rule states 
that the Office does not review NNUs for legal sufficiency.\170\ 
Rather, the Office's review is limited to whether the formal and legal 
procedural requirements established under the rule (including 
completing the required information and payment of the proper filing 
fee) have been met. For example, as noted in the NPRM, the Office's 
indexing of an NNU thus does not mean the proposed use in the NNU is, 
in fact, noncommercial.\171\ Users are therefore cautioned to review 
and scrutinize NNUs to assure their legal sufficiency before submitting 
them to the Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See, e.g., 37 CFR 201.4(g); 201.17(c)(2); 201.18(g).
    \171\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7 (agreeing that the 
Office's indexing of an NNU does not mean that the proposed use is 
noncommercial); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 5 (same). The 
Office will include this caution on the NNU form and/or 
instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Office is adopting the proposed rule with respect to 
examination, it also clarifies that it does intend to review and reject 
``facially deficient'' NNUs as part of its examination process.\172\ 
The Office will review an NNU to confirm that the correct form has been 
used, that all required information has been provided and is legible, 
and that the NNU has been properly certified. Such review parallels the 
Office's examination of documents pertaining to copyright before 
recording them and making them part of the Office's public record.\173\ 
As stated in the final rule, the Office may reject an NNU that fails to 
comply with the Office's requirements or instructions. This 
clarification is expected to assuage rightsholders' concern regarding 
expenditure of resources responding to facially deficient NNUs, and may 
also mitigate concern regarding the proposed fee, as discussed 
below.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 10-11 (expressing concerns 
regarding facially deficient NNUs).
    \173\ See generally U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 12: 
Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ12.pdf.
    \174\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Indexing NNUs Into the Copyright Office's Online Database
    The final rule largely adopts the provisions of the proposed rule 
regarding the indexing of NNUs, with some adjustments adopted in 
response to public comment. Section 1401(c) requires NNUs to be 
``indexed into the public records of the Copyright Office.'' \175\ As 
under the proposed rule, the final rule states that an NNU will be 
considered ``indexed'' once it is made publicly available through the 
Office's online database of NNUs. The Office has created an online and 
searchable database of indexed NNUs for rights owners to search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A2IM and RIAA request the ability to search the Office's database 
of indexed NNUs by rights owner name, as ``[w]ithout this option, 
rights owners will be impeded in their ability to exercise their 
statutory opt-out right.'' \176\ This suggestion has been adopted. 
Rights owners will be able to search on the current or last-known 
rights owner, as well as the prospective user's name, the title of the 
sound recording (which includes alternate title(s)), the featured 
artist(s) (which includes alternate artist name(s)), and the ISRC.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 7.
    \177\ Similar to the database of Pre-1972 Schedules discussed 
above, the Office's database of NNUs will allow for wildcard 
searching by using an asterisk to fill in partial words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the proposed rule, A2IM and RIAA agree that users 
cannot rely on NNUs filed by third parties (other than the user's 
agent).\178\ The final rule adopts this provision, as well as the 
provision stating that a user cannot rely on her own NNU once the 
proposed term of use ends (i.e., she must conduct a new good faith, 
reasonable search and file a new NNU). The Office's instructions will 
further clarify that filers should not rely on information contained in 
NNUs filed by third parties.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See id. at 2.
    \179\ See Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 4 (``The Copyright 
Office should clarify to third parties that it does not verify the 
validity or accuracy of information on NNUs, and third parties may 
not rely on the information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Opt-Out Notices
    The proposed rule stated that if a rights owner files a timely Pre-
1972 Opt-Out Notice, the user must wait one year before filing another 
NNU for the same or similar use of the Pre-1972 Sound Recording.\180\ 
A2IM and RIAA suggest that ``there should be some finite limit on the 
number of times a user can file the same/similar request involving the 
same recording.'' \181\ They note that ``it seems unlikely that a bona 
fide user wishing to make a bona fide noncommercial use would still be 
seeking permission to use the same recording for the same or a similar 
purpose two or three years later,'' and that because the initial opt-
out filing will identify the rights owner, ``the user will have 
obtained all of the information necessary to contact the rights owner 
directly to negotiate a voluntary license.'' \182\ They propose 
limiting a user from filing the same NNU two or three times, or 
prohibiting the user from filing additional requests for the same/
similar use of the same recording at any time more than five years 
after the initial request was filed.\183\ The Office believes that a 
one-year waiting period is sufficient, and that the Office's database 
of indexed NNUs should provide rights owners with notice (particularly 
because the database will list the most recently-indexed NNUs first). 
Accordingly, the final rule states that if a rights owner files a 
timely Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notice, the user must wait one year before 
filing another notice proposing the same or similar use of the same 
sound recording(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ NPRM at 1675.
    \181\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 8.
    \182\ Id.
    \183\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with NNUs and similar filings made with the Office, the final 
rule states that the Office does not review Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices 
for legal sufficiency, but rather whether the formal and legal 
procedural requirements have been met. The Office will exercise 
discretion to reject a Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notice that fails to comply 
with the Office's requirements or instructions, such as failing to 
provide required information or containing other facially obvious 
errors. Rights owners are cautioned to review and scrutinize Pre-1972 
Opt-Out Notices to assure their legal sufficiency before submitting 
them to the Office.

D. Fraudulent Filings

    Section 1401 contemplates civil penalties for the filing of 
fraudulent NNUs (e.g., fraudulently describing the proposed use) and 
for the filing of fraudulent Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices.\184\ In 
connection with the Office's exercise of the regulatory authority 
directed under the MMA and its general authority and responsibility to

[[Page 14254]]

administer title 17,\185\ the proposed rule stated that if the Register 
becomes aware of abusive or fraudulent notices from a certain filer, 
she shall have the discretion to reject all submissions from that filer 
under section 1401(c) for up to one year.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(6)(A); id. at 1401(c)(6)(B).
    \185\ See id. at 1401(c)(3), (5)(A); id. at 701(a), 702.
    \186\ NPRM at 1674-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA object to imposing such a 
penalty or one-year ``ban.'' \187\ Copyright Alliance asserts that ``a 
rights owner can opt-out of a[n] NNU without needing any justification, 
so the circumstances where there would be abuse or fraud present are, 
at best, exceedingly narrow,'' and that such a `` `lock-out' mechanism 
. . . would be unduly prejudicial to rights owners, as it would prevent 
them from opting out of the use of works they own exclusive rights 
to.'' \188\ While Copyright Alliance, A2IM, and RIAA maintain that the 
statute does not support a ``ban,'' \189\ they acknowledge that civil 
penalties may not be a sufficient deterrent in all cases.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 9 (objecting ``to the penalty 
to the extent it may limit a bona fide rights owner's ability to 
file opt-out notices'').
    \188\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 5; see also A2IM & RIAA 
NPRM Comment at 10 (``[U]sers and filers are not similarly situated. 
Most users will not be repeat filers, at least not to the degree 
that larger rights owners will be, so a ban would not impact them in 
the same way it would a bona fide rights owner, who may be filing 
opt-out notices on an ongoing basis.'').
    \189\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 9; Copyright Alliance NPRM 
Comment at 5.
    \190\ See RIAA et al. Ex Parte Letter at 2 (suggesting that 
Copyright Office should have ``discretion'' to ``address . . . 
concerns about malicious bad actors that are abusive filers); A2IM & 
RIAA NPRM Comment at 10 (proposing ``that the Office retain the 
proposed ban but exempt bona fide rights owners (who could be 
identified by an Office-issued log-in credential) from the proposed 
ban''); Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 6 (suggesting that 
``where the Office believes an opt-out has not come from the bona 
fide rights owner, that it attempts to correspond with the filer to 
establish that they own the rights and take appropriate action from 
there'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By including the words ``abuse'' and ``fraud'' in the proposed 
rule, this aspect of the rule targeted filers intentionally filing 
false or fraudulent filings, not ``bona fide rights owners'' who 
mistakenly file Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices containing errors.\191\ 
Indeed, section 1401(c) targets the filers of NNUs and Pre-1972 Opt-Out 
Notices where such filings are ``willful'' and/or ``knowing'' acts of 
fraud.\192\ The Office anticipates that few filings would reach the 
level of ``willful'' and/or ``knowing'' acts of fraud to trigger such 
civil penalties. And as the statute contemplates civil penalties for 
both fraudulent NNUs and Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices, the proposed rule 
similarly sought an evenhanded approach. Moreover, the proposed penalty 
assumed that the Office has general regulatory authority to discipline 
repeated, abusive filers (such as filers of spoof notices) who may be 
undeterred even by threats of monetary penalty, as part of its general 
obligation and authority to administer this filing.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 9.
    \192\ 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(6)(A); id. at 1401(c)(6)(B)(i); see also 
id. at 1401(c)(6)(C).
    \193\ Id. at 702; id. at 1401(c)(3)(B); id. at 1401(c)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To accommodate concerns about disproportionally penalizing 
rightsholders, while providing flexibility should civil penalties be an 
insufficient deterrent in other cases, the final rule states that if 
the Register becomes aware of abuse or fraudulent filings by or from a 
certain filer or user, she has discretion to impose civil penalties 
ranging up to $1,000 per instance of fraud or abuse, and/or other 
penalties to deter additional false or fraudulent filings from that 
filer, including potentially rejecting future submissions for up to one 
year.

E. Filing Fees

    The Copyright Act grants the Office authority to establish, adjust, 
and recover fees for services provided to the public.\194\ The NPRM 
proposed that the fee to file an NNU or an Opt-Out Notice should be the 
same as the current fee to record a notice of intention to make and 
distribute phonorecords under section 115 (``NOI''), as such filings 
are generally processed similarly by the Office (i.e., at the same 
internal cost).\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ See id. at 708. Because they do not involve services 
specified in section 708(a), the fees proposed in this NPRM are not 
subject to the adjustment of fees provision in section 708(b).
    \195\ NPRM at 1675; see 37 CFR 201.3(e)(1) ($75). The proposed 
fee was lower than the cost to record a document for a single title. 
See id. at 201.3(c)(17) ($105). Basing the cost of a service on the 
cost for a similar service is appropriate. See 83 FR 24054, 24059 
(May 24, 2018) (proposing setting new fees at the same level for 
``analogous'' services). In 2017, Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a 
study of the Office's most recent fee structure. When asked whether 
existing rates could be leveraged for new group registration 
options, it concluded it was appropriate if the work required was of 
a similar grade and compensation level. Booz Allen Hamilton, U.S. 
Copyright Office, Fee Study: Question and Answers 6 (Dec. 2017), 
https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/feestudy2018/fee_study_q&a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters expressed concern that the proposed fees are too high 
for both users and rights owners. Public Knowledge maintains that 
``noncommercial uses will neither be motivated by, nor likely result 
in, significant or foreseeable financial revenues or other material 
rewards,'' and so ``unlike the filing fees associated with commercial 
uses, there is a much higher risk that a substantial fee will be 
uneconomical for many users and/or otherwise deter the use of this 
provision.'' \196\ Similarly, A2IM, RIAA, Copyright Alliance, and FMC 
contend that if the Office's review will not serve a ``gatekeeping'' 
function (i.e., review NNUs for legal sufficiency) rights owners should 
not have to pay to file Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices.\197\ Copyright 
Alliance further contends that ``the burden of administering this 
exception should fall primarily on the user seeking to benefit from it 
rather than the rights owner seeking to maintain her exclusive 
rights,'' \198\ and A2IM and RIAA suggest that ``the Office should 
monitor the NNUs to determine what percentage of them are facially 
deficient and modify the filing fee as appropriate,'' as well as 
``determine the actual costs of accepting and indexing opt-out notices 
at its next opportunity to do so.'' \199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Public Knowledge NPRM Comment at 9; see also Public 
Knowledge Ex Parte Letter at 1-2.
    \197\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 10-11 (asking the Office to 
``either review NNUs for legal sufficiency before indexing them or 
eliminate the filing fee associated with filing opt-out notices''); 
Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 6; FMC NPRM Comment at 3; see 
also Recording Academy NPRM Comment at 4.
    \198\ Copyright Alliance NPRM Comment at 6. Copyright Alliance 
also expressed that the proposed fee to file an NNU ``does not 
appear excessive,'' as it ``provides a benefit analogous to a free 
license to use a work otherwise protected by the law.'' Copyright 
Alliance Ex Parte Letter at 2. If the cost to file an NNU decreases, 
Copyright Alliance maintains that ``the fees for filing opt-out 
notices should also be lowered to maintain, at a minimum, parity 
between the fees.'' Id.
    \199\ A2IM & RIAA NPRM Comment at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Office does intend to review NNUs for 
regulatory compliance, including to confirm that the correct form has 
been used, that all required information has been provided and is 
legible, and that the NNU has been properly certified--and will reject 
NNUs failing to comply with the Office's requirements or instructions. 
Such review parallels the Office's examination of other documents 
before they are incorporated into the Office's public record.\200\ 
Accordingly, while the Office does not intend to index ``facially 
deficient'' NNUs (or Opt-Out notices), this gatekeeping process 
accordingly involves some provision of resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See, e.g., U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 12: Recordation 
of Transfers and Other Documents, https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ12.pdf; see generally Compendium (Third) sec. 2300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office notes that potential filers of both notices have 
objected to the proposed fees, which the Office has endeavored to set 
based on the cost of providing the services. In scrutinizing the 
projected cost for these new filings, the Office also recognizes that 
NNUs

[[Page 14255]]

and Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices will typically include information about 
only one sound recording, which may require less review than Pre-1972 
Schedules and notices of intention to make and distribute phonorecords 
under section 115, which the Office evaluated as most comparable 
filings. Accordingly, and to encourage use of these new filing 
mechanisms in advance of usage data, the filing fees for NNUs and Pre-
1972 Opt-Out Notices will be lowered to that which copyright owners pay 
to file a notice to libraries and archives that a published work in its 
last twenty years of copyright protection is subject to normal 
commercial exploitation, another potentially analogous filing that 
services a similar policy function.\201\ In line with its general 
approach to fee-setting, the Office will consider whether adjustment 
(including potentially increasing the fees) is necessary after data 
regarding these filings are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ 37 CFR 201.3(d)(13) (stating fee for notice to libraries 
and archives for a single title is $50); 17 U.S.C. 108(h)(2). The 
final rule makes a technical edit to 37 CFR 201.3(c) to correct an 
inadvertent error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

Final Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office 
amends 37 CFR parts 201 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 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (c)(22).
0
b. Redesignate paragraph (c)(23) as paragraph (c)(24).
0
c. Add new paragraph (c)(23).
0
d. Add paragraph (c)(25).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  201.3  Fees for registration, recordation, and related services, 
special services, and services performed by the Licensing Division.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration, recordation and related services          Fees ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(22) Notice of noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound recording.         50
(23) Opt-out notice of noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound            50
 recording...................................................
 
                              * * * * * * *
(25) Removal of PII from Registration Records................  .........
    (i) Initial request, per registration record.............        130
    (ii) Reconsideration of denied requests, flat fee........         60
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  201.4 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b)(3).
0
b. In paragraph (b)(10), remove ``; and'' and add a semicolon in its 
place.
0
c. In paragraphs (b)(11) through (13), remove the period at the end of 
each paragraph and add a semicolon in their place.
0
d. Add paragraphs (b)(14) and (15).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  201.4  Recordation of transfers and other documents pertaining to 
copyright.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Notices of use of sound recordings under statutory license and 
notices of intention to obtain a compulsory license to make and 
distribute phonorecords of nondramatic musical works (17 U.S.C. 112(e), 
114, and 115(b); see Sec. Sec.  201.18 and 370.2);
* * * * *
    (14) Notices of noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound recordings (17 
U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(B); see Sec.  201.37); and
    (15) Opt-out notices of noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound 
recordings (17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(C); see Sec.  201.37).
* * * * *

0
4. Add Sec.  201.37 to read as follows:


Sec.  201.37  Noncommercial use of pre-1972 sound recordings.

    (a) General. This section prescribes the rules under which a user, 
desiring to make noncommercial use of a pre-1972 sound recording 
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1401(c), conducts a good faith, reasonable search 
to determine whether the sound recording is being commercially 
exploited, and if not, files a notice of noncommercial use with the 
Copyright Office. This section also prescribes the rules under which a 
rights owner of a pre-1972 sound recording identified in a notice of 
noncommercial use may file an opt-out notice opposing a proposed use of 
the sound recording, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(C).
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Unless otherwise specified, the terms used have the meanings 
set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1401.
    (2) A pre-1972 sound recording is a sound recording fixed before 
February 15, 1972. A post-1972 remastered version of a pre-1972 sound 
recording that consists of mechanical contributions or contributions 
that are too minimal to be copyrightable qualifies as a pre-1972 sound 
recording for purposes of this section.
    (3) For pre-1972 sound recordings of classical music, including 
opera:
    (i) The title of the pre-1972 sound recording means, to the extent 
applicable and known by the user, any and all title(s) of the sound 
recording and underlying musical composition known to the user, and the 
composer and opus or catalogue number(s) of the underlying musical 
composition; and
    (ii) The featured artist(s) of the pre-1972 sound recording means, 
to the extent applicable and known by the user, the featured 
soloist(s); featured ensemble(s); featured conductor; and any other 
featured performer(s).
    (4) An Alaska Native or American Indian tribe is a tribe included 
in the U.S. Department of the Interior's list of federally recognized 
tribes, as published annually in the Federal Register.
    (c) Conducting a good faith, reasonable search. (1) Pursuant to 17 
U.S.C. 1401(c)(3)(A), a user desiring to

[[Page 14256]]

make noncommercial use of a pre-1972 sound recording should 
progressively search for the sound recording in each of the categories 
below until the user finds the sound recording. If the user finds the 
sound recording in a search category, the user need not search the 
subsequent search categories. If the user does not find the pre-1972 
sound recording after searching each of the categories below, her 
search is sufficient for purposes of the safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. 
1401(c)(4), establishing that she made a good faith, reasonable search 
without finding commercial exploitation of the sound recording by or 
under the authority of the rights owner. The categories are:
    (i) Searching the Copyright Office's database of indexed schedules 
listing right owners' pre-1972 sound recordings (https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/pre1972-soundrecordings/search-soundrecordings.html);
    (ii) Searching at least one major search engine, namely Google, 
Yahoo!, or Bing, to determine whether the pre-1972 sound recording is 
being offered for sale in download form or as a new (not resale) 
physical product, or is available through a streaming service;
    (iii) Searching at least one of the following streaming services: 
Amazon Music Unlimited, Apple Music, Spotify, or TIDAL;
    (iv) Searching YouTube, to determine whether the pre-1972 sound 
recording is offered under license by the sound recording rights owner 
(e.g., record label or distribution service);
    (v) Searching SoundExchange's repertoire database through the 
SoundExchange ISRC lookup tool (https://isrc.soundexchange.com/#!/search);
    (vi) Searching at least one major seller of physical product, 
namely Amazon.com, and if the pre-1972 sound recording is of classical 
music or jazz, searching a smaller online music store that specializes 
in product relative to that niche genre, namely: ArkivJazz, ArkivMusic, 
Classical Archives, or Presto; in either case, to determine whether the 
pre-1972 sound recording is being offered for sale in download form or 
as a new (not resale) physical product; and
    (vii) For pre-1972 ethnographic sound recordings of Alaska Native 
or American Indian tribes, searching, if such contact information is 
known to the user, by contacting the relevant Alaska Native or American 
Indian tribe and the holding institution of the sound recording (such 
as a library or archive) to gather information to determine whether the 
sound recording is being commercially exploited. If this contact 
information is not previously known to the prospective user, the user 
should use the information provided by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs' Tribal Leaders directory, which 
provides contact information for each federally recognized tribe.
    (2) A search under paragraph (c)(1) of this section must include 
searching the title of the pre-1972 sound recording and its featured 
artist(s). If the user knows any of the following attributes of the 
sound recording, and the source being searched has the capability to 
search any of these attributes, the search must also include searching: 
alternate artist name(s), alternate title(s), album title, and the 
International Standard Recording Code (``ISRC''). A user is encouraged, 
but not required, to search additional known attributes, such as the 
label or version. A user searching using a search engine should draw 
reasonable inferences from the search results, including following 
those links whose name or accompanying text suggest that commercial 
exploitation might be found there, and reading additional pages of 
results until two consecutive pages return no such suggestive links. A 
user need not read every web page returned in a search result.
    (3) A search under paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be 
conducted no later than 90 days of the user (or her authorized agent) 
filing a notice of noncommercial use under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section to be sufficient for purposes of the safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. 
1401(c)(4).
    (4) For purposes of the safe harbor in 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(4), a user 
cannot rely on:
    (i) A search conducted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section by a 
third party who is not the user's authorized agent; or
    (ii) A notice of noncommercial use filed under paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section by a third party (who is not the user's authorized agent).
    (5) A user is encouraged to save documentation (e.g., screenshots, 
list of search terms) of her search under paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section for at least three years in case her search is challenged.
    (d) Notices of noncommercial use--(1) Form and submission. A user 
seeking to comply with 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1) (or her authorized agent) 
must submit a notice of noncommercial use identifying the pre-1972 
sound recording that the user intends to use and the nature of such use 
using an appropriate form and instructions provided by the Copyright 
Office on its website. The Office may reject any submission that fails 
to comply with the requirements of this section.
    (2) Content. A notice of noncommercial use shall contain the 
following:
    (i) The user's full legal name, and whether the user is an 
individual person or corporate entity, including whether the entity is 
a tax-exempt organization as defined under the Internal Revenue Code. 
Additional contact information, including an email address, may be 
optionally provided.
    (ii) The title and featured artist(s) of the pre-1972 sound 
recording desiring to be used.
    (iii) If any are known to the user, the current or last-known 
rights owner (e.g., record label), alternate artist name(s), alternate 
title(s), album title, and International Standard Recording Code 
(``ISRC'').
    (iv) The user may include additional optional information about the 
pre-1972 sound recording as permitted by the Office's form or 
instructions, such as the year of release.
    (v) A description of the proposed noncommercial use, including a 
summary of the project and its purpose, how the pre-1972 sound 
recording will be used in the project, the start and end dates of the 
use, and where the proposed use will occur (i.e., the U.S.-based 
territory of the use). The user may include additional optional 
information detailing the proposed use, such as the tentative title of 
the project, the playing time of the pre-1972 sound recording to be 
used as well as total playing time of the project, a description of 
corresponding visuals in the case of audiovisual uses, and whether and 
how the user will credit the sound recording title, featured artist, 
and/or rights owner in connection with the project.
    (vi) A certification that the user searched but did not find the 
pre-1972 sound recording in a search conducted under paragraph (c) of 
this section, or else conducted a good faith, reasonable search for, 
but did not find, the sound recording in the Copyright Office's 
database of indexed schedules listing right owners' pre-1972 sound 
recordings, or on services offering a comprehensive set of sound 
recordings for sale or streaming.
    (vii) A certification that the individual submitting the notice of 
noncommercial use has appropriate authority to submit the notice, that 
the user desiring to make noncommercial use of the pre-1972 sound 
recording (or the user's authorized agent) conducted a search under 
paragraph (c) of this section or else conducted a good faith, 
reasonable search under 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(4), within the last 90 days 
without finding

[[Page 14257]]

commercial exploitation of the sound recording, and that all 
information submitted to the Office is true, accurate, and complete to 
the best of the individual's knowledge, information, and belief, and is 
made in good faith.
    (3) Noncommercial use of a pre-1972 recording under this section is 
limited to use within the United States.
    (4) A notice of noncommercial use may not include proposed use for 
more than one pre-1972 sound recording unless all of the sound 
recordings include the same featured artist(s) and were released on the 
same pre-1972 album or other unit of publication. In the case of 
``greatest hits'' or compilation albums, all of the sound recordings 
listed on a notice must also share the same record label or other 
rights owner information, as listed on the notice.
    (5) The Copyright Office will assign each indexed notice of 
noncommercial use a unique identifier to identify the notice in the 
Office's public records.
    (6) Legal sufficiency. (i) The Copyright Office does not review 
notices of noncommercial use submitted under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section for legal sufficiency. The Office's review is limited to 
whether the procedural requirements established by the Office 
(including payment of the proper filing fee) have been met. The fact 
that the Office has indexed a notice is not a determination by the 
Office of the notice's validity or legal effect. Indexing by the 
Copyright Office is without prejudice to any party claiming that the 
legal or formal requirements for making a noncommercial use of a pre-
1972 sound recording have not been met, including before a court of 
competent jurisdiction. Users are therefore cautioned to review and 
scrutinize notices of noncommercial use to assure their legal 
sufficiency before submitting them to the Office.
    (ii) If a rights owner does not file an opt-out notice under 
paragraph (e) of this section, when the term of use specified in the 
notice of noncommercial use ends, the user must cease noncommercial use 
of the pre-1972 sound recording for purposes of remaining in the safe 
harbor in 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(4). Should the user desire to requalify for 
the safe harbor with respect to that same recording, the user must 
conduct a new search and file a new notice of noncommercial use under 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, respectively.
    (7) Filing date. The date of filing of a notice of noncommercial 
use is the date when a proper submission, including the prescribed fee, 
is received in the Copyright Office. The filing date may not 
necessarily be the same date that the notice, for purposes of 17 U.S.C. 
1401(c)(1)(C), is indexed into the Office's public records.
    (8) Fees. The filing fee to submit a notice of noncommercial use 
pursuant to this section is prescribed in Sec.  201.3(c).
    (9) Third-party notification. A person may request timely 
notification of filings made under paragraph (d)(1) of this section by 
following the instructions provided by the Copyright Office on its 
website.
    (e) Opt-out notices--(1) Form and submission. A rights owner 
seeking to comply with 17 U.S.C. 1401(c)(1)(C) (or her authorized 
agent) must file a notice opting out of a proposed noncommercial use of 
a pre-1972 sound recording filed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section 
using an appropriate form provided by the Copyright Office on its 
website and following the instructions for completion and submission 
provided on the Office's website or the form itself. The Office may 
reject any submission that fails to comply with the requirements of 
this section, or any relevant instructions or guidance provided by the 
Office.
    (2) Content. An opt-out notice use shall contain the following:
    (i) The user's name, rights owner's name, sound recording title, 
featured artist(s), an affirmative ``yes'' statement that the rights 
owner is opting out of the proposed use, and the unique identifier 
assigned to the notice of noncommercial use by the Copyright Office. 
Additional contact information for the rights owner, including an email 
address, may be optionally provided.
    (ii) A certification that the individual submitting the opt-out 
notice has appropriate authority to submit the notice and that all 
information submitted to the Office is true, accurate, and complete to 
the best of the individual's knowledge, information, and belief, and is 
made in good faith.
    (iii) Submission of an opt-out notice does not constitute agreement 
by the rights owner or the individual submitting the opt-out notice 
that the proposed use is in fact noncommercial. The submitter may 
choose to comment upon whether the rights owner agrees that the 
proposed use is noncommercial use, but failure to do so does not 
constitute agreement that the proposed use is in fact noncommercial.
    (3) Where a pre-1972 sound recording has multiple rights owners, 
only one rights owner must file an opt-out notice for purposes of 17 
U.S.C. 1401(c)(5).
    (4) If a rights owner files a timely opt-out notice under paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section, a user must wait one year before filing another 
notice of noncommercial use proposing the same or similar use of the 
same pre-1972 sound recording(s).
    (5) Legal sufficiency. The Copyright Office does not review opt-out 
notices submitted under paragraph (e)(1) of this section for legal 
sufficiency. The Office's review is limited to whether the procedural 
requirements established by the Office (including payment of the proper 
filing fee) have been met. Rights owners are therefore cautioned to 
review and scrutinize opt-out notices to assure their legal sufficiency 
before submitting them to the Office.
    (6) Filing date. The date of filing of an opt-out notice is the 
date when a proper submission, including the prescribed fee, is 
received in the Copyright Office.
    (7) Fee. The filing fee to submit an opt-out notice pursuant to 
this section is prescribed in Sec.  201.3(c).
    (f) Fraudulent filings. If the Register becomes aware of abuse or 
fraudulent filings under this section by or from a certain filer or 
user, she shall have the discretion to impose civil penalties up to 
$1,000 per instance of fraud or abuse, and/or other penalties to deter 
additional false or fraudulent filings from that filer, including 
potentially rejecting future submissions from that filer for up to one 
year.

    Dated: April 1, 2019.
Karyn A. Temple,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
    Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2019-06883 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P