[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58991-59000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15880]


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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201 and 202

[Docket No. 2023-8]


Group Registration of Updates to a News Website

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is creating a new group registration 
for frequently updated news websites. This option will enable online 
news publishers to register a group of updates to a news website as a 
collective work with a deposit composed of identifying material 
representing sufficient portions of the work, rather than the complete 
contents of the website. The final rule is nearly identical to the 
provisions set forth in the January 2024 notice of proposed rulemaking, 
with one modification in response to public comments and one to reflect 
a technical change in the process for submitting these claims.

DATES: Effective July 22, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 
General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-
707-8350.

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 
registration and the deposit required for each class.\1\ In addition, 
Congress gave the Register the discretion to allow registration of 
groups of related works with one application and one filing fee.\2\ 
This procedure is known as ``group registration.'' \3\ Pursuant to this 
authority, the Register has issued several regulations permitting group 
registrations for certain types of works, including newspapers, 
newsletters and serials, unpublished works, unpublished and published 
photographs, contributions to periodicals, secure test items, works on 
an album of music, short online literary works, and database 
updates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4.
    \4\ Id. at 202.3(b)(5), 202.4(c)-(k), (o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking expands the available group registration options 
because of several factors specifically impacting news websites. Along 
with receiving requests from online publishers, the Office observed the 
increase in news content offered online and the dynamic nature of such 
material.\5\ It also reviewed stakeholder comments in prior proceedings 
that discussed the challenges associated with registering online news 
content, including those submitted in response to its 2022 Copyright 
Protections for Press Publishers report.\6\ Finally, the Office 
acknowledged the deposit challenges associated with websites, 
particularly news websites, in its 2011 publication titled Priorities 
and Special Projects of the United States Copyright Office (October 
2011-October 2013).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 89 FR 311, 311-12 (Jan. 3, 2024).
    \6\ U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Protection for Press 
Publishers (June 2022), https://copyright.gov/policy/publishersprotections/202206-Publishers-Protections-Study.pdf.
    \7\ See 89 FR 311, 312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2024, the Office published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') to establish a new group registration option for 
frequently updated news websites.\8\ The proposed rule would allow an 
applicant to register a news website as a collective work (including 
any individual component works it fully owns, such as literary works, 
photographs, and/or graphics) \9\ with a deposit composed of 
identifying material, rather than the complete contents of the website. 
The proposed rule would also allow registration of the news website and 
any updates published within one calendar month, if the deposit 
evidences a sufficiently creative selection, coordination, or 
arrangement within each collective work to constitute a copyrightable 
compilation.\10\ Each

[[Page 58992]]

collective work must have been created as a work made for hire, with 
the same person or entity named as both the author and copyright 
claimant. The proposed rule stated that applicants would be required to 
submit their claims through the online copyright registration system, 
using the application currently in use for a group of newspaper 
issues.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 311. The final rule defines a ``news website'' as ``a 
website that is designed to be a primary source of written 
information on current events, either local, national, or 
international in scope, that contains a broad range of news on all 
subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific subject 
matter.'' 37 CFR 202.4(m)(1)(i).
    \9\ Because the Office will not examine each component work 
within the collective work, the copyright claimant bears the burden 
of proving that it owns the individual component works claimed in 
the submission.
    \10\ A ``collective work'' is a type of compilation. See 17 
U.S.C. 101. A ``compilation'' is ``a work formed by the collection 
and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are 
selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting 
work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'' Id.
    \11\ As noted in the NPRM, ``in appropriate circumstances, the 
Office may waive the online filing requirement, subject to the 
conditions the Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the 
Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose.'' 89 FR 311, 
316 n.55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office received twenty comments in response to the NPRM.\12\ 
All but one \13\ supported the Office's proposal to create the new 
group registration option, though the majority requested various 
modifications. Two commenters, however, expressly conditioned their 
support on substantive changes to the rule, which would substantially 
change its scope.\14\ In general, commenters were interested in 
expanding eligibility for this option to a greater number of works and 
changing the deposit requirement. Proposals included revising the 
definition of ``news website,'' removing the work made for hire and 
author/claimant requirements, increasing the time limitation for 
updates to the news website, clarifying the ``home page'' deposit 
requirement, and asking the Office to confirm the scope of remedies for 
copyright infringement of a collective work.\15\ Finally, one commenter 
encouraged the Office to ``identify opportunities for improvement'' and 
to remain ``adaptive to technological changes.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Office also received a letter from several 
organizations reflecting their collective support for finalizing the 
rulemaking in a timely manner and in-line edits to the Office's 
proposed regulatory language. Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et 
al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of 
Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024), https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/newswebsite/Association-of-American-Publishers-et-al%E2%80%93Letter-to-Copyright-Office.pdf.
    \13\ See Am. Ass'n of Independent Music, Ass'n of Am. 
Publishers, Inc, and Recording Industry Ass'n of Am., Inc. (``A2IM, 
AAP, & RIAA'') Comment at 2 (``Commenters express no position on the 
primary focus of the NPRM--whether the Office should create a new 
group registration option for frequently updated news websites--or 
on the details of how such an option should be implemented.'').
    \14\ See generally Nat'l Writers Union, Nat'l Press 
Photographers Ass'n, Nat'l Ass'n of Sci. Writers (``NWU, NPPA, & 
NASW'') Comment; Gordon Firemark 2 Comment.
    \15\ A handful of commenters also proposed that the Office 
should adopt the NPRM immediately, as an interim rule. See, e.g., 
Copyright All. Comment at 11; Nat'l Pub. Radio (``NPR'') Comment at 
3-5; News Media All. (``NMA'') Comment at 2.
    \16\ Am. Bar Ass'n Section of Intell. Prop. L. (``ABA-IPL'') 
Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having reviewed and carefully considered each of the comments, the 
Office now issues a final rule that is nearly identical to the proposed 
rule, with one modification reflecting concerns raised by some 
commenters regarding the ``home page'' deposit requirement and one 
modification concerning the application form for this option. These 
modifications are discussed in more detail below. With respect to 
requests that we received to expand the scope of the rule, the Office 
will closely monitor how the new group option performs, including the 
number and complexity of the claims submitted, the amount of time 
needed to examine these claims, and the modest filing fee for this 
option. The Office remains open to revisiting these issues in the 
future based on this rule's performance.

II. Final Rule

A. Eligibility Requirements

1. Works That May Be Included in the Group
    In the NPRM, the Office proposed to limit this group registration 
option to updates to a ``news website,'' defined as ``a website that is 
designed to be a primary source of written information on current 
events, either local, national, or international in scope, that 
contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities and is 
not limited to any specific subject matter.'' As described in the NPRM, 
the proposed rule stems from the rapid development and predominance of 
news websites over print newspapers,\17\ and requests from news 
publishers for a feasible way to register ``newspaper websites'' that 
are ``updated frequently.'' \18\ Thus, the proposed rule is an 
extension of the existing group newspaper option that has been 
available for decades.\19\ Consistent with the Compendium of U.S. 
Copyright Office Practices, the proposed rule defines a ``website'' as 
``a web page or set of interconnected web pages that are accessed using 
a uniform resource locator (``URL'') organized under a particular 
domain name.'' A number of commenters encouraged the Office to expand 
the type of works eligible under the rule and recommended revisions to 
both definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 89 FR at 311-12 (noting that ``[m]ore than eight in ten 
Americans get news from digital devices, and, as of 2021, more than 
half prefer digital platforms to access news'').
    \18\ Id. (citing Newspaper Association of America Comments at 
12-18, Submitted in Response to July 15, 2009 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works 
Available Only Online, U.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2009-3 (Aug. 
31, 2009) (emphasis omitted), https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/online-only/comments/naa.pdf).
    \19\ 37 CFR 202.4(e). The Office's definition of newspapers is 
based on the Library of Congress's collection policy definition. 
Library of Congress, Collections Policy Statements: Newspapers--
United States 1 (Sept. 2023), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/neu.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Constitutional Challenge
    Before turning to the requests to expand the rule, the Office 
addresses the argument made by a small number of commenters that the 
proposed group registration option would violate the First Amendment by 
limiting the option to a particular type of work. In a joint comment, 
NWU, NPPA, and NASW stated that restricting the option to ``news'' 
websites constitutes ``[c]ontent-based discrimination,'' which they 
considered ``[c]onstitutionally suspect and subject to strict 
scrutiny'' that the rule ``cannot meet.'' \20\ In support of this 
argument, they cited Arkansas Writers Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 
(1987), which reviewed a state sales tax scheme that taxed general 
interest magazines, but exempted newspapers and religious, professional 
trade, and sports journals. Because Arkansas ``advanced no compelling 
justification for selective, content-based taxation of certain 
magazines,'' the Supreme Court held the tax scheme invalid under the 
First Amendment.\21\ Analogizing the tax scheme in Arkansas Writers 
Project to the proposed registration option, NWU, NPPA, and NASW argued 
that the exclusion of any web content that does not meet the ``news 
website'' definition is unconstitutional.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-13; Gordon Firemark 2 
Comment (asserting that ``the proposed regulation is not Content 
Neutral, as required under the First Amendment'').
    \21\ Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 234.
    \22\ NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aligned with NWU, NPPA, and NASW, another commenter, Gordon 
Firemark, contended that, by limiting the group option to updates to 
news websites, the proposed rule ``excludes other types of content from 
[its] benefits'' and denies content creators ``relief from the burdens 
of the current system.'' \23\ He argued that recent Supreme Court 
precedent concerning trademark registration requires a content-neutral 
approach.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Gordon Firemark 2 Comment.
    \24\ Id. (citing Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), and 
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office disagrees with these arguments. It is correct that the 
Supreme Court has held that content-based laws--laws restricting or 
compelling

[[Page 58993]]

speech based on its communicative content--are presumptively 
unconstitutional,\25\ and subject to strict scrutiny, under which the 
government must show that the law is the ``least restrictive means'' of 
advancing a ``compelling'' governmental interest.\26\ A regulation can 
be content-based ``on its face,'' if its text applies to speech based 
on the subject matter, topic, or viewpoint of that speech. It can also 
be content-based if it has a discriminatory purpose that ``cannot be 
justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech'' or 
was ``adopted by the government because of disagreement with the 
message'' conveyed.\27\ However, a regulation that places ``a 
differential burden on speakers is insufficient by itself to raise 
First Amendment concerns.'' \28\ The tax scheme in Arkansas Writers 
Project was found to violate these principles by being directed at 
particular subjects, thus targeting a small group within the press.\29\ 
That is not the case here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015).
    \26\ Sable Commc'ns of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
    \27\ Reed, 576 U.S. at 164 (internal quotes omitted).
    \28\ Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 452-53 (1991) (citing 
Mabee v. White Plains Publ'g Co., 327 U.S. 178 (1946), and Oklahoma 
Press Publ'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946)).
    \29\ Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 229 (finding the tax 
scheme impermissibly targets a small group of the press because 
``the magazine exemption means that only a few Arkansas magazines 
pay any sales tax'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office's proposed group registration option is not analogous to 
the unconstitutional tax statute in Arkansas Writers Project for 
multiple reasons. First, the option does not restrict or compel speech 
based on its communicative content. Nor does it favor or disfavor 
particular topics or subjects, or exclude a small group of the 
press.\30\ Instead the option is available for updates to news websites 
that contain a broad range of topics regardless of the content of the 
speech involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Arkansas Writers Project, 481 U.S. at 229-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the registration option is viewpoint neutral and operates 
not as a restriction on speech, but as a condition for qualifying for 
one of many options available to register copyrights, including online 
websites and other publications. The Standard Application is available 
to any type of author for any type of work within the statutory 
categories.\31\ Group registration options are discretionary 
accommodations offered by the Office in a number of areas. Currently, 
the Office administers ten group options covering unpublished works, 
short online literary works, works on an album of music, serials, 
newspapers, newsletters, contributions to periodicals, published and 
unpublished photographs, automated databases, and secure test 
items.\32\ For online publications, group serials and group newsletters 
are other registration options for publications that fall outside of 
the ``newspaper'' or ``news website'' definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 37 CFR 202.3(b)(2)(i)(A).
    \32\ See generally id. at 202.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court's recent ruling in a case involving trademark 
regulations supports the Office's view. There the Court reviewed a rule 
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') barring the 
registration of trademarks that use the names of particular living 
individuals without their written consent.\33\ The Court held that this 
bar, though content-based, is viewpoint neutral and does not violate 
the First Amendment.\34\ The Court noted that while its precedents 
``distinguish between content-based and content-neutral regulations of 
speech,'' \35\ they further distinguish ``a particularly `egregious 
form of content discrimination'--viewpoint discrimination,'' which 
targets not merely a subject matter, ``but particular views taken by 
speakers on a subject.'' \36\ The Court identified ``[s]everal features 
of trademark [law]'' that ``counsel against a per se rule of applying 
heightened scrutiny to viewpoint-neutral, but content-based trademark 
regulations.'' Most notably, it found that ``trademark rights have 
always coexisted with the First Amendment, despite the fact that 
trademark protection necessarily requires content-based distinctions.'' 
\37\ Accordingly, the Court held that USPTO's ``content-based, but 
viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction [ ] is compatible with the 
First Amendment.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704, slip op. at 1 (2024).
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id. at 4 (2024) (quoting National Institute of Family and 
Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 766 (2018)).
    \36\ Id. (2024) (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of 
Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995)).
    \37\ Id. at 6.
    \38\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, copyright registration, and the broad administrative 
classification authority Congress granted to the Register, necessarily 
requires content-based distinctions. Indeed, since its passage in 1976, 
the Copyright Act has authorized the Register ``to specify by 
regulation the administrative classes into which works are to be placed 
for purposes of deposit and registration'' and to permit ``for 
particular classes, the deposit of identifying material instead of 
copies or phonorecords, the deposit of only one copy or phonorecord 
where two would normally be required, or a single registration for a 
group of related works.'' \39\ Like the USPTO's name bar, these 
administrative distinctions are not based on the particular views taken 
by authors and have always coexisted with the First Amendment. The 
addition of an administrative classification for this new group 
registration option, which adopts near-identical criteria for 
determining ``news'' content to that of the existing group option for 
newspapers, is ``a matter of policy and discretion'' \40\ fully 
compatible with the First Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1) (emphasis added).
    \40\ Leathers, 499 U.S. at 452 (quoting Regan v. Taxation with 
Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 549 (1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, unlike the viewpoint-based trademark provisions held 
unconstitutional for barring registration of scandalous or disparaging 
marks,\41\ the Office's viewpoint-neutral administrative classification 
does not bar registration for non-news content or websites. Quite the 
opposite: to increase participation in the registration system, the 
Office has created several group options for the registration of works 
that are published online.\42\ The Standard Application also remains 
available to any type of author for any type of work within the 
statutory categories. This rule does not prevent anyone's ability to 
register non-news works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Gordon Firemark 2 Comment (citing Iancu v. Brunetti, 
139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), and Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017)).
    \42\ See, e.g., 85 FR 37341, 37345 (June 22, 2020) (final rule 
for group registration of short online literary works); 83 FR 61546, 
61546-48 (Nov. 30, 2018) (final rule for group registration of 
newsletters and serials); 82 FR 29410, 29410-11 (June 29, 2017) 
(final rule for group registration of contributions to periodicals).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. News Website Limitation
    Multiple commenters urged the Office to expand the rule's 
definition of ``news website'' by removing the condition that the 
website must contain news on all subjects and activities.\43\ In 
encouraging

[[Page 58994]]

the Office ``not to exclude . . . specialized websites,'' the ABA-IPL 
noted that the ``proposed rule may provide especially meaningful 
benefit to smaller news websites--including those that focus on certain 
`specific subject matter.' '' \44\ HBP argued that ``websites, like 
HBR.org, that focus on a particular area of news . . . still face the 
same registration problems afflicting all news websites.'' \45\ The 
Authors Guild also expressed concern that the rule would exclude more 
specialized news publications, such as those that focus on political 
news. It argued that ``these publications clearly qualify as news 
websites under any ordinary understanding of that term.'' \46\ 
Relatedly, commenters claimed that content restrictions ``put[ ] 
examiners in an untenable position of deciding what is or is not 
`news.' '' \47\ Finally, four commenters asked the Office to abandon 
the ``news website'' definition and extend the group option ``to any 
periodically-produced content distributed through the internet.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See ABA-IPL Comment at 2; Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n 
(``AIPLA'') Comment at 1 (``We encourage the Office to reconsider 
[the definition of `news website'] and clarify the final clause--
`not limited to any specific subject matter'--which could be 
construed as excluding news websites with an industry-specific focus 
(e.g., wired.com), and thus unnecessarily limiting access to this 
group registration option.''); Copyright All. Comment at 4 (``We 
urge deletion of the phrase `. . . on all subjects and activities 
and is not limited to any specific subject matter' in the proposed 
rule . . . .''); Harvard Bus. Publ'g (``HBP'') Comment; Nat'l Ass'n 
of Broad. (``NAB'') Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 12-
13; NMA Comment at 8; The Authors Guild Comment at 2; see also 
Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. 
Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024).
    \44\ ABA-IPL Comment at 2.
    \45\ HBP Comment.
    \46\ The Authors Guild Comment at 1-2.
    \47\ John Murphy Comment; The Authors Guild Comment at 2 
(arguing that ``making eligibility determinations based on the 
substantive content of the materials submitted for registration . . 
. goes well beyond the Office's ordinary examination process'').
    \48\ Gordon Firemark 1 Comment; see NWU, NPPA, & NASW at 12-13; 
Brenda Ulrich Comment; John Murphy Comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering this request and in the interest of implementing 
this final rule as quickly as possible, the Office declines to revise 
the definition at this time. As an extension of the newspaper group 
option, the ``news website'' definition is modeled on the Office's 
longstanding regulation defining a ``newspaper'' as a publication that 
is ``mainly designed to be a primary source of written information on 
current events, either local, national, or international in scope,'' 
that ``contains a broad range of news on all subjects and activities 
and is not limited to any specific subject matter.'' \49\ This 
definition is very broad and it is intended to ``make any newspaper 
eligible for a group registration.'' \50\ It is also intended to 
distinguish a ``newspaper'' from a ``newsletter,'' which is defined 
elsewhere in the regulations as a publication that contains ``news or 
information that is chiefly of interest to a special group, such as 
trade and professional associations, colleges, schools, or churches.'' 
\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 37 CFR 202.4(e)(1).
    \50\ 82 FR 51369, 51371 (Nov. 6, 2017).
    \51\ 37 CFR 202.4(f)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this definition, newspapers are aimed at any member of the 
general public who may be interested in newsworthy information or 
events that are reported on a given day.\52\ By applying a similar 
definition to websites, the final rule recognizes that ``news 
websites'' are also intended to have universal appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id. at 202.4(e)(1) (``Newspapers are intended either for 
the general public or for a particular ethnic, cultural, or national 
group'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This definition would encompass news websites that cover current 
events and provide information on diverse topics, including some 
political websites like those identified in the Authors Guild's 
comment.\53\ Although these sites focus primarily on issues involving 
politics and events with political implications, they do not limit 
their coverage to a particular subject matter nor are they directed at 
narrow or discrete groups of readers.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The Authors Guild Comment at 1-2.
    \54\ Cf. 37 CFR 202.4(f)(1)(i) (designed for newsletters that 
``contain news or information that is chiefly of interest to a 
special group'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office also disagrees with commenters that the ``news website'' 
eligibility requirement places a burden on examiners. Indeed, the 
definitions for ``news website'' and ``newspaper'' are similar, in 
part, to enable consistent application of both rules. Examiners are 
accustomed to assessing eligibility based on this definition.
    However, if the definition proves too rigid or unworkable, the 
Office is willing to revisit this issue based on its experience in 
administering this rule. Importantly, however, this new group option is 
not intended to extend to the websites of all serials or newsletters, 
which in print or ePrint form have the benefit of separate group 
registration options.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Group registration of serials provides a registration 
option for serial issues within a three-month period that meet the 
eligibility requirements for that option. Id. at 202.4(d)(1). Group 
registration of newsletters provides an option for registering a 
group of newsletters published within a one-month period. Id. at 
202.4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Website Limitation
    The Office received requests to expand the rule beyond websites. 
Commenters recommended that the proposed rule be amended to include 
mobile applications (``apps'') in the definition of ``website.'' \56\ 
They argued that ``[m]any news publishers encourage users to access 
content on an app rather than a website.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Copyright All. Comment at 6; NAB Comment at 4; NMA Comment 
at 10.
    \57\ The Authors Guild Comment at 2; Copyright All. Comment at 
6; NAB Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office declines to amend the definition. It considers an app to 
be ``a computer program that is used directly or indirectly in a 
computer or handheld electronic device.'' \58\ The Office has a 
procedure for registering the underlying code that operates the 
app.\59\ To the extent that news publishers seek to register the works 
published on the app, a registration for a newspaper or a news website 
would protect those works if they contain the same content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 
Practices sec. 722 (3d ed. 2021) (``Compendium (Third)'').
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIPLA encouraged the Office to revise the definition of ``website'' 
to clarify that a website is not limited to content accessed using a 
single domain name.\60\ It explained that ``web pages are composed of 
various elements, like text, images, and videos'' that ``might be 
hosted on a different server than the one hosting the main web page for 
reasons such as efficiency, speed, and cost.'' \61\ The Office 
appreciates this distinction but declines to revise the definition. To 
qualify for this option, each collective work in the group must be 
published under one particular domain name. For registration purposes, 
the Office does not assess eligibility based on where component digital 
works may be stored. The Office believes the ``particular web page'' 
requirement is necessary to prevent applicants from using the option to 
register collective works published under different domain names on the 
same application, which would make it difficult to identify the website 
that is covered by the registration. Therefore, the final rule retains 
the definition proposed in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ AIPLA Comment at 1-2.
    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Scope of Collective Work
    The proposed rule provides that claims registered under this option 
will be limited to the collective work authorship based on the 
selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of the individual component 
works, and that all parts of the collective work will constitute one 
work for purposes of 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1).\62\ Additionally, the

[[Page 58995]]

Office made clear that the registration will also cover the individual 
contributions contained within the collective work if they are fully 
owned by the copyright claimant and were first published in that work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ In the NPRM, the Office also noted that when a website is 
registered as a compilation, the statute provides that the copyright 
owner may seek only one award of statutory damages for infringement 
of the compilation as a whole--rather than a separate award for each 
individual work that appears on the website--even if the defendant 
infringed all of the works covered by the registration. 17 U.S.C. 
504(c)(1) (``For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a 
compilation or derivative work constitute one work.''). Some 
commenters urged the Office to acknowledge and adopt the `` 
`independent economic value' test to determine when copyrighted 
material constitutes a separate `work' for the purpose of 
determining eligibility for statutory damages.'' A2IM, AAP, & RIAA 
Comment at 2-3; Copyright All. Comment at 8; NAB Comment at 6-8. 
Acknowledging that the NPRM correctly states ``that the group 
registration option will extend to individual works that make up the 
collective work if they are fully owned by the applicant,'' NMA 
asked the Office to confirm that its statement ``do[es] not reflect 
a substantive opinion on eligibility for statutory damages.'' NMA 
Comment at 11-12. The Office stands by its restatement of section 
504(c)(1) and declines to address the matter further in this 
rulemaking. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 162 (1976), reprinted in 
1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770 (``Subsection (c)(1) makes clear, 
however, that, although they are regarded as independent works for 
other purposes, `all the parts of a compilation or derivative work 
constitute one work' for this purpose.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NPR asked the Office to confirm that ``the scope of the collective 
work will explicitly include all copyrightable contributions made by 
the claimant, not just textual works.'' \63\ As noted above, a ``news 
website'' is defined as ``a website that is designed to be a primary 
source of written information.'' \64\ If the collective work contains 
individual contributions that are fully owned by the copyright claimant 
and were first published in the work, then the registration will cover 
those contributions, so long as they are copyrightable subject matter. 
However, a component work ``that is perceptible to the user only by 
downloading or separately purchasing that particular work is not 
considered part of the website for registration purposes and must be 
registered separately.'' \65\ Additionally, any ``externally linked 
content [i.e., content residing on another website] is not considered 
part of the website's content for registration purposes.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ NPR Comment at 7.
    \64\ 37 CFR 202.4(m)(1)(i) (emphasis added).
    \65\ Compendium (Third) sec. 1002.2.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HBP recommended that the Office permit applicants to disclaim 
content that is licensed and not owned by the applicant. As with group 
newspapers, the Office does not see the need for a limitation of claim 
for news websites, because the proposed rule expressly states that 
``[e]ach update to the website must be [an original] collective work.'' 
A registration issued by the Office pursuant to this rule will only 
cover the new contributions owned by the copyright claimant. Consistent 
with any collective work registration, any articles, photos, or other 
contributions included in the collective work that were previously 
published, previously registered, owned by another party, or in the 
public domain are automatically excluded from the claim. As a practical 
matter, therefore, a disclaimer to expressly exclude material in the 
application is unnecessary.
    Port. Prerogative Club asked the Office to ``[c]larify whether 
updates to numerical information, such as prices, volumes, retweets, or 
other metrics, qualify as registrable under the rule, and whether the 
Office has changed its policy on the registrability of short phrases 
and headlines.'' The Office states that its longstanding regulation 
denying protection for words and short phrases has not changed.\67\ 
Regarding ``prices, volumes, retweets, or other metrics,'' it is 
unclear whether the commenter is referring to individual works of 
authorship, or whether these items appear in a compilation. Individual 
numbers and short phrases are not copyrightable. However, a 
copyrightable compilation of these items may be registrable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See 37 CFR 202.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. One-Month Limitation
    The proposed rule permits an applicant to include updates published 
on the same website within the same calendar month. Three commenters 
urged the Office to remove the limitation, arguing that it is too 
``onerous.'' \68\ NPR recommended that the Office allow for the option 
to cover ``three months, or six months, or a calendar year'' to 
``reduce registration costs.'' \69\ Noting that ``attorneys' fees and 
statutory damages can be awarded as long as copyright is registered 
within three months of first publication,'' NWU, NPPA, and NASW 
requested that the rule be amended to allow registration of updates 
published ``during any specified three-month period.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ John Murphy Comment; see NPR Comment at 5 (``[T]he office 
should further relax the frequency''); NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 
16-17.
    \69\ NPR Comment at 5.
    \70\ NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, given administrative capabilities, the Office cannot 
expand the option to cover more than one month of updates. As the NPRM 
explained, to deliver the option promptly, and to minimize development 
time, the Office is adapting the existing group application for 
newspapers, which is used to register up to one month of newspaper 
issues and contains technical validations that prevent applicants from 
entering publication dates that are more than one month apart. Changing 
the limit would require additional modifications to the application and 
delay implementation of the final rule. Further, the Office seeks an 
appropriate balance between the interests of copyright owners and the 
administrative burden to the Office. Based on the modest fee set for 
this option, some limit on the number of works included in each claim 
is necessary. The Office will reassess whether the limit can be 
increased after it has gained sufficient experience administering the 
rule.
4. Authorship, Ownership, and Work Made for Hire Requirements
    Under the proposed rule, to be eligible for the option, each 
collective work in the group must have been created as a work made for 
hire, with the same person or entity named as the author and copyright 
claimant. Multiple commenters questioned this requirement.\71\ The 
Authors Guild argued that the work made for hire requirement 
``arbitrarily and unfairly confines the benefit of the rule to 
corporate entities even where other creators are producing 
substantially the same type of content.'' \72\ While they recognized 
that this requirement reflects practical and technical limitations, NMA 
and AIPLA noted that ``there does not seem to be a fundamental reason 
for such a limitation in principle, and in many business cases, the 
work may be fully owned by the publisher, or obtained via assignment or 
operation of law.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The Authors Guild Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment 
at 11; NMA Comment at 11; AIPLA Comment at 2; Letter from Ass'n of 
Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. 
Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 2024).
    \72\ The Authors Guild Comment at 3; NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment 
at 11.
    \73\ NMA Comment at 11; AIPLA Comment at 2 (``[W]e see no clear 
policy reason to disfavor registration of copyrights acquired 
through other means (e.g., by assignment).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office acknowledges that the work made for hire requirement may 
not reflect every business case of ownership. However, this requirement 
streamlines the registration procedures, which, as noted above, will 
adapt the existing group application option for newspapers. Under that 
option, the same person or entity must be named as the author and 
copyright claimant, and each issue must be a work made for hire. The 
Office retains the same requirements for the news websites option to 
minimize the need for additional development time that would otherwise 
be required.

[[Page 58996]]

    Additionally, under general Copyright Office practice, if the 
author and claimant are not the same person, the applicant is 
statutorily required to provide a transfer statement explaining how the 
claimant acquired all of the rights initially belonging to the 
author.\74\ If an applicant names a third party as the copyright 
claimant, but fails to provide a transfer statement, then the Office 
must correspond to determine whether the claimant actually owns all of 
the exclusive rights in the works, which delays the registration 
decision. The corresponding additional time and costs that the Office 
would incur are inconsistent with the reduced fee for examination of 
multiple collective works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Compendium (Third) sec. 620.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, imposing a work made for hire limitation is consistent 
with the goal of this rulemaking, which is to address obstacles to 
registering online news content produced by news publishers, who often 
also publish newspapers. Based on its experience with the existing 
group newspaper registrations, the Office expects that this requirement 
will produce an optimal public record, while reducing the 
administrative burden that these claims impose. The final rule 
accordingly retains the work made for hire requirement. Applicants who 
do not qualify for the option may still register their works 
individually using the Standard Application.
5. Subjects of Inquiry
i. Permitted Additional Title Information
    The Office invited public comments on whether it should give 
applicants the opportunity to provide additional information, such as 
individual article or photograph titles, as part of this group 
registration option. Commenters expressed support for the 
implementation of an opportunity to include granular information 
concerning individual component works at the applicant's 
discretion.\75\ The Authors Guild noted that ``in the event an 
individual article is the subject of a later infringement action, the 
applicant may need to rely on its own recordkeeping to establish that 
the article was on the website during the period covered by the 
registration.'' \76\ It concluded, ``[t]he listing of individual titles 
or other information on the application may provide additional evidence 
relevant to that showing.'' \77\ The Office agrees and will provide 
instructions on its website explaining how applicants may submit 
additional information regarding component works on an optional 
basis.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ ABA-IPL Comment at 3; AIPLA Comment at 2; Copyright All. 
Comment at 6-7; NAB Comment at 5; NMA Comment at 7; The Authors 
Guild Comment at 4.
    \76\ The Authors Guild Comment at 4.
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Note, however, the Office will not certify the accuracy of 
such additional information based on the identifying material 
deposited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Permitted Archived URLs
    The Office also invited public comments on the availability and 
effectiveness of technological solutions for saving or archiving 
websites that could assist or supplement news websites' recordkeeping 
efforts while also informing the public of the contents of the website 
and/or any updates registered. The Office suggested that applicants may 
provide in the ``Note to Office'' field additional information 
regarding the contents of the work, such as archived URLs that capture 
the complete content of each collective work submitted for 
registration. The Copyright Alliance expressed support for this 
suggestion, provided that doing so is voluntary.\79\ Therefore the 
Office encourages applicants to submit archived URLs in the ``Note to 
Office'' field on a voluntary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Copyright All. Comment at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Filing Fee

    The NPRM provided that the filing fee for this option will be $95, 
the same fee that currently applies to a claim in a group of 
newspapers. It noted that the Office believes it is reasonable to 
charge the same fee as for the group newspaper option, given the 
similarities in expected workflow associated with examining these 
claims. The NMA expressed support for this modest fee, describing it as 
``reasonable and unarbitrary.'' \80\ The final rule establishes this 
fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ NMA Comment at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deposit Requirements

    The NPRM proposed that for each collective work submitted under 
this group registration option, applicants must ``submit a deposit that 
is sufficient to identify some of the updates that were made to the 
website.'' \81\ The Office specified that ``applicants will need to 
submit separate PDF files that each contain a complete copy of the home 
page for the site. Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a 
specific point during each day of the calendar month when new updates 
were published on the site.'' \82\ Additionally, the NPRM required that 
each deposit demonstrate ``that the home page contains a sufficient 
degree of selection, coordination, and/or arrangement to be registered 
as a collective work.'' \83\ Several commenters requested that the 
Office consider different deposit requirements, though commenters 
varied on the specific changes they requested or discussed deposits 
generally. The Office addresses each suggested change below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 89 FR at 316.
    \82\ Id.
    \83\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ``Home Page'' Requirement
i. Timing of Deposit Capture
    After considering NMA's request to resolve a purported ambiguity in 
the proposed rule regarding the time of day for daily deposits of home 
pages, the Office is clarifying the time period for capturing 
deposits.\84\ The language within section (m)(6)(i) requiring ``[e]ach 
PDF [to] show how the home page appeared at a specific point during 
each day of the calendar month'' does not require applicants to capture 
PDFs of home pages at the same exact time every day.\85\ Instead, PDFs 
of home pages must show how the home page appeared at some point during 
each day, in addition to satisfying other applicable deposit 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ NMA Comment at 11.
    \85\ 37 CFR 202.4(m)(6)(i) (emphasis added); see also 89 FR at 
316 (``Each PDF must show how the home page appeared at a specific 
point during each day of the calendar month when new updates were 
published on the site.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. ``Complete Copy''
    Three commenters specifically requested that the Office expand the 
identifying material it will accept to encompass more than ``a complete 
copy of the home page for the site.'' \86\ The NAB stated that ``the 
Office should amend the deposit requirements proposed in Sec.  
202.4(m)(6)(i) to allow for the submission of a copy of identifying 
material in lieu of a complete copy of the home page.'' \87\ It 
explained that ``many news websites utilize an `infinite scroll' 
feature that automatically and continuously loads more content as users 
scroll down the web page'' making

[[Page 58997]]

it ``technologically impossible for an applicant to satisfy the deposit 
requirement of providing a PDF of the home page in its entirety.'' \88\ 
Copyright Alliance echoed this sentiment stating ``a user is able to 
continuously reveal additional content on the web page without having 
to leave the page to view the content on a separate web page. For such 
web pages, it is not possible to capture an `entire copy' of the page 
since the user can endlessly reveal the contents of the page.'' \89\ 
Similarly, NMA noted that, due to the difficulties posed by ``extensive 
or close-to-infinite scroll,'' the Office should clarify that an 
applicant could meet the deposit requirement ``as long as [the PDF] 
captures the masthead, URL identifier, and a defined minimum amount of 
the homepage (which in most cases will encompass all of it), including 
representative updates from the previous deposit copy.'' \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Copyright Alliance Comment at 10-11; NAB Comment at 4-5; 
NMA Comment at 11. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et 
al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of 
Copyrights at App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing regulatory 
language altering the deposit requirement when ``a complete copy is 
technically unfeasible or unreadable due to the size or continuous 
nature of the home page''); Nexstar Media Group Inc. Comment 
(stating that Nexstar ``would like to see even more modification of 
the requirements for article submission, so that each local 
television station or other news site would not be required to have 
dedicated staff purely for depositing copyrighted materials, which 
may be updated several times per day'').
    \87\ NAB Comment at 5.
    \88\ Id.
    \89\ Copyright All. Comment at 10-11.
    \90\ NMA Comment at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering these comments, the Office concludes that the 
requested modification to the proposed rule is reasonable and supports 
the overall goal of this group registration option. Accordingly, the 
final rule includes an alternative to the ``complete copy of the home 
page'' requirement where submitting a complete copy is not feasible due 
to the size or continuous nature of the home page. In such 
circumstances, applicants may ``submit the first 25 pages of the home 
page that demonstrates updates from the previous deposit copy.'' This 
portion of the rule is designed to decrease the burden on applicants 
that wish to utilize this group registration option, but are unable to 
satisfy the ``complete copy'' deposit requirement. The Office believes 
that this modification will facilitate registration, while also 
ensuring that the deposit provided is sufficient to identify the work 
and the copyrightable authorship covered by the registration. 
Applicants utilizing this provision are advised that any deposit should 
only include updates within the time period covered by the application. 
In the event that an applicant includes updates outside the time 
period, they would be considered previously published material, and 
would not be covered by the registration. Additionally, as stated in 
the NPRM, if a copyright owner is required to prove to a court or an 
alleged infringer ``the specific contents of a website at any 
particular point in time, it will need to preserve and maintain its own 
copy of the site and rely on its own recordkeeping to provide such 
proof.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 89 FR at 316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Site Maps
    NWU, NPPA, and NASW disagreed that a home page would constitute 
sufficient identifying material for registration.\92\ They asserted 
that ``requiring deposit of PDFs of images of the home page is 
disconnected from the reality that updates aren't necessarily visible 
on the `home page' of a website.'' \93\ While ``[u]pdates appear on the 
home pages of some--but far from all--newspaper publishers' websites,'' 
the home pages of other websites, such as self-published or references 
websites, are ``mostly or entirely static,'' with updates occurring on 
other ``inside'' pages that are not indexed or referenced on the home 
page.\94\ Instead, NWU, NPPA, and NASW suggested that the Office accept 
a ``sitemap page or set of sitemap pages,'' ``as the way to indicate 
which pages of a site have most recently been added or modified, and 
when.'' \95\ Sitemaps, they alleged, ``are structured, standardized, 
machine-readable, and human-readable'' and ``all updates in a given 
period can be identified by a single sitemap or set of sitemaps,'' 
which the Office could ``use[ ] immediately.'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 17-20.
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ Id.; see also id. at 20 (proposing ``submission of `a file 
or set of files linked from a master file listing in structured form 
the text files on the site added or modified during the time period 
covered by the application, including the URL and the date each file 
was added to the site or most recently modified' '').
    \96\ Id. at 17, 20. NWU, NPPA, and NASW asserted that ``the 
`sitemap.xml' standard has been widely accepted and adopted by 
website publishers, web publishing platforms, and developers of 
content management systems (CMSs).'' Id. at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office declines to permit applicants to submit a sitemap page 
or a set of sitemap pages as identifying material for several reasons. 
First, it is not clear that sitemaps themselves provide information 
that would allow an examiner to determine whether each collective work 
within the group application contains sufficient creative selection, 
coordination, or arrangement.\97\ Second, sitemaps do not satisfy the 
public notice function that deposits serve, as they do not display the 
work requested for registration and are not sufficient to identify the 
updates made to the websites.\98\ As explained in the NPRM, any deposit 
requirement must ``satisfy the public notice function of capturing, and 
making available for public inspection, a deposit that should be 
sufficient to identify'' the work covered by the application.\99\ 
Lastly, accepting sitemap deposits would likely not aid in efficiency 
as suggested.\100\ If an examiner receives a sitemap, they would likely 
need to correspond with the applicant to determine what exactly the 
application covers. For these reasons, the Office declines to modify 
the final rule to include sitemaps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See 17 U.S.C. 410(a); Compendium (Third) sec. 204.3 
(``[D]eposit copy(ies) should be clear and should contain all the 
authorship that the applicant intends to register.''). This finding 
is bolstered by the examples cited in NWU, NPPA, and NASW's comment, 
which do not provide any information that would allow the examiner 
to determine any copyrightability of the collective work. See NWU, 
NPPA, & NASW Comment at 18 nn.19-22; id. at 19 nn.23-26.
    \98\ See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 153 (1976), reprinted in 1976 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5769 (``As a general rule the deposit of more 
than a tear sheet or similar fraction of a collective work is needed 
to identify the contribution properly and to show the form in which 
it was published.'').
    \99\ 89 FR at 316.
    \100\ See NWU, NPPA, & NASW Comment at 20 (suggesting that 
sitemaps ``could be used immediately in manual Copyright Office work 
flow but would also lend themselves to efficiencies through 
automated parsing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Additional Deposit Suggestions
    Commenters also suggested that the Office accept deposits comprised 
of annotated Portable Document Formats (``PDFs'') \101\ or PDF deposits 
of apps.\102\ Specifically, one commenter encouraged the Office to 
consider accepting annotated PDFs of a single web page, where 
``[a]nnotations could circle content that is not included in 
registration, such as licensed content as compared to original news 
organization content'' or ``content already registered.'' \103\ Other 
commenters, including Copyright Alliance, NMA, and the Authors Guild, 
proposed that the Office should accept PDFs that ``contain a complete 
copy of the home page of . . . mobile application[s].'' \104\

[[Page 58998]]

They discussed the ease with which applicants could submit app PDFs 
\105\ and how PDFs address record-keeping concerns and ``concerns over 
whether the collective works stem from the same source.'' \106\ 
Copyright Alliance and NMA also suggested that the absence of a uniform 
resource locator (``URL'') from app PDFs, a requirement of the proposed 
rule, is immaterial because apps ``generally prominently feature the 
logo or other visible identifier of the publication in question'' and 
news content on an app is ``organized and contained,'' similar to a 
website.\107\ NMA further recommended that because the USPTO has ``long 
accepted'' app screenshots for trademark specimens, subject to certain 
requirements, the Office should adopt similar standards.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Erik Gottlieb Comment.
    \102\ Copyright All. Comment at 6; NMA Comment at 10; The 
Authors Guild Comment at 2. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. 
Publishers et al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. 
Register of Copyrights at 1 & App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing 
the Office ``include[e] mobile app content in the scope of the 
rule''). The Office also received a comment from Port. Prerogative 
Club, suggesting that the Office ``evaluate whether native [version 
control systems (``VCS'')] files would satisfy [the Office's] 
internal requirements for deposit copies.'' Port. Prerogative Club 
Comment at 2. The Office currently does not accept this file format, 
but will revisit file formats as part of its ongoing work in 
developing the Enterprise Copyright System.
    \103\ Erik Gottlieb Comment.
    \104\ NMA Comment at App. at 16 (proposing regulatory language). 
See Copyright All. Comment at 6; NMA Comment at 10; The Authors 
Guild Comment at 2. See also Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et 
al. to Suzanne Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of 
Copyrights at 1 & App. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2024) (proposing the Office 
``includ[e] mobile app content in the scope of the rule'').
    \105\ Copyright All. Comment at 6; The Authors Guild Comment at 
2.
    \106\ Copyright All. Comment at 6.
    \107\ Id. (noting that ``news content on an app is already 
organized and contained in an interconnected and uniform ecosystem, 
much like a website''); NMA Comment at 10 (stating that app 
screenshots serve the same ``identifying function as URLs'').
    \108\ NMA Comment at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office declines to permit parties to submit annotated PDFs of a 
single web page. As discussed above, each update will be registered as 
a collective work. For that reason, there is no need to identify 
component works that are not owned by the claimant or component works 
that have been previously registered, because as a general rule, a 
registration for a collective work does not cover this type of 
preexisting material.
    The Office also declines to accept PDF deposits of apps to 
represent a news website. Initially, it is unclear whether the 
selection, coordination, and/or arrangement of material encompassed 
within the PDFs would be identical to the selection, coordination, and/
or arrangement of a website's home page, regardless of whether the same 
content is present on both.\109\ Further, the Office continues to 
believe that the rule's deposit regulations offer flexibility, while 
still satisfying the public notice function of deposits. The regulation 
will permit applicants to submit a complete copy of the website's home 
page, and when that is not feasible due to the size or continuous 
nature of the home page, applicants may submit the first 25 pages of 
the home page demonstrating updates from the previous deposit copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See 89 FR at 313 (``[T]he organization and arrangement 
show in a PDF package may vary depending on whether it depicts the 
website as it would appear on a desktop computer, a mobile phone or 
other electronic device.''). But cf. ABA-IPL Comment at 4 (``The 
Section is aware of no substantive difference between what is 
published at a URL and what is published on an app.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Other Comments
    Commenters made additional suggestions and remarks on the proposed 
rule's deposit requirements and the Office's deposit requirements 
generally. With respect to the Office's modernization efforts, ABA-IPL 
suggested that the Office consider generally expanding the ``format of 
deposit copies accepted'' and regularly reviewing and updating 
registration regulations.\110\ ABA-IPL stated that the Office should 
accept deposits in .xml format for regularly updated news content, such 
as content covered under the proposed rule, ``as [.xml] and similar 
formats are widely used in digital content creation and management.'' 
\111\ The University of Michigan Library (``UM-Library'') expressed 
concerns with the proposed regulations regarding fixation and 
preservation.\112\ They asserted that the proposed deposit requirements 
are not ``sufficiently fixed for copyright purposes'' and that if 
deposit ``materials are not collected and preserved--even as facsimiles 
or through emulation--then as a practical matter there will be a huge 
gap in the possibilities for research, scholarship, and 
understanding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ ABA-IPL Comment at 4-5.
    \111\ Id. at 4.
    \112\ UM-Library Comment at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office is sympathetic to commenters' desires to expand the file 
formats accepted for deposit purposes generally, including regularly 
updated news content. As stated above and in the NPRM, the current 
registration system only accepts certain file types.\113\ The Office 
anticipates revisiting its acceptable file formats in connection with 
ongoing improvements to its technology systems. Until then, the Office 
continues to actively engage in research about the suitability of other 
file formats.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 89 FR at 313; see also eCO Acceptable File Types, U.S. 
Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-file-types.html 
(last visited July 5, 2024) (listing acceptable file formats).
    \114\ For example, the Office is researching the web archive 
file format (``WARC'') that is utilized by the Library of Congress' 
Web Archiving Team. Research has shown that there are many publicly 
available options for adapting websites in the WARC format, 
including through internet browser extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office appreciates the fixation and preservation concerns about 
the proposed deposit requirements, codified in the final rule. It 
continues to believe, however, that the deposit requirements are 
sufficient. As stated above and in the NPRM, the Copyright Act imbues 
the Register with broad authority to accept identifying material in 
lieu of complete copies or phonorecords \115\ where such copies or 
phonorecords are ``bulky, unwieldly, easily broken, or otherwise 
impractical to [serve] . . . as records identifying the work[s] 
registered.'' \116\ This provision, and its legislative history, give 
the Register flexibility in determining the deposit requirements when 
identifying material is involved, and the Office has used this 
authority in the past. Within this rulemaking, the Office believes the 
proposed deposit requirements are appropriate, and less burdensome than 
general deposit requirements for websites.\117\ As the Office discussed 
in the NPRM, the proposed deposit requirements satisfy the public 
notice function and still require that deposits sufficiently ``identify 
some of the updates'' made to the website.\118\ Any fixation concerns 
may be alleviated by the fact that the proposed regulations are merely 
registration deposit requirements. They do not relieve a registrant 
from complying with other legal obligations, such as the obligation to 
maintain and preserve copies of a website, including its content, in 
the context of an infringement claim.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1); see also 89 FR at 311 (discussing 
identifying material).
    \116\ H.R. Rep. No. 94-1496, at 154 (1976), reprinted in 1976 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770.
    \117\ See 89 FR at 313, 316 (discussing how depositing complete 
copies of websites poses difficulties for applicants and the 
Office).
    \118\ Id. at 316.
    \119\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Application Requirements

    The NPRM explained that the Office planned to use one of its 
existing group registration application forms to process these claims. 
Specifically, it said applicants would be required to submit their 
claims through the current electronic registration system using the 
application designated for a group of newspaper issues. None of the 
commenters objected to this proposal.
    After consulting with the Library of Congress's Office of the Chief 
Information Officer, the Office determined that it would be feasible to 
create a separate application for news website claims that will be 
cloned from the corresponding application that is used for group 
newspaper claims. This should simplify the registration process for 
both applicants and Office staff by preventing potential confusion 
between claims involving newspaper issues and claims involving updates 
to a news website. The cloned application will include the same 
technical specifications and system validations that appear in the 
group newspaper

[[Page 58999]]

form. The final rule has been modified to reflect this change. 
Information and instructions on how to submit these claims will be 
provided in the application itself and on a dedicated page on the 
Office's website.

F. Conclusion

    Based on requests from affected parties for the expeditious 
implementation of the rule \120\ and the absence of arguments 
supporting a delay, the Office finds that good cause exists to issue 
these regulations as a final rule with an immediate effective date. 
Commenters have presented a record supporting ``the demonstrable 
urgency of the conditions [the rule is] designed to correct.'' \121\ 
Finally, the registration option authorized by the final rule will be 
available to registrants at or near the rule's publication date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See Letter from Ass'n of Am. Publishers et al. to Suzanne 
Wilson, Gen. Counsel and Assoc. Register of Copyrights (Apr. 4, 
2024); Copyright All. Comment at 11.
    \121\ H.R. Rep. No. 79-1980, at 260 (1946). See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) 
(30-day notice not required where agency finds good cause).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

37 CFR Part 202

    Copyright, Copyright claims, preregistration and registration.

Final Regulations

    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.

    Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 304.


0
2. In Sec.  201.3, amend table 1 to paragraph (c) by redesignating 
paragraphs (c)(12) through (c)(29) as (c)(13) through (c)(30), 
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  201.3  Fees for registration, recordation, and related services, 
special services, and services performed by the Licensing Section and 
the Copyright Claims Board.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Registration, recordation, and related services         Fees  ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(12) Registration of a group of updates to a news                    95
 website...............................................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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 by adding paragraph (m) and revising paragraph (r) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  202.4  Group registration.

* * * * *
    (m) Group registration of updates to a news website. Pursuant to 
the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), the Register of 
Copyrights has determined that a group of updates to a news website may 
be registered with one application, the required deposit, and the 
filing fee required by Sec.  201.3 of this chapter, with each update 
being registered as a collective work, if the following conditions are 
met:
    (1) Definitions. For the purposes of this paragraph (m):
    (i) News website means a website that is designed to be a primary 
source of written information on current events, either local, 
national, or international in scope, that contains a broad range of 
news on all subjects and activities and is not limited to any specific 
subject matter.
    (ii) Website means a web page or set of interconnected web pages 
that are accessed using a uniform resource locator (``URL'') organized 
under a particular domain name.
    (2) Requirements for collective works. Each update to the website 
must be a collective work, and the claim must be limited to the 
collective work.
    (3) Author and claimant. Each collective work in the group must be 
a work made for hire, and the author and claimant for each collective 
work must be the same person or organization.
    (4) Updates must be from one news website; time period covered. 
Each collective work in the group must be published on the same news 
website under the same URL, and they must be published within the same 
calendar month. The applicant must identify the earliest and latest 
date that the collective works were published.
    (5) Application. The applicant must complete and submit the online 
application designated for a group of updates to a news website. The 
application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in Sec.  
202.3(c)(1).
    (6) Deposit. (i) For each collective work within the group, the 
applicant must submit identifying material from the news website. For 
these purposes ``identifying material'' shall mean separate Portable 
Document Format (PDF) files that each contain a complete copy of the 
home page of the website. In case a complete copy is technically 
unfeasible due to the size or continuous nature of the home page, the 
applicant may submit the first 25 pages of the home page that 
demonstrates updates from the previous deposit copy. Each PDF must show 
how the home page appeared at a specific point during each day of the 
calendar month when new updates were published on the website.
    (ii) The identifying material must demonstrate that the home page 
contains sufficient selection, coordination, and arrangement authorship 
to be registered as a collective work If the home page does not 
demonstrate sufficient compilation authorship, the deposit should 
include as many additional pages as necessary to demonstrate that the 
updates to the news website can be registered as a collective work.
    (iii) The identifying material must be submitted through the 
electronic registration system, and all of the

[[Page 59000]]

identifying material that was published on a particular date must be 
contained in the same electronic file. The files must be submitted in 
PDF format, they must be assembled in an orderly form, and each file 
must be uploaded to the electronic registration system as an individual 
electronic file (i.e., not .zip files). The file size for each uploaded 
file must not exceed 500 megabytes, but files may be compressed to 
comply with this requirement.
    (7) Special relief. In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office 
may waive the online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (m)(5) 
of this section or may grant special relief from the deposit 
requirement under Sec.  202.20(d) of this chapter, 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.
* * * * *
    (r) The scope of a group registration. When the Office issues a 
group registration under paragraph (d), (e), or (f) of this section, 
the registration covers each issue in the group and each issue is 
registered as a separate work or a separate collective work (as the 
case may be). When the Office issues a group registration under 
paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), or (o) of this section, the 
registration covers each work in the group and each work is registered 
as a separate work. When the Office issues a group registration under 
paragraph (m) of this section, the registration covers each update in 
the group, and each update is registered as a separate collective work. 
For purposes of registration, the group as a whole is not considered a 
compilation, a collective work, or a derivative work under section 101, 
103(b), or 504(c)(1) of title 17 of the United States Code.

Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

    Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2024-15880 Filed 7-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P