Legal Implications of the CASE Act on Grey Libraries and Grey Literature Authors
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 30 | |
| Author | ||
| License | CC Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/59871 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
| |
| Keywords |
6
00:00
Computer animation
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:01
Hello, and thank you. I will be picking up the section regarding closed cases within these slides that Tom is presenting on legal implications of the CASE Act on gray libraries and gray authors. If you have not done so already please be sure to watch his presentation first. These slides that I am reviewing will address cases that have been dismissed so far by the Copyright Claims Board as well as claimants,
00:26
respondents, and implications moving forward. We will be jumping right to those specific slides.
00:53
For our dismissal section, we will be looking at the cases that have been dismissed or closed since June of 2022. 51 cases have been dismissed out of 231 total cases and
01:05
this number is going up each day as new cases are added and more cases are being dismissed. 22.08% of all cases have been dismissed so far. 29 of the 51 closed cases were a result of default determination.
01:21
The claim was not amended per the Copyright Claims Board's instruction within the deadline, no proof of service was received by the Copyright Claims Board within the deadline, or no respondent address was provided within the deadline. Breakdown of claims. 20 of the 51 closed cases were dismissed because the claimant failed to amend their case per the Copyright Claims Board's instruction.
01:46
This could have been for a variety of reasons which are unique to each case. An additional six of these cases were dismissed due to unsuitability by the Copyright Claims Board because they found the claims to be non-compliant. In these situations, the copyright holders did amend their claim at the Copyright Claims Board's instruction.
02:06
However, the Copyright Claims Board still found them to be non-compliant even after they were amended. An additional four of these cases were dismissed because there was not a respondent address provided. They were permitted to refile. The Copyright Claims Board ruled that the claimant does not have to provide the respondent's address immediately upon filing,
02:26
but they do have to provide it within a designated time frame. In this way, finding the respondent's address does not prevent people from filing a claim with the Copyright Claims Board. Four of these cases were dismissed because there was no proof of service provided to the Copyright Claims Board within the 90-day period.
02:45
These claimants were permitted to refile after their case was dismissed. Nine of the cases were dismissed because the respondent opted out after being notified of the claim. And six of these 51 cases were closed because the copyright holder withdrew their claim and requested dismissal themselves.
03:03
In these situations, the reason for withdrawal was not stated in the filing. All we can see is that they requested the case be closed and the Copyright Claims Board dismissed it without prejudice. For our final statistic, we see that one copyright holder was able to settle with their respondent.
03:21
This settlement was reported to the Copyright Claims Board and the case was closed. Infringement and misrepresentation. After taking into account why all of the cases were dismissed, it was equally important to look at how each case came to the Copyright Claims Board. Forty-five of the 51 cases were brought to the Copyright Claims Board for infringement only.
03:43
This is the majority of the cases that have been dismissed so far. Two cases were brought before the CCB for both infringement and 512 misrepresentation. These claimants asserted that not only did the respondent infringe on their copyrights, but also misrepresented in their response to a takedown notice.
04:01
In all of these cases, the alleged misrepresentation happened by the designated representative of the service provider. Five cases were initially filed solely for misrepresentation. An all but one misrepresentation case was dismissed due to non-compliant claims that a, failed to be amended, or b, were addressed to a foreign party, or both.
04:24
In the case of a, the claim failed to be amended, the Copyright Claims Board instructed them on exactly what parts of their claim needed to be updated. Additionally, the Copyright Claims Board outlines to the claimant what constitutes a claim of misrepresentation in their order to amend non-compliant claim documents.
04:45
Another unique attribute to these dismissals that can be mentioned here is that there were a few instances of what could be described as persistent copyright holders. This describes claimants who upload repeated files and statements after being ordered to cease filings by the Board.
05:03
Some of our cases had claimants whose accounts had been suspended while the claims awaited compliance review. By looking at how this Copyright Claims Board handled these persistent copyright holders, we can get a little bit of insight early on about how they might handle a copyright troll or handle being flooded with filings in the future.
05:21
In the case of b, foreign parties, these cases contained both foreign claimants and foreign respondents. However, they did have a domestic service provider, Google or YouTube for example. I'm careful to not use the phrase copyright holder here because in five of these cases the copyright was not yet registered.
05:42
Foreign works do not need to be registered or refuse registration in order to file an infringement lawsuit in the United States, though they must be registered in a timely manner to seek statutory damages and attorney fees. Only a single case was dismissed because the party failed to serve the respondent in the time allotted and report it back to the Copyright Claims Board.
06:05
Future assessment could indicate if these trends are changing as the Copyright Claims Board ages. Additionally, the number of refiled cases by a single copyright holder after dismissal of their initial case could be studied. We will be looking to see how a high rate of Copyright Claims Board
06:21
dismissals impact copyright infringement filings on the federal district court level as time progresses. There may also be an increase of types of claimants and respondents using the Copyright Claims Board. We will be looking to see if grey authors participate with the Copyright Claims Board in the future or
06:40
will grey libraries or archives that have not preemptively opted out submit a claim for a declaration of non-infringement. The CCB is evolving so each day is a new opportunity for the study. Thank you so much for your time and I will send you back over to Tom. Thank you.
Recommendations
Series of 2 media