[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 242 (Friday, December 19, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59383-59389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-23402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201, 202
[Docket No. 2024-2]
Group Registration of Two-Dimensional Artwork
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is creating a new group registration
option for two-dimensional artwork. This option will allow applicants
to register up to twenty works published within one calendar year by
submitting a single online application with a digital deposit copy of
each work. The Office will examine each work to determine if it
contains a sufficient amount of creative pictorial or graphic
authorship. If the Office registers the claim, the registration will
cover each artwork in the group as a separate work of authorship.
DATES: Effective February 17, 2026.
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 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comments received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking are referenced by party name (abbreviated where
appropriate) followed by ``Comments.'' Additionally, this document
references a number of prior rulemakings in which commenters have
requested group registration, including: 80 FR 23054 (Apr. 24, 2015)
(``Visual Works NOI''); 81 FR 86643 (Dec. 1, 2016) (``Group
Photographs NPRM''); 83 FR 24054 (May 24, 2018) (``2019 Fee Study
NPRM''); 83 FR 52336 (Oct. 17, 2018) (``Registration Modernization
NOI''); and 86 FR 70540 (Dec. 10, 2021) (``Deferred Registration
Examination Study NOI'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copyright Act authorizes the Register of Copyrights to specify
by regulation the administrative classes of works available for the
purpose of registration and the deposit required for each class.\2\ The
Act also gives the Register the discretion to allow registration of
groups of related works with one application and filing fee.\3\
Pursuant to her authority to establish group registration options, the
Register has issued regulations permitting group registrations for
several types of works, including news websites, newspapers,
newsletters and serials, unpublished and published photographs,
contributions to periodicals, secure test items, works on an album of
music, short online literary works, and database updates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
\3\ Id.
\4\ 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4(c)-(k), (m), (o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office initiated this rulemaking after receiving requests from
stakeholders to establish a new group registration option for two-
dimensional artwork.\5\ Stakeholder groups representing artists
identified several common features of two-dimensional artwork,
including its distinct vulnerability to downstream infringement \6\ and
the significant number of works some artists produce each year.\7\
Stakeholders also stated that, despite infringement concerns, most
artists do not engage with the Office's registration system due to the
cost of registering individual works relative to their potential
revenue, the lack of time and resources necessary to register multiple
individual works, and unfamiliarity or difficulty with the registration
process.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Copyright Alliance, Comments in Response to Deferred
Registration Examination Study NOI, at 31 (Jan. 24, 2022) (urging
the Office to create ``a group registration option for
illustrations''); Coalition of Visual Artists (``Coalition''),
Comments in Response to 2019 Fee Study NPRM, at 35 (May 24, 2018)
(``We believe that the current [Group Registration of Published
Photographs (``GRPPH'')] and [Group Registration of Unpublished
Photographs] group registrations should be expanded to include all
such two-dimensional visual works, including without limitation,
illustrations, graphic art, video clips, textile arts or visual art
in any medium.''); Coalition, Comments in Response to Group
Photographs NPRM, at 60 (Jan. 30, 2017) (asking the Office to
``[a]llow group registration for all two-dimensional artworks
(visual works)''); Graphic Artists Guild, Comments in Response to
Visual Works NOI, at 9 (July 20, 2015) (requesting ``a new ruling to
allow Group registration for illustration and graphic design; for
all visual works, not just photographs''); Ass'n of Med.
Illustrators (``AMI''), Comments in Response to Registration
Modernization NOI, at 9 (Jan. 15, 2019) (``[AMI] wishes to emphasize
that the option of group registration for multiple published images
for a single, reasonable fee should be available for works of visual
art . . . .''); Shaftel & Schmelzer, Comments in Response to
Registration Modernization NOI, at 30-31 (Jan. 11, 2019) (``The
Graphic Artists Guild has been on record to the Copyright Office
asking to include illustration and graphic art in the Group
registration category since 1999; at every Roundtable discussion,
annual meeting, and nearly every NOI comment letter for the last 20
years.'' (footnote omitted)).
\6\ Downstream infringement involves the unauthorized use of
copyrighted material by companies or individuals further removed
from the artist-to-client relationship.
\7\ Group Registration of Two-Dimensional Artwork, 89 FR 11789,
11789-90 (Feb. 15, 2024) (``NPRM'').
\8\ Id. at 11790. Multiple commenters echoed these concerns.
See, e.g., Coalition Comments at 31; Artists Rights Society Comment
at 3; Copyright Alliance Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 2024, the Office published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') to establish a new group registration option for
two-dimensional artwork, recognizing the challenges facing artists and
a ``legitimate need'' for a new group registration option.\9\ The NPRM
proposed allowing an applicant to register a group of up to ten works
published within a thirty-day time period by submitting a single online
application with a digital deposit copy of each work. Each work
included would have to be a single two-dimensional pictorial or graphic
work, such as a painting, sketch, or character artwork; three-
dimensional works, works consisting of multiple images, and
architectural works or technical drawings would not be eligible for
this group registration option. The proposed rule stated that the
Office would examine each work to determine if it contains a sufficient
amount of creative pictorial or graphic authorship for copyright
protection. If registered, each artwork would be considered a separate
work of authorship. The rule also included a requirement that each work
in the group be created by the same author, who is also the copyright
claimant for each work. Finally, applicants would be required to
identify the title and publication date for each work, and to submit
their claims
[[Page 59384]]
through the online copyright registration system, using an application
specific to this group registration option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NPRM at 11789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office received fourteen comments in response to the NPRM.
Almost all commenters supported the Office's proposal to create the new
group registration option.\10\ Some requested modifications to the
rule, and three expressly conditioned their support on substantive
changes, which would substantially change the rule's scope.\11\ In
general, commenters proposed expanding eligibility: increasing the
number of works that can be included, lengthening the time period
during which all works within the application must be published (and
clarifying the publication dates), and permitting the inclusion of
additional types of works. Some commenters proposed including three-
dimensional works; others proposed permitting works by joint authors,
and revising the works made for hire and author/claimant requirements.
Several commenters also proposed alternative procedures for amending or
annotating the submitted registration record; adjusting the filing fee;
and using an alternative application form. Finally, one commenter
suggested the Office permit applicants to ``choose the name for their
group of works being registered.'' \12\ The Office has reviewed and
carefully considered each of the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See generally Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n (``AIPLA'')
Comments; Jason Aquilino Comments; Artists Rights Society Comments;
AMI Comments; Chris Faircloth Comments; Elizabeth Townsend Gard et
al. Comments; Kernochan Center Comments; Nat'l Soc'y of Ent. & Arts
Laws. (``NSEAL'') Comments; Damian P Comments. One commenter took no
position on the NPRM's primary focus. See Am. Ass'n of Indep. Music
& Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc. (``A2IM & RIAA'') Comments at
2 (``Commenters express no position on the primary focus of the
NPRM--whether the Office should create a new group registration
option for two-dimensional artwork--or on the details of how such an
option would or should be implemented.''). The Office also received
one terse anonymous comment. See Anonymous Comments
(``[T]errible'').
\11\ See generally Coalition Comments; Copyright Alliance
Comments; Joshua Kaufman Comments.
\12\ Coalition Comments at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule adopts the proposed rule with two clarifications and
two modifications expanding the number of works that can be included
and the time period within which they have been published, as described
below. With respect to requests that the scope of the rule be expanded
further, the Office will closely monitor the use of the new group
option and determine whether future consideration is warranted.
II. The Final Rule
A. Eligibility Requirements
1. Types of Works That May Be Included
In the NPRM, the Office proposed limiting this group registration
option to ``a pictorial or graphic work that has been fixed in a two-
dimensional form,'' such as character artwork or logos. It proposed
that each pictorial or graphic work within the group consist of ``no
more than a single pictorial or graphic work, such as one drawing, one
illustration, one comic strip, or one fabric design, and the work must
be deposited in one uploaded file.'' Several commenters urged the
Office to expand the rule to include other types of works, including
three-dimensional works, architectural works or technical drawings, and
applied art.\13\ The Coalition of Visual Artists (``Coalition'') stated
that these works ``involve the same review for copyrightability as the
USCO proposes in the Rule.'' \14\ Two commenters also specifically
asserted that any distinction between two- and three-dimensional works
is ``arbitrary'' because ``in most instances the deposit copies
provided in both [ ] are going to be the same.'' \15\ Professors
Elizabeth Townsend Gard and Blaze D'Amico further stated that the
proposed rule ``puts a burdensome disadvantage on 3d artwork,'' and
``promot[es] an outmoded concept of art as binary.'' \16\ The Copyright
Alliance also sought ``[m]ore clarification'' on how ``burdensome'' the
examination process is for three-dimensional works versus two-
dimensional works to ``better understand why these works have been
excluded.'' \17\ Other commenters, however, appeared satisfied with the
types of works included in the NPRM.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See AIPLA Comments at 1 (``We encourage the office to
revisit [the three-dimensional works] issue in the future, as the
need among creators for group registration options for three-
dimensional works may change in the coming years.''); Copyright
Alliance Comments at 11 (``The Office's discussion of three-
dimensional (3D) works in this NPRM only highlights the need to
enable applicants filing registrations for these works to use this
registration option to cover both the 2D and 3D elements of a three-
dimensional work in the same application.''); Coalition Comments at
9 (``The USCO should permit 3D artists to submit multiple photos of
a single 3D work showing all sides of the work as a single image for
registration purposes. This is the only practical way for a 3D
artist to register published works, works in production, and works
offered for sale to the public.''); Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al.
Comments at 1-2 (``[W]e propose amending the new proposed
application for artwork to reflect more accessibility for all
artists, regardless of medium, with the recognition that many are
concerned about protecting their work, whether they are commercial
artists, professional artists, art students, or hobbyists.'');
Joshua Kaufman Comments.
\14\ Coalition Comments at 8.
\15\ Id. at 8-9; Copyright Alliance Comments at 11.
\16\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 2.
\17\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 12.
\18\ See Jason Aquilino Comments; AMI Comments at 2; Chris
Faircloth Comments; Damian P Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office understands stakeholders' desire to maximizes group
registration options, but declines to expand the rule to permit
inclusion of three-dimensional and architectural works. First, a
reasonable limit on the eligible types of works within a group is
necessary to manage the administrative burden of examining group
registrations. Inclusion of three-dimensional and architectural works
in this group registration option would increase the time and cost of
examination, as consideration of such works demands the application of
legal standards that are not generally at issue for two-dimensional
works. For instance, examiners considering three-dimensional and
architectural works must often determine whether the works are useful
articles, works of artistic craftsmanship, or building designs. In
addition to applying the originality standard, consideration of
architectural works requires examiners to determine whether the works'
stationary habitual structures are intended for permanency and designed
for human occupancy.\19\ Likewise, examining works of applied art
requires examiners to apply the Supreme Court's two-step separability
test to determine whether they serve a useful purpose or whether they
contain pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be
identified and separated from the article's utilitarian aspects.\20\
These issues do not generally arise in evaluation of claims for two-
dimensional works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 37 CFR 202.11(b).
\20\ See Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580
U.S. 405, 409 (2017); U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
Copyright Office Practices secs. 924, 925 (3d ed. 2021)
(``Compendium (Third)''). These differences in legal considerations
persist regardless of whether deposits for two- and three-
dimensional works share common features (i.e., where a claimant
submits two-dimensional identifying material depicting three-
dimensional works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, among the justifications for creating a group registration
option for two-dimensional art is that visual artists are often
prolific creators who produce a significant number of works each
year.\21\ But the same premise does not appear to hold with respect to
three-dimensional artworks. As the NPRM notes, the Coalition previously
submitted survey results indicating that most three-dimensional artists
produce between one and fifty works per year.\22\
[[Page 59385]]
Evidence submitted in response to the current NPRM does not undermine
the Office's conclusion or establish that three-dimensional works are
now created or distributed more rapidly. Although the Coalition
provided updated survey results indicating that at least some artists
create large numbers of works, several features of the new survey make
it less relevant than the group's prior survey.\23\ The new survey did
not distinguish between respondents who typically create three-
dimensional works and those who typically create two-dimensional works;
and the survey sought information on ``the greatest number of works
[respondents] have created in one month'' rather than their average
rate of creation.\24\ The question further instructed respondents to
``includ[e] preliminary works (rough sketches, drafts, comps)'' as well
``final versions that may be shown to clients or others at any point in
time or offered for sale.'' \25\ The routine rate of production of two-
and three-dimensional works appears to meaningfully differ and, at this
time, stakeholders have not demonstrated a distinct need to include
three-dimensional and architectural works in the new group registration
option. To the extent that artists who create three-dimensional works
produce a large number of preliminary works, the Office notes that some
of these works may be eligible for an existing group registration
option. The Group Registration of Unpublished Works (``GRUW'') option
allows creators to register up to ten sculptural works before they have
been published, if all other requirements and eligibility criteria are
met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NPRM at 11789.
\22\ Compare NPRM at 11791 (quoting Coalition, Comments in
Response to 2019 Fee Study NPRM, App. B, at 44 (Oct. 11, 2018), in
which artists who typically create three-dimensional works were
asked ``[o]n the average . . . [h]ow many finished works of art/
design do you produce in a year?'' and ``[m]ore than 63% of the
participants said they produce between one and fifty works per
year'') with Coalition, Comments in Response to 2019 Fee Study NPRM,
App. B, at 12 (Oct. 11, 2018) (in which artists who typically create
two-dimensional works were asked the same question and approximately
45% of the participants said they produce between 51 and 1,000 works
per year).
\23\ See Coalition Comments, App. B. Similarly, while AIPLA
stated that ``3D printing'' technology has made it relatively easy
to create three-dimensional works, there is no indication that these
works are a sizable portion or representative of three-dimensional
works overall. AIPLA Comments at 1.
\24\ Coalition Comments, App. B, at 4 (asking respondents to
provide ``the greatest number of works [they] have created in one
month,'' rather than the average number of works per month).
\25\ Id., App. B, at 4 (emphasis added). Participants completing
this survey included surface and textile designers, fine artists,
sculptors, and jewelry designers. Id., App. B, at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Number of Works That May Be Included
The NPRM proposed that an applicant be permitted to include up to
ten published pictorial or graphic works in each application. Several
commenters requested modification of this requirement to include a
greater number of works. Professors Gard and D'Amico recommended that
the limit be increased to twenty works, similar to the Group
Registration for Works on an Album of Music (``GRAM'') option.\26\ The
National Society of Entertainment and Arts Lawyers (``NSEAL'') proposed
allowing applicants to register up to twenty-five works per
application.\27\ The Coalition suggested that the application permit
``up to 100 works,'' stating that this limit would ``accommodate the
majority of artists.'' \28\ Other commenters suggested that the
proposed limit was too low but did not propose a specific alternative.
The Copyright Alliance asserted that the limit was ``too small'' to
make it a ``sufficiently beneficial registration option,'' particularly
when viewed in combination with the proposed rule's other
limitations.\29\ The Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts asked
that the Office ``permit more works to be registered.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 2, 15; see also
id. at 17, 26-27 (``[W]e request the application form for art work
be modified after the GRAM application, and have the following
attributes. . . . 2-20 works.''). As an alternative, they also
suggested that there be no limitation on the number of works
submitted, based off the Group Contributions to Periodical Option.
See id. at 28.
\27\ NSEAL Comments at 2.
\28\ Coalition Comments at 13, 16. The Coalition also suggested
that increasing the limit to 500 works ``would include everyone's
needs,'' based on its own assessment of its 2023 survey. Id. at 15-
16.
\29\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 7, 9.
\30\ Kernochan Center Comments at 1-3. The Kernochan Center
observed that the type of works that could be registered under the
proposed application ``appears materially smaller'' than those under
the Group Registration of Unpublished Works (``GRUW'') application.
It also requested that the Office acknowledge that examination times
under the proposed group registration option ``may be lower than
GRUW examination times,'' due to the former's restrictions on the
types of works permitted. Id. at 3. This assumption, however, may
not be apt. Two-dimensional artwork accounts for the vast majority
of claims submitted to the Visual Arts Division on the GRUW
application and, as of yet, there is no basis to conclude that the
amount of time needed to examine ten works submitted via GRUW or
Group Registration of Two-Dimensional Artwork (``GR2D'') will be
markedly different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Office has modified the final rule to allow for up
to twenty works per group. This number strikes an appropriate balance
between making registration more accessible for creators and taking
into account the Office's administrative capabilities.\31\ As stated in
the NPRM, examining visual art, including two-dimensional artwork, is a
time-consuming process that requires care.\32\ Examiners must determine
whether each work contains sufficient copyrightable authorship; this
can involve a range of complex issues, such as determining the extent
of any derivative authorship.\33\ Increasing the number of permitted
works to twenty is likely to increase the time necessary to examine
some claims, but the Office is persuaded that this change is also
likely to facilitate registration of more works--including works by
creators who might not otherwise use the registration system. The
Office will monitor utilization of the new group registration option to
determine whether this number provides an effective limit, and whether
the group option's application fee is sufficient to account for
corresponding examination times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See NPRM at 11791-94.
\32\ Id. at 11793.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Title Requirements
The proposed rule stated that applicants must provide the title for
each work included in the group and that the electronic registration
system would automatically add a title for the group as a whole that
consists of the ``title of the first work listed in the application
followed by the phrase `and [NUMBER] other published works' (depending
on how many titles are entered in the application).'' \34\ The title
for the group as a whole would be used to identify the registration in
the online public record.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. at 11794. The proposed rule also required an applicant
to upload an electronic deposit copy of each work, with each file
name assigned to each electronic deposit copy matching the
corresponding title entered on the application. If a mismatch
occurred, the proposed rule stated that an examiner may take certain
actions without first communicating with the applicant. Id. at 11794
& n.60. The Office's position on this portion of the rulemaking and
any responsive comments are discussed in a subsequent subsection.
\35\ Id. at 11794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition expressed concern about the automatic addition of the
title for the group as a whole.\36\ It stated that the proposed rule's
approach of using the title of the first work listed in the application
is problematic, as it ``may have no connection to the other works in
the group and may not clearly describe the grouping'' and ``will likely
result in mistakes.'' \37\ The Coalition urged the Office to instead
allow artists to choose their own name for the group of works,
consistent with naming procedure for the Group Registration of
[[Page 59386]]
Published Photographs (``GRPPH'') option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Coalition Comments at 21-22.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office has revised this aspect of the rule to address this
concern. The application will not add a system-generated title for the
group as a whole, but instead will require applicants to create their
own title for the group, similar to the GRPPH option.
4. Publication Requirements
In the NPRM, the Office proposed that the new group registration
option be available only when all works in a group have been published
within a thirty-day period.\38\ The NPRM further explained the
publication requirement, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ NPRM at 11794. This limitation applies regardless of
whether works were first published in physical or electronic form.
[T]he Office will generally accept that a work has been
published when a visual artist distributes a copy to a client or
other entity and authorizes them to retain, reproduce, redistribute,
or display that copy (subject to any licenses or other restrictions
that the artist may impose).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id.
The NPRM also proposed that applicants be required to provide the
earliest and most recent publication dates of works within the group,
and the country where the works were first published.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Publication
The Coalition noted their appreciation for the NPRM's ``clear
definition of `publication' for artwork'' and the Office's effort ``to
help creative professionals more clearly understand the meaning'' of
the term.\41\ Still, commenters like the Copyright Alliance observed
that ``it [is] extremely difficult for creators of two-dimensional
works to know when to register their works,'' as ``[v]isual artists
often work on deadlines that are fluid and have quick turnaround times.
Moreover, these artists often do not know when the revision process
will end, resulting in a final version of the work.'' \42\ In light of
the challenges some artists face in determining the date of their
works' publication, Professors Gard and D'Amico suggested that the
Office be ``lenient'' when people incorrectly identify a work as
published or unpublished.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Coalition Comments at 27 (stating that this clarification
is ``what visual artists have been [seeking from] the USCO for many
years'').
\42\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 13.
\43\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Office has stated in previous rulemakings, section 409 of
the Copyright Act requires registration applications to inquire about a
work's publication status, including the date and nation of the work's
first publication.\44\ The Office, however, will generally accept an
applicant's statements about publication as true unless those
statements are contradicted by information contained within the
registration materials.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 17 U.S.C. 409(8); see also, e.g., 85 FR 37341, 37344-45
(June 22, 2020) (group registration of short online literary works
final rule); 84 FR 3693, 3695-96 (Feb. 13, 2019) (group registration
of unpublished works final rule).
\45\ See, e.g., Compendium (Third) sec. 1904.3; see also NPRM at
11795 (explaining the Office's general rule on accepting applicants'
determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters asked the Office for clarification on whether
applicants must list the specific publication date for each work or
whether applicants need only provide the earliest and most recent
publication date for works within the group.\46\ The Office has
clarified the final rule. The rule requires applicants to provide a
date range for all the works within the group; to do so, applicants
must state the earliest and most recent publication date (i.e., month,
day, and year) for the group.\47\ When providing title information for
each work within the group, applicants must also identify the month
that each work was first published.\48\ Applicants need not provide the
exact publication date for each individual work.\49\ As stated in the
NPRM, applicants are also required to identify the country where the
works were first published.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Coalition Comments at 22-23; Copyright Alliance Comments at
4 & n.2. See NPRM at 11791, 11794.
\47\ This requirement is consistent with several other group
registration options. See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.4(i)(6) (necessitating
that applicants for group registrations of published photographs
``specify the earliest and latest date that the photographs were
published''), (j)(2) (explaining that under the group registration
for short online literary works applicants must ``identify the
earliest and latest date that the works were published'').
\48\ This requirement allows the Office to ensure compliance
with the rule's calendar-year period. It is also consistent with
other group registration options. See, e.g., id. at 202.4(i)(10)
(requiring applicants for group registration of published
photographs to provide the title, file name, and month and year of
publication for each photograph in the group), (j)(8) (requiring
applicants of the group registration for short online literary works
to provide the publication date of each work when providing the
title and file name for each work).
\49\ Should applicants choose to provide any additional
information, such as the specific day and/or year that a particular
work was published, that information may be added in the ``Note to
Copyright Office'' section.
\50\ To add the nation of first publication, applicants should
select the name of the appropriate country from the drop-down menu
marked ``Nation of First Publication.'' If the works were published
in multiple countries, the names of the other countries may be
provided in the ``Note to Copyright Office'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Expansion From Thirty-Day Limit to One-Year Limit
In response to the NPRM's suggestion that works in a group must be
published within a 30-day period, a number of commenters advocated for
a longer time period.\51\ Commenters proposed specific time periods
ranging from ninety (90) days to one calendar year.\52\ One commenter
suggested that the Office eliminate the time period limitation
altogether.\53\ Association of Medical Illustrators asserted that
enlarging the time frame would cause ``no additional burden'' for
examiners, who have to determine whether each work within the group
falls within the permissible publication date range, regardless of what
that range is.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Kernochan Center Comments at 3 (expressing skepticism
of the proposed timeframe, given that other group registration
options have longer timeframes, and recommending instead that the
Office ``confer with authors of two-dimensional works to understand
what publication timeline is reasonable''); Joshua Kaufman Comments
(explaining that the timeframe renders the group registration option
inapplicable to ``almost all'' fine artists, as they ``rarely''
publish works within thirty days); Copyright Alliance Comments at 9-
10 (stating that the proposed timeframe is ``too restrictive'' and
``extremely burdensome'' because artists' creative processes often
exceeds thirty days). C.f. Jason Aquilino Comments (approving of 30-
day period).
\52\ See AMI Comments at 2 (90-day timeframe would ``allow
creators more opportunity to efficiently group multiple iterations
and derivatives of the same work into the same application,''
resulting in fewer registration applications and simplifying
examiners' review processes); Coalition Comments at 3, 12, 27 (one
calendar year timeframe aligns with other group registration
options, such as GRPPH); NSEAL Comments at 2 (one calendar year
timeframe alleviates the burden on applicants who may not publish
within the proposed timeframe and furthers the Office's ``interest
in protecting the quality and utility of public record''). Other
commenters advocated for enlarging the time period, but did not
provide a specific recommendation. See supra note 51.
\53\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 3, 15, 27, 33
(proposing that the Office limit the thirty-day timeframe because it
``does not reflect artists' needs'' and when viewed in conjunction
with the proposed number of works permitted under this option).
\54\ AMI Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of this input, the final rule permits works published
within the same calendar year to be registered as a group.\55\ In other
words, for a group of works published in 2025, both the work with the
earliest publication date and the work with the most recent publication
date must have been published in 2025 (i.e., between 01/01/2025 and 12/
31/2025).\56\ Applicants will
[[Page 59387]]
be required to identify the month that each work was published, and
they may (but need not) provide a more specific date in the ``Note to
Copyright Office.'' The Office believes that this approach will ease
some of the purported burdens faced by artists, while still protecting
the quality and the utility of the public record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ At this time, given administrative capabilities, the Office
cannot expand the option to cover works published outside of the
calendar-year range.
\56\ Please note that to claim statutory damages or attorney's
fees in a copyright infringement lawsuit, a work must be registered
before the infringement began or within three months after the first
publication of the work. See 17 U.S.C. 412(c), 504, 505. Thus, to
maximize potential benefits under the law, applicants may choose to
file claims on a quarterly basis (once every three months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Authorship and Ownership Requirements
The proposed rule would require that all works in a group be
created by the same author, and the author be named as the copyright
claimant even if a transfer of ownership has occurred.\57\ Works made
for hire would be eligible for this option, so long as the employer or
commissioning party is named as the author and claimant on the
application.\58\ The option, however, would not be available to works
created by two or more authors (i.e., joint works).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ As explained in the NPRM, this rule is consistent with the
basic principle that an author may always be named as the copyright
claimant, even if they do not own any of the exclusive rights when
the claim is submitted.
\58\ The rule does not permit applicants to register works
created by an individual author together with works created pursuant
to a work made for hire agreement. For example, if a small business
commissioned a set of fabric designs through a work made for hire
agreement and acquired another set of designs through an assignment
of copyright from an individual author, the applicant would need to
divide those designs into two groups and submit a separate GR2D
application for each group--one with the small business named as the
author/claimant and the work made for hire question answered
``yes,'' and the other with the individual author named as the
author/claimant with the question answered ``no.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters praised the Office's proposal to permit works made for
hire under the option.\59\ Four commenters, however, urged the Office
to go further, allowing group registration of jointly authored works.
These commenters noted that ``many visual artists . . . collaborate . .
. and frequently partner with other artists.'' \60\ Some contended that
the rules for the GR2D and GRUW options should be consistent; \61\
others requested the eligibility criteria for GR2D to mirror that of
GRAM, which permits works made for hire and works created by multiple
authors if there is a common joint author.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Coalition Comments at 33-34; Copyright Alliance Comments at
12.
\60\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 10; see also Coalition
Comments at 23-24; Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 3;
Damian P Comments.
\61\ Coalition Comments at 27-28 (advocating for consistency
between these rules, ``especially because the [Office] advises
artists to register their work before publication''); Copyright
Alliance Comments at 11.
\62\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having considered these requests, the Office maintains its
conclusion that works created by common or joint authors should be
ineligible for the GR2D option. Joint authorship claims add complexity
to an already multifaceted examination, resulting in greater burden on
the Office's resources. Additionally, the Office is not persuaded that
there is a compelling need to allow joint authorship claims within the
GR2D option, in light of its experience with Standard and GRUW
applications for visual art works--the vast majority of which name only
one author per application.\63\ Each group registration option is
designed to accommodate copyright owners' requests balanced against the
Office's need for an efficient method of examining, indexing, and
cataloging each work--and not every group option entails the same
balance. As described in the NPRM, the Office tailored the proposed
GR2D rule to address the challenges facing individual artists and small
businesses in registering two-dimensional artwork one work at a time,
in light of concerns that these claimants often lack the time and
resources required to register works individually.\64\ While the Office
recognizes commenters' desire for a rule that sweeps even more broadly,
the Office must balance the interests of copyright owners with the
administrative burden of implementation. In light of the wide range of
pictorial and graphic works, the doubling of the number of works
permitted in each group in the final rule, and the modest fee set for
this option, some limits on the types of claims permitted are
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Although the Copyright Alliance questioned the Office's
reliance on registration data, it provided no meaningfully workable
alternative. Copyright Alliance Comments at 11 (stating that ``[t]he
fact that these joint authors do not register Standard and GRUW
applications may say more about the registration system, confusion
about registration requirements, and the type of authors who are
presently register[ing] their works'' than about the needs of visual
artists).
\64\ NPRM at 11790.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Filing Fee
The NPRM proposed an $85 filing fee.\65\ It explained that $85 is
the fee that currently applies to GRUW claims, and that the expected
workflow associated with examining groups of two-dimensional artworks
and GRUW claims are similar.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Id. at 11796-97.
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters generally advocated for a lower fee.\67\ The Coalition
and the Copyright Alliance argued that the fee is ``much too high,
especially given the ten-work and thirty-day time period limitations.''
\68\ The Copyright Alliance acknowledged that ``the rate for GR2D would
be the same as GRUW at $8.50 per work (if ten works are grouped
together),'' but claimed that that rate ``is on the costlier side when
compared to other group registration options.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ One commenter agreed that the $85 proposed fee was
reasonable. Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 27.
\68\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 10; Coalition Comments at
31.
\69\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule retains the $85 fee, but responds to stakeholders'
concerns about affordability by allowing for the registration of more
works per group. By amending the rule to permit applicants to register
up to twenty works published within one calendar year,\70\ the Office
has effectively reduced the per-work cost of registration by half, to
$4.25 per work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ This fee will be reevaluated when the Office initiates its
fee study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Application Requirements
The NPRM explained that the Office plans to adapt one of its
existing group registration application forms to avoid delaying the
implementation of the new group option for visual artists.
Specifically, the Office stated that it would modify the GRUW
application to create the GR2D form. While the Copyright Alliance
advised the Office to start from scratch, other commenters urged the
Office to model the GR2D application after the GRAM, GRPPH, or
Contributions to Periodicals forms, all of which permit inclusion of
works published within a twelve-month period.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Elizabeth Townsend Gard et al. Comments at 2; Kernochan
Center Comments at 2; Copyright Alliance Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office has tailored the application to suit the eligibility and
application requirements described in the final rule. Specific
instructions on how to complete the new application will be provided on
the application itself and through the Office's traditional channels,
including its website, Circulars, and/or Chapter 1100 of the Compendium
of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (``Compendium''). In addition, the
Office intends to offer a video providing step-by-step instructions on
how to complete the form.
[[Page 59388]]
D. Amending or Annotating the Registration Record
Finally, the NPRM stated that the examiner would be permitted to
amend or annotate the registration record without corresponding with
the applicant, in certain circumstances. First, if an applicant were to
submit a work that is ineligible for this group registration option, or
submit more than the allowable number of works, the examiner would be
permitted to remove the ineligible or additional titles and deposits
from the registration record and send a post-registration email to the
applicant explaining why the change was made. Second, if the titles and
file names did not match, the examiner would be permitted to remove the
mismatched titles and files from the registration record and send a
post-registration email to explain the amendment.\72\ Third, if an
applicant were to submit two-dimensional identifying material depicting
a three-dimensional work of authorship (such as a drawing of a toy or a
piece of jewelry), the examiner would be permitted to add an annotation
to the record confirming that the registration does not cover any
three-dimensional authorship that is shown in the deposit. Allowing
examiners to avoid superfluous communications with applicants in these
limited circumstances promotes efficient review, improving overall
processing times for all applicants.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Additionally, reasoning that the system would automatically
add a group title to the GR2D application, the NPRM stated that the
examiner would remove any ``collection'' titles provided instead of
or in addition to titles for the individual works. In response to
commenters' request, the system will not insert an automated group
title. Instead, applicants should provide their own.
\73\ Compendium (Third) sec. 605.3(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple commenters raised concern that these policies would
``allow copyright examiners to make unilateral changes to a copyright
registration application to correct perceived mistakes or
misunderstandings without any input from or correspondence with the
applicant,'' which ``could result in a registration certificate that
does not reflect the applicant's intentions in filing the
application.'' \74\ The Copyright Alliance argued that ``not allowing
creators to correct mistakes in their applications before the
registration certificate is issued or the application is rejected'' may
result in material losses for applicants seeking statutory damages in
infringement actions.\75\ Commenters urged the Office to clarify that
``examiners are not permitted to make unilateral changes to a group
registration of two-dimensional artwork but, instead, must communicate
with the applicant before making any changes, just as examiners do with
every other type of registration application.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ A2IM & RIAA Comments at 2-3; AIPLA Comments at 2; AMI
Comments at 2; Coalition Comments at 10-11; Copyright Alliance
Comments at 5-7.
\75\ Copyright Alliance Comments at 5-7 (``If an applicant does
not find out that their registration application doesn't cover
certain works until after the time period to be eligible for
statutory damages has lapsed, they would not be able to recover
statutory damages for infringement of that work.'').
\76\ A2IM & RIAA Comments at 4; Copyright Alliance Comments at
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Office acknowledges these concerns, authorizing an
appropriate level of examiner discretion is essential to ensure the
efficient processing of claims. This is especially true here, where the
permitted examiner amendments and annotations merely enforce the group
option criteria. Moreover, contrary to commenters' suggestions, the
latitude the new rule allows examiners is consistent with longstanding
Office policy and practice. The Compendium already permits examiners
discretion to amend the registration record without communicating with
an applicant where the issue may be clearly resolved via
examination.\77\ Likewise, the Compendium permits examiners to
``annotate an application without communicating with the applicant if
the annotation does not cast doubt on or raise a question concerning
the validity of the registration.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Compendium (Third) secs. 603.2(A), 603.2(B).
\78\ Id. at 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be infeasible for examiners to provide extensive
correspondence when examining group registration claims involving
multiple works. To the extent that they do so when examining Standard
and Single Applications, that process imposes less administrative
burdens than group registration. The somewhat more limited
communication described in the final rule is consistent with the
Office's implementation of these practices in its administration of the
GRUW option. Based on this experience, the Office has found that an
appropriate level of examiner discretion ensures an efficient and
productive examination process.
The Office is strongly committed to assisting applicants as they
navigate the registration system. It encourages applicants to take full
advantage of the resources that the Office provides to aid them in
registration, including the Compendium and educational Circulars, the
webinars and other educational materials available on the Office's
website, and the dedicated specialists in the Office of Public
Information and Education who are available to provide live, one-on-one
support.
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)(10) through (c)(30) as (c)(11) through (c)(31),
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (c)(10) 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) * * *
[[Page 59389]]
Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration, recordation, and related services Fees ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(10) Registration of a claim in a group of unpublished 85
works or a claim in a group of two-dimensional artwork....
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
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:
0
a. Adding paragraph (l).
0
b. In paragraph (r), by removing ``(k), or'' and adding in its place
``(k), (l), or''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 202.4 Group registration.
* * * * *
(l) Group registration of two-dimensional artwork. Pursuant to the
authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(2), the Register of Copyrights
has determined that a group of two-dimensional artwork may be
registered in Class VA with one application, the required deposit, and
the filing fee required by Sec. 201.3(c) of this chapter if the
following conditions are met:
(1) All the works in the group must be two-dimensional pictorial or
graphic works, and each work must be comprised of no more than one
pictorial or graphic work. The group may include up to twenty works,
and the application must specify the total number of works that are
included in the group. The group may not include any three-dimensional
pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, any architectural works,
technical drawings, or works of applied art, any works comprised of
multiple pictorial or graphic works, including compilations, collective
works, databases, or websites. Claims in any form of authorship other
than ``2D artwork'' or claims in the selection, coordination, or
arrangement of the group as a whole will not be permitted on the
application.
(2) The applicant must provide a title for each work in the group.
(3) All the works must be created by the same author, and the
author must be named as the copyright claimant for each work in the
group. The group may not include any works created by more than one
author. The works may be registered as works made for hire if they are
identified in the application as such.
(4) All the works must be published within one calendar year, the
applicant must specify the earliest and latest date that the works were
published during the year and the month of publication for each work.
(5) The applicant must complete and submit the online application
designated for a group of two-dimensional artwork. The application may
be submitted by any of the parties listed in Sec. 202.3(c)(1).
(6) The applicant must submit one complete copy of each work. The
works must be assembled in an orderly form with each work contained in
a separate electronic 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
they must be uploaded to the electronic registration system. The file
size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes; the files
may be compressed to comply with this requirement.
(7) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the
online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (l)(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.
* * * * *
Sec. 202.6 [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 202.6, amend paragraph (e)(2) by removing ``or a group of
works published on the same album registered under Sec. 202.4(k),''
and adding in its place ``a group of works published on the same album
registered under Sec. 202.4(k), or a group of two-dimensional artwork
under Sec. 202.4(l),''.
Dated: December 16, 2025.
Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Approved by:
Robert R. Newlen,
Acting Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2025-23402 Filed 12-18-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P