[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 120 (Monday, June 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37341-37347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12041]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Parts 201 and 202

[Docket No. 2018-12]


Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulations to 
establish a new group registration option for short online literary 
works. This final rule largely adopts the eligibility requirements set 
forth in the Office's December 2018 notice of proposed rulemaking, with 
certain updates. To qualify for this option, each work must contain at 
least 50 but no more than 17,500 words. The works must be created by 
the same individual, or jointly by the same individuals, and each 
creator must be named as the copyright claimant or claimants for each 
work. The works must all be published online within a three-calendar-
month period. If these requirements have been met, the applicant may 
submit up to 50 works with one application and one filing fee. The 
applicant must complete an online application designated for a group of 
``Short Online Literary Works'' and upload a .ZIP file containing a 
separate digital file for each work. The Office will examine each work 
to determine if it contains a sufficient amount of creative authorship, 
and if the Office registers the claim, the registration will cover each 
work as a separate work of authorship.

DATES: Effective August 17, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 
Associate Register of Copyrights; Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register 
of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice; Kevin 
R. Amer, Deputy General Counsel; or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of 
Registration Policy and Practice, by telephone at 202-707-3000, or by 
email at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify 
by regulation the administrative classes of works for the purpose of 
seeking a registration and the deposit required for each class.\1\ The 
Act also gives the Register the discretion to allow groups of related 
works to be registered with one application and one filing fee.\2\ This 
procedure is known as group registration.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking was initiated in response to a petition jointly 
submitted by the National Writers Union (``NWU''), the American Society 
of Journalists and Authors, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of 
America, Inc. (``SFWA''), and the Horror Writers Association, 
requesting a rulemaking to create a new group registration option to 
accommodate works distributed online by individual writers, that would 
not qualify as contributions to periodicals.\4\ The petition requested 
that the Office create a new group registration procedure for ``short-
form works'' which

[[Page 37342]]

would allow individual writers to submit one ``application and fee 
every three months.'' \5\ The Authors Guild, the Association of Garden 
Communicators, the Society of Children's Book Authors and Illustrators, 
the Songwriters Guild of America, and the Textbook & Academic Authors 
Association endorsed this petition.\6\ They stated that writers 
``urgently need a group registration [option] for short pieces, 
especially those disseminated online,'' including ``blogs, public 
Facebook posts . . ., short articles, and even copyrightable tweets.'' 
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NWU et al. Comments and Petition for Rulemaking at 4 
(Jan. 30, 2017) (the ``Petition''), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0013-0003&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
    \5\ Petition at 13-14; see also NWU et al. Comment on Mandatory 
Deposit of Electronic Books and Sound Recordings Available Only 
Online at 3-4, 8-10, 17-19 (Aug. 18, 2016), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2016-0005-0009&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
    \6\ Authors Guild et al. Comment at 8-9 (Nov. 17, 2017), https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=COLC-2017-0009-0108&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 21, 2018, the Office published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (``NPRM'') to establish a new group registration option for 
``short online literary works,'' to be known as ``GRTX.'' \8\ The NPRM 
proposed allowing an applicant to register up to 50 literary works with 
one application and one filing fee using the online Standard 
Application designated for a ``Literary Work.'' Each work would have to 
contain at least 100 words but no more than 17,500 words. The works 
would have to be created by the same individual, and that individual 
must be named as the copyright claimant for each work. The works would 
have to be published on a website or online platform within a three-
calendar-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 83 FR 65612 (December 21, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NPRM, the Office received comments from SFWA, 
the Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, the Association of American 
Publishers (``AAP''), NWU and National Press Photographers Association 
(``NWU/NPPA''), Patrice A. Lyons, Marcos Arias, and Joseph Savage. The 
comments were broadly favorable to the new group registration option, 
but also requested various modifications to the proposed rule. In 
general, commenters were interested in expanding eligibility for this 
option to greater numbers of works. Proposals included broadening the 
word-count range for eligible works, increasing the number of works 
that may be included in the group, and extending eligibility to joint 
works and works made for hire.
    Having carefully considered each of the comments, the Office now 
issues a final rule that closely follows the proposed rule, with 
certain modifications. First, the final rule lowers the minimum number 
of words each work must contain from 100 to 50 words. Second, the final 
rule allows group registration of joint works, provided that all works 
within the application are jointly authored and the joint authors are 
identical for each work. Third, the rule requires claims under this 
option to be submitted using a new online application specifically for 
GRTX filings, rather than on the Standard Application, and makes 
certain technical amendments in accordance with that change. Finally, 
the rule provides that works in the group should be uploaded to the 
electronic registration system in a .ZIP file containing a separate 
file for each work, rather than uploaded individually.

II. The Final Rule

A. Eligibility Requirements

1. Works That May Be Included in the Group
    The Copyright Act defines a ``literary work'' as a work ``expressed 
in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, 
regardless of the nature of the material objects . . . in which [it is] 
embodied.'' \9\ The NPRM provided that to qualify for the GRTX group 
registration option, an eligible literary work must contain a 
sufficient number of words and may not be comprised mainly of numbers 
or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia. The Office noted that 
it would accept deposit copies that contain text combined with another 
form of authorship, but that claims in any form of authorship other 
than ``text'' would not be permitted on the application due to the 
additional time and effort necessary to examine works containing 
multiple forms of authorship. Commenters generally accepted these 
limitations. NWU/NPPA noted that some authors, such as bloggers, find 
it burdensome to register visual works separately from related literary 
works. However, NWU/NPPA did not request that the GRTX group option be 
expanded to include visual works, and for reasons of administrability, 
the Office is not prepared to do so with this group registration 
option.\10\ The final rule therefore retains the language defining an 
eligible literary work as one ``consisting of text.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 U.S.C. 101.
    \10\ NWU/NPPA Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the length of eligible works, the proposed rule 
defined a ``short'' online literary work as one that contains at least 
100 words and no more than 17,500 words. The 100-word threshold was 
intended to exclude short phrases and slogans, which are ineligible for 
copyright protection,\11\ as well as other short forms of expression 
that contain less than a paragraph of text. The latter works are ill-
suited to group registration, the Office noted, because assessing their 
copyrightability would require the Office to engage in a careful case-
by-case analysis that could undermine the efficiency that this option 
is designed to promote. The 17,500-word upper limit was intended to 
exclude novels, novellas, or other longer works, which ``are more 
likely to require significant time to create and do not lend themselves 
to a rapid and continuous publication schedule.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 37 CFR 202.1(a).
    \12\ 83 FR at 65,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters proposed that the Office modify one or both of 
these word-count requirements. The Copyright Alliance, the Authors 
Guild, SFWA, and Joseph Savage requested that the Office lower the 100-
word threshold, pointing to common types of short literary works that 
might be excluded by such a rule, including poems, blog and microblog 
entries, and ``bite-sized fiction.'' \13\ The Copyright Alliance and 
the Authors Guild proposed a 50-word threshold, arguing that it would 
address the needs for efficient review and examination processes, while 
also accommodating a broader variety of short literary works.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at 
3-4; SFWA at 3; Joseph Savage Comment at 2.
    \14\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at 
3-4. Neither SFWA nor Joseph Savage proposed a specific lower limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office is persuaded by these commenters that a 100-word 
threshold might exclude many copyrightable literary works that 
otherwise would be eligible for group registration under this option. 
At the same time, as these commenters also recognized, some lower limit 
is necessary to avoid difficult and potentially time-consuming 
questions over whether extremely short works contain more than de 
minimis expression. Ultimately, the Office agrees with the Copyright 
Alliance and the Authors Guild that a 50-word threshold strikes an 
appropriate balance, and accordingly has incorporated this change into 
the final rule. This lower limit, of course, applies only to 
eligibility for the GRTX registration option; the Office is not 
purporting to define a word-count-based threshold to govern 
copyrightability determinations for literary works generally.

[[Page 37343]]

    The Copyright Alliance, the Authors Guild, and SFWA also requested 
that the Office increase the proposed 17,500-word upper limit.\15\ The 
Copyright Alliance suggested a ceiling of at least 20,000 words, while 
the Authors Guild and SFWA proposed 40,000 words. The Authors Guild 
asserted that the 17,500 threshold is arbitrary and noted that 
freelance articles written for online publications are sometimes 
greater than 20,000 words. SFWA disagreed with the Office's decision to 
exclude novellas, arguing that they are ``distinct from novels in both 
length and content,'' and noting that they are ``frequently published 
in the same venues and in the same manner as . . . other forms of short 
fiction.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Authors Guild Comment at 
3-4; SFWA Comment at 2.
    \16\ SFWA Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office understands that defining a category of ``short'' 
literary works is inherently imprecise and that some online works of 
more than 17,500 words may share common features with shorter works. 
But the commenters advocating the inclusion of novellas and other 
longer-form works did not demonstrate a particular need for group 
registration of such works. They offered nothing to contradict the 
Office's conclusion that, in contrast to blog entries, social media 
posts, and the like, novellas and similar lengthy works typically are 
not created or updated on a rapid and continuing basis.\17\ Moreover, 
contrary to the Author's Guild's suggestion, the 17,500-word limit was 
not chosen arbitrarily. As discussed in the NPRM, it is based on 
classifications that appear to be widely established in the 
marketplace, as indicated by their use in connection with three well 
known literary awards.\18\ Therefore, the final rule retains the 
17,500-word upper limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 83 FR 65,614 (``[I]t seems unlikely that even a 
prolific author would be able to write, edit, and publish 50 `long 
form' works within a three-month period.'').
    \18\ See 83 FR 65,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, Joseph Savage, requested that the Office clarify 
whether the GRTX option extends to written interactions an author may 
have with other parties in connection with an online work--for example, 
postings in a comments section in response to a work on a social media 
platform.\19\ To the extent this comment is asking whether an applicant 
may include comments authored by other persons within an application, 
the answer is no, as the rule requires that all works in the group be 
created by the same individual or (as discussed below) by the same 
joint authors. An author could, however, include his or own comments as 
separate works within a group, provided they satisfy the eligibility 
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Joseph Savage Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Number of Works That May be Included in the Group
    The NPRM proposed that an applicant be allowed to include up to 50 
literary works in each submission. Several commenters requested 
modification of this requirement. Marcos Arias suggested that the limit 
be lowered to 10 works per application, arguing that a 50-work limit 
would lead to lengthy processing times and would not significantly 
improve efficiency.\20\ Other commenters sought to increase the 
proposed limit. SFWA suggested that a limit of 100 works would be more 
likely to represent the output of an average professional writer/
blogger, based on an estimate of one post per day.\21\ The Copyright 
Alliance and the Authors Guild similarly argued that the limit should 
be designed to accommodate writers who publish on a daily basis.\22\ 
NWU/NPPA suggested a limit of up to 500 works to accommodate authors 
who frequently publish works on multiple platforms.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Marcos Arias Comment at 1.
    \21\ SFWA Comment at 3.
    \22\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5 (proposing 90 works); 
Authors Guild Comment at 3 (proposing 100 works).
    \23\ NWU/NPPA Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office understands commenters' desire to increase the number of 
works allowable within a single GRTX application to accommodate daily 
bloggers and other authors who create and publish a high volume of 
works. For the reasons discussed in the NPRM, however, the Office 
continues to believe that a limit of 50 works strikes an appropriate 
balance between authors' interests and the Office's administrative 
capabilities. The final rule therefore retains this limitation. The 
Office reiterates, however, that there is no limit to the number of 
applications that may be submitted. We are hopeful that that option 
will mitigate much of this concern.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See SFWA Comment at 3 (``We understand that more than one 
application can be submitted, and if the fee is reasonable, that 
would to some extent address this concern.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Title Information
    The NPRM provided that an applicant must provide a title for each 
work in the group and a title for the group as a whole. No commenters 
objected to these requirements, and therefore they are retained in the 
final rule. The NPRM also included a requirement that the applicant 
append the term ``GRTX'' to the beginning of the group title, so that 
the Office could differentiate these applications from others filed on 
the Standard Application. Because, as discussed below, the Office is 
implementing a new electronic application specifically for GRTX, this 
requirement is no longer necessary and is not included in the final 
rule. The final rule does, however, add a requirement that the 
application specify the total number of short online literary works 
that are included in the group.
4. Author and Claimant
    Under the proposed rule, to be eligible for the GRTX option, the 
author must be named as the copyright claimant on the application, even 
if a different party actually owns the copyright in each work. The 
Copyright Alliance and AAP both questioned this requirement.\25\ While 
they acknowledged that this practice will advance the efficient 
examination of each application by allowing the Office to focus on each 
work's copyrightability, they expressed concern that it may make for an 
inaccurate public record of current ownership.\26\ The Office takes 
these concerns seriously but believes they are outweighed in this 
instance by the need to provide an efficient examination process. Where 
a copyright claimant is not the author of the work, the Copyright Act 
requires the application to include a statement of how claimant 
obtained ownership of the copyright.\27\ Examiners reviewing claims of 
this type would be required to verify that the application contained a 
legally sufficient statement to this effect--a process that could 
involve correspondence to resolve discrepancies. Moreover, as noted in 
the NPRM, requiring the author to be named as the claimant is 
consistent with the longstanding principle that an author may always be 
named as the copyright claimant, even if she does not own any of the 
exclusive rights when the claim is submitted.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP Comment at 2-3.
    \26\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5-6; AAP Comment at 2-3.
    \27\ 17 U.S.C. 409(5).
    \28\ See 83 FR at 65,615 (citing Compendium of U.S. Copyright 
Office Practices sec. 619.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with respect to the concern over potential 
inaccuracies in the public record, it should be noted that if someone 
other than the author has acquired all the rights in the works, a 
copyright registration is not necessarily the best way to add that 
information to the public record. In most cases, registration simply 
provides a ``snapshot'' of who owned the

[[Page 37344]]

copyright as of the effective date of registration. Instead, a change 
in ownership can be added to the public record by recording the 
document that transferred the copyright with the Office.
    The proposed rule also provided that the works submitted under the 
GRTX group option must be created by the same individual, thus 
excluding joint works from eligibility. SFWA contended that this 
requirement would be a problem for collaborations between two or more 
authors.\29\ It requested that joint authors be allowed to use GRTX, as 
long as the collaborators are listed in the copyright notice for each 
work.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ SFWA Comment at 3.
    \30\ SFWA Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office understands that there may be circumstances under which 
joint authors produce the types of short online literary works that may 
benefit from the GRTX option. Therefore, the final rule expands 
eligibility for the option to joint authors of literary works, in 
addition to individual authors. Under this option, all literary works 
within an application must be jointly authored, and the joint authors 
must be identical for each literary work. For example, a group 
consisting of ten literary works jointly authored by the same two 
individuals, and one additional literary work authored by those persons 
and a third co-author, would not be eligible. The Office intends to 
strictly enforce this requirement to ensure an efficient registration 
process. GRTX applications for joint works that do not comply will be 
refused without correspondence. To facilitate compliance, the Office 
will prepare public informational materials warning of this 
consequence. It also should be noted that any claim in individual or 
joint authorship under this option must be limited to ``text'' and 
cannot include other forms of authorship that can be claimed on a 
Standard Application for a literary work.
    Finally, the proposed rule excluded works made for hire. As 
explained in the NPRM, the GRTX option ``is intended to benefit 
individual writers who publish their works on the internet, but do not 
have the time or resources to register their works with the Office. 
This is less of a concern for corporate authors or authors who are 
hired to create a work for another party.'' \31\ Commenters generally 
accepted this rationale, but the Copyright Alliance and AAP encouraged 
the Office to consider expanding the GRTX option to include certain 
smaller business entities who may also face resource limitations.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 83 FR at 65,614.
    \32\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 5; AAP Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office appreciates the needs of smaller entities who face 
similar economic challenges in registration as individual creators. 
However, the Office does not currently have a mechanism to 
differentiate those entities from larger corporate authors for purposes 
of registration. While the Office is open to considering possible 
avenues through which it could extend the GRTX option to certain 
corporate authors in the future, it does not have the tools necessary 
to do so at this time. The final rule accordingly retains the exclusion 
of works for hire.
5. Publication Information
    Under the proposed rule, eligible works were required to be 
published as part of a website or online platform (such as an online 
newspaper, social media website, or social networking platform), and 
all had to be published within a three-month calendar period. The NPRM 
explained that a work would satisfy this requirement if it was first 
published online or simultaneously published online and in physical 
form. By contrast, a work would not be eligible for GRTX if it was 
published solely in physical form or if it was first published in 
physical form and then subsequently published online.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ AAP requested clarification on whether other qualifying 
online works would be eligible for this option ``if they reside on 
platforms behind a paywall.'' AAP Comment at 3. The fact that a work 
is located behind a paywall would not disqualify it from 
eligibility, provided it is ``published as part of a website or 
online platform.'' Indeed, the final rule expressly includes 
``online newspapers,'' which commonly display articles behind 
paywalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Copyright Alliance and the Authors Guild argued that authors 
should be allowed to register their works under this option regardless 
of whether they are published or unpublished.\34\ The Copyright 
Alliance noted that many authors struggle with the complex legal 
distinctions between published an unpublished works.\35\ The Authors 
Guild asserted that the distinction serves no apparent need and 
exacerbates the potential for confusion. These and other organizations 
requested that the Office provide additional guidance on what 
constitutes publication in the online environment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5; Authors Guild Comment at 
4-5.
    \35\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5.
    \36\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 4-5; Authors Guild Comment at 
4-5; SFWA Comment at 3; AAP Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also argued that the facts relevant to publication may 
be unknown to certain authors. The Authors Guild, the Copyright 
Alliance, and NWU/NPPA commented that authors may have no control over 
whether a publisher distributes their works online or in physical form 
and that such authors may not know if their works were first published 
online, first published in physical form, or simultaneously published 
online and in print.\37\ NWU/NPPA accordingly requested that the Office 
remove the word ``first'' from the references to online 
publication.\38\ The Authors Guild requested that ``simultaneous'' 
publication be defined to mean ``published within 30 days.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Authors Guild Comment at 4-5; Copyright Alliance Comment at 
4-5; NWU/NPA Comment at 5-6.
    \38\ NWU/NPA Comment at 5-6.
    \39\ Authors Guild Comment at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office understands that determinations regarding the fact and 
timing of publication may present difficult legal questions, especially 
in the online context. However, the statute requires that the 
registration application include, for published works, the date and 
nation of the work's first publication.\40\ In light of this 
requirement, as well as the technical constraints of the Office's 
current registration system, the Office believes that the inclusion of 
both categories of works in the GRTX option would undermine the 
efficiency of the examination process, and therefore the final rule 
retains the publication requirement.\41\ The Office notes, however, 
that under its registration practices, the Office ``will accept the 
applicant's representation that website content is published or 
unpublished, unless that statement is implausible or is contradicted by 
information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the 
Office's records or by information that is known to the registration 
specialist.'' \42\ Further, the Office is currently exploring issues 
regarding publication more generally in an effort to provide greater 
guidance to registration applicants.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 U.S.C. 409(8).
    \41\ The proposed rule required applicants to list the earliest 
date that the works were published. In light of additional 
functionality in the new GRTX application that was not available in 
the Standard Application, the final rule adds a requirement that the 
applicant also list the latest date that the works were published.
    \42\ U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 
Practices 1008.3 (F) (3d ed. 2017) (``Compendium (Third)'').
    \43\ See Online Publication, 84 FR 66,328 (Dec. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters further argued that the rule should not be limited to 
works published online but should also provide for group registration 
of works

[[Page 37345]]

published in physical form.\44\ NWU/NPPA specifically noted that the 
petition requested, in addition to a group option for works in 
electronic format, an option to register ``multiple written works by 
the same creator first published on multiple dates, regardless of 
whether they were published as contributions to periodicals.'' \45\ The 
primary focus of the petition and supporting facts, however, was the 
need for an accommodation for works published in electronic format,\46\ 
and the GRTX option was tailored to address that demonstrated area of 
need. The final rule therefore remains limited to works published 
online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Authors Guild Comment at 6; NWU/NPA Comment at 6-7.
    \45\ NWU/NPA Comment at 6-7.
    \46\ See Petition at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Application Requirements

    Under the rule as initially proposed, applicants would have been 
required to submit their claims using the online Standard Application 
designated for a ``Literary Work.'' Since the close of the comment 
period, however, the Office has worked with the Library of Congress's 
Office of the Chief Information Officer, and a new online application 
is being developed specifically for GRTX that applicants will be able 
to access and submit through the electronic registration system 
(``eCO''). The final rule accordingly has been updated to require 
applicants to submit claims using that application. The Office expects 
to prepare an online tutorial to provide guidance on using the new 
application and will include help text within the application itself. 
The Office also intends to update the sections of the Compendium of 
U.S. Copyright Office Practices that discuss the Office's procedures 
for group registration to address this new option.
    The new application is expected to be implemented into the eCO 
system by August 2020. The Office has provided for the final rule to 
take effect that month and is publishing the rule now to give authors 
of eligible works sufficient advance notice of this new option, so that 
they may gather their data in anticipation of submitting applications. 
Nevertheless, the availability of the GRTX application is ultimately 
dependent on the completion of system development and may be affected 
by unanticipated delays in that process. The Office will issue a public 
announcement when implementation is complete and this option is 
available to applicants.
    The proposed rule included language that would allow the Office to 
waive the electronic filing requirement upon written request in 
exceptional circumstances.\47\ This provision has been retained in the 
final rule. One commenter requested that the Office allow applicants to 
use paper forms without obtaining a waiver, suggesting that that option 
may be more efficient for some applicants.\48\ The Office concludes, 
however, that a general requirement of electronic filing best promotes 
the efficient use of examination resources, and that the waiver option 
adequately accommodates applicants unable to meet that requirement. As 
noted in the NPRM, the Office expects such cases to be rare given that 
creators of works eligible for this option typically will be capable of 
using the electronic registration system.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 83 FR at 65,615.
    \48\ Marcus Arias Comment at 1.
    \49\ 83 FR at 65,615.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also required that the applicant submit a 
sequentially numbered list containing a title/file name for each work 
in the group, and that the list satisfy certain technical and 
formatting requirements.\50\ Some commenters urged the Office to 
provide detailed instructional materials to ensure that applicants are 
able to satisfy these and other provisions.\51\ The Office intends to 
provide such guidance in the online materials noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 83 FR at 65,615.
    \51\ See Authors Guild Comment at 6-7; Copyright Alliance 
Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deposit Requirements

    Under the proposed rule, applicants must submit one complete copy 
of each work in the group, the copies must be uploaded to the 
electronic registration system in a specified file format, and all of 
the files must be submitted in the same format. No commenters took 
issue with these requirements, which are reflected in the final rule.
    The proposed rule also required copies to be submitted in an 
``orderly'' manner, meaning that each work was to be uploaded in a 
separate digital file. The Authors Guild found this requirement 
``unduly laborious and unnecessary,'' arguing that applicants should be 
allowed to submit their works in a single document with each work 
starting on a new page, or, alternatively, to provide a single upload 
using file compression.\52\ In light of this comment, and based on the 
Office's experience administering other recently adopted group 
registration options, the Office agrees that the regulatory language 
should be amended to provide for submission of works in a single 
upload. The final rule still requires that each work in the group be 
contained in a separate digital file, but it provides that they should 
be uploaded together in a .ZIP file. The final rule retains the 
requirement that the file name for each work match the corresponding 
title entered on the application.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Authors Guild Comment at 6.
    \53\ See 83 FR at 65,616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Filing Fee

    The NPRM provided that the filing fee for the GRTX option would be 
$55, the fee applicable to claims submitted on the Standard 
Application. It further noted that the Office had recently proposed to 
increase the Standard Application fee to $75 and that if that proposal 
were adopted, the new fee would apply to GRTX claims.\54\ Subsequently, 
the Office submitted a final proposed schedule and analysis of fees to 
Congress in which it reduced the proposed increase to $65.\55\ Based on 
the comments received in the fee study proceeding, and in light of the 
Office's inability under the current registration system to charge 
different prices for different types of works submitted on the Standard 
Application, the Office reiterated its recommendation that the GRTX fee 
be the same as the Standard Application fee.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 83 FR at 65,616.
    \55\ U.S. Copyright Office, Proposed Schedule and Analysis of 
Copyright Fees to Go into Effect in Spring 2020 21 (2019) (``Fee 
Study''), available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/feestudy2018/proposed-fee-schedule.pdf.
    \56\ Fee Study at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the 120-day statutory period for congressional 
review,\57\ the Office promulgated a final rule implementing the 
proposed fee schedule.\58\ The rule noted the Office's expectation that 
GRTX registrations ``would require a workflow similar to claims 
submitted on the Standard Application'' and that commenters in the fee 
study proceeding generally supported linking the two fees.\59\ 
Nevertheless, to avoid potential confusion, the Office did not adopt 
the GRTX fee as part of that rule, noting that it instead would adopt 
the fee when it issued a final rule implementing the GRTX option.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(5).
    \58\ Copyright Office Fees, 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19, 2020).
    \59\ Id. at 9380-81.
    \60\ Id. The Office is following the same approach in 
implementing its proposed new registration option for a group of 
works on an album of music. See Group Registration of Works on an 
Album of Music, 84 FR 22,762 (May 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Office is now providing a standalone application for 
GRTX

[[Page 37346]]

submissions, it continues to believe it is appropriate to charge the 
same fee as is charged for Standard Application filings. While the 
initial proposal was made in part due to an inability to adopt 
differential pricing for Standard Application claims, the Office 
believes that it is reasonable to set the GRTX fee, at least initially, 
at the same fee, given the similarities in expected workflow associated 
with examining these claims. The final rule therefore establishes a $65 
fee. Given, however, that the Office now has greater flexibility to 
adjust fees specifically for this option, it will gather additional 
data to determine if this amount should be adjusted once this option is 
implemented, including aligning this fee to other group options such as 
that relevant to contributions to a periodical.

E. The Scope of a Group Registration

    The NPRM provided that claims in the selection, coordination, or 
arrangement of the group as a whole will not be permitted on the 
application, and the group will not be considered a compilation or a 
collective work for purposes of sections 101, 103(b), or 504(c)(1) of 
the Copyright Act. No commenters took issue with this aspect of the 
NPRM.

F. Correspondence and Refusals

    The NPRM stated that the Office may refuse the entire claim if it 
is defective on certain grounds, including, among other reasons, if the 
applicant submits a paper form; the applicant submits more than 50 
works; a work falls outside the word-count parameters; the applicant 
asserts a claim in ``text'' and another form of authorship; works in 
the group were published more than three months apart; or the names 
provided in the author and claimant fields do not match. The Authors 
Guild and the Copyright Alliance advocated a more lenient review 
policy, urging the Office to correspond with applicants to correct 
errors of this type.\61\ The Office recognizes that rejecting 
applications for technical noncompliance can present burdens for 
applicants, some of whom may conclude that the cost of submitting a new 
application is not worth it. At the same time, the Office must ensure 
that its examination resources are used in a manner that maintains the 
efficiency of group registration. The Office therefore reserves the 
right to refuse any application that does not comply with the 
requirements set forth in the final rule, or modify the claim to become 
compliant without communicating with the applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Authors Guild Comment at 6-7; Copyright Alliance Comment at 
2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, however, the Office intends to issue additional 
instructional materials to assist applicants in determining their 
eligibility for this option and in completing the application. More 
generally, the Office will continue to explore tools to assist 
applicants as it moves toward implementation of a next-generation 
electronic registration system. The Office is hopeful that these 
resources will provide useful guidance to authors interested in 
exercising this option and will minimize the need for correspondence.

G. Supplementary Registrations

    A supplementary registration is a special type of registration that 
may be used ``to correct an error in a copyright registration or to 
amplify the information given in a registration.'' \62\ The Office has 
created multiple versions of a form that may be used to correct or 
amplify information in registrations made under specified group 
registration options, but the Office has not yet created a version for 
a registration of a group of short online literary works. Therefore, 
the final rule clarifies that applicants should contact the Office of 
Registration Policy & Practice to obtain instructions before seeking a 
supplementary registration involving these types of claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 U.S.C. 408(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This update constitutes a change to a ``rule[] of agency . . . 
procedure[] or practice.'' \63\ It does not ``alter the rights or 
interests of parties,'' but merely ``alter[s] the manner in which the 
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'' \64\ It 
therefore is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
    \64\ JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

37 CFR Part 202

    Copyright, Preregistration and registration of claims to copyright.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office 
amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 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 in table 1 to paragraph (c) by redesignating 
paragraphs (c)(10) through (27) as paragraphs (c)(11) through (28), 
respectively, and adding new paragraph (c)(10).
    The addition reads as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
(10) Registration of a claim in a group of short online               65
 literary works..............................................
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 202--PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT

0
3. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.


0
4. Amend Sec.  202.4 as follows:
0
a. Add paragraph (j).
0
b. In paragraph (n), in the first sentence, remove ``paragraphs'' and 
add in its place ``paragraph'' and in the second sentence, remove 
``paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), or (k)'' and add in their place 
``paragraph (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (k)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  202.4  Group Registration.

* * * * *
    (j) Group registration of short online literary works. Pursuant to 
the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(2), the Register of 
Copyrights has determined that a group of literary works may be 
registered in Class TX with one application, the required deposit, and 
the filing fee required by Sec.  201.3(c) if the following conditions 
are met:
    (1) The group may include up to 50 short online literary works, and 
the application must specify the total number of short online literary 
works that are included in the group. For purposes of this section, a 
short online literary work is a work consisting of text that contains 
at least 50 words and no more than 17,500 words, such as a poem, short 
story, article, essay, column, blog entry, or social media post. The 
work must be published as part of a website or online platform, 
including online newspapers, social media websites, and social 
networking platforms. The group may not include

[[Page 37347]]

computer programs, audiobooks, podcasts, or emails. Claims in any form 
of authorship other than ``text'' or claims in the selection, 
coordination, or arrangement of the group as a whole will not be 
permitted on the application.
    (2) All of the works must be published within a three-calendar-
month period, and the application must identify the earliest and latest 
date that the works were published.
    (3) All the works must be created by the same individual, or 
jointly by the same individuals, and each creator must be named as the 
copyright claimant or claimants for each work in the group.
    (4) The works must not be works made for hire.
    (5) The applicant must provide a title for each work and a title 
for the group as a whole.
    (6) The applicant must complete and submit the online application 
designated for a group of short online literary works. The application 
may be submitted by any of the parties listed in Sec.  202.3(c)(1).
    (7) The applicant must submit one complete copy of each work. The 
works must be assembled in an orderly form with each work in a separate 
digital file. The file name for each work must match the title as 
submitted on the application. All of the works must be submitted in one 
of the electronic formats approved by the Office, and must be uploaded 
to the electronic registration system in a .ZIP file. The file size for 
each uploaded .ZIP file must not exceed 500 megabytes.
    (8) The applicant must submit a sequentially numbered list 
containing a title/file name for each work in the group. The list must 
also include the publication date and word count for each work. The 
numbered list must be contained in an electronic file in Excel format 
(.xls), Portable Document Format (PDF), or other electronic format 
approved by the Office, and the file name for the list must contain the 
title of the group and the case number assigned to the application by 
the electronic registration system (e.g., ``Title Of Group Case Number 
16283927239.xls'').
    (9) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the 
online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (j)(6) of this section 
or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under Sec.  
202.20(d), subject to such conditions as the Associate Register of 
Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and 
Practice may impose on the applicant.
* * * * *


Sec.  202.6  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  202.6 by adding ``or for a group of short online 
literary works registered under Sec.  202.4(j),'' after ``Sec.  
202.4(c),'' in paragraph (e)(2).

    Dated: May 26, 2020.
Maria Strong,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright 
Office.
    Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2020-12041 Filed 6-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P