Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 37 / Friday, February 26, 2021 / Rules and Regulations proposed rule, some commenters offered justifications similar to the Offices reasoning in the NPRM.67 For example, Linda Edell Howard said the proposed change would avoid the harsh consequences that can result where a submission is missing a required element, which may not be discovered until after the effective date of termination.68 Other commenters opposed the proposed rule, primarily out of concern that remitters will submit the required elements to record a notice piecemeal. 69 While NMPA did not oppose allowing remitters to retain their date of recordation when correcting nonmaterial errors, it expressed concern that the proposed change could result in parties failing to comply with the statutory service requirements and recommended that the statement of service be received before the effective date of termination.70 Both MPA and RIAA opposed assigning a date of recordation before the effective date of termination if any element is received by the Office after the effective date.71
As an alternative, MPA proposed that an incomplete package should be promptly recorded as a document pertaining to a copyright under section 205 of the Copyright Act, the record annotated with the missing and/or pending elements, and a thirty-day time limit imposed for the remitter to provide the missing elements.72 Under MPAs proposal, if any missing elements were received after the effective date of termination, the Office should refuse to record the notice.73
After considering these comments, the Office is proceeding with the substance of the change proposed in the NPRM.
The Office continues to believe that delinking the date of recordation from receipt of a complete submission is appropriate in order to mitigate the harsh consequences that can result where a submission is missing certain required elements. 74 To respond to the
concerns of commenters who opposed this change, the Office clarifies its examination practices regarding incomplete recordation submissions.
Where the statement of service is missing, the recordation specialist will correspond with the remitter to request it.75 Likewise, where no fee is received or there is a balance resulting from underpayment e.g., the remitter miscalculated the number of works identified in the notice, the specialist will correspond.76 In any event, whenever a recordation specialist corresponds with a remitterwhether to correct an immaterial error, obtain a statement of service, or ensure the fee is paid in fulla response must be received within forty-five days or the submission may be closed, i.e., the document will not be recorded by the Office. In addition, remitters must certify under penalty of perjury that the recordation submission is complete to the best of the remitters knowledge, information, and belief, and is provided in good faith. To the extent a remitter attempts to lock in a date of recordation by intentionally submitting elements piecemeal, he or she presumably would be running afoul of this requirement. Thus, existing procedural safeguards help to minimize abuse and ensure that recordation submissions are not held open indefinitely. The Office will monitor the effect of this adjustment as it administers the recordation system for notices of termination.
In addition, the final rule makes one modification to the proposed rule by adding the phrase a copy of before notice of termination. This change, recommended by Authors Guild et al., aligns the regulation with the statutory language requiring a copy of the notice to be submitted for recordation and dispels any potential confusion that the original notice should be submitted to the Office.77

67 Edell Howard Comments at 56; NSAI
Comments at 4 noting it is not uncommon for errors to be made or documents to be omitted during the filing and the termination window may close before the filer is even given notice that something is missing, inadequate or incorrect;
Recording Academy Comments at 2 noting there are innumerable clerical errors, unintended omissions, and other mistakes that could delay the timely recordation of a termination notice and force an author to lose the ability to effectuate termination.
68 Edell Howard Comments at 56.
69 MPA Comments at 10; see also RIAA
Comments at 1011.
70 NMPA Comments at 89.
71 MPA Comments at 1014; RIAA Comments at 10.
72 MPA Comments at 14.
73 Id. at 14.
74 85 FR 34153.

III. Statements of Policy on Subjects of Inquiry
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:49 Feb 25, 2021

Jkt 253001

As part of the NPRM, the Office sought public comments on two 75 Responding to NMPAs concern about grantors improperly submitting notices to the Office prior to serving them on grantees, see NMPA Comments at 89, the Office agrees that such a submission would be improper because it would not comply with requirement that the copy of the notice must be, be and certified to be, a true, correct, complete, and legible copy of the signed notice of termination as served. See 37 CFR
201.10f1iA emphasis added.
76 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office exercises similar discretion by permitting the fee to be submitted after the filing date of a patent application. See 35 U.S.C. 111a3, b3.
77 Joint Comments of Authors Guild et al. at 6.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

11639

additional subjects of inquiry: 1
Whether the Office should develop a sample form or template for use in preparing notices of termination; and 2
how the Office might address defective or untimely notices filed by third-party agents. In addition, some commenters offered proposals for regulatory change on various other termination-related matters. The Office addresses the comments received on these topics as follows.
A. Sample Form or Template Many commenters supported the development of an optional, fillable form for use in preparing notices of termination.78 For example, Authors Alliance offered its wholehearted support for a form, noting that termination rules are complicated and formalistic, while Authors Guild et al.
opined that an online form that creators could fill out to generate a letter would be ideal. 79 One commenter, however, opposed such a form, concluding that although 75% of the boilerplate language in the notices is conducive to the benefits of a template . . . the meat and bones of the actual notice . . . is so fact-sensitive that trying to fill in blanks in specific sections of a form notice would prove futile and onerous. 80
With respect to the specific nature of such a form, several commenters urged the Office to include detailed instructions and guidance to help creators understand what information is required, where to find the required information, and how to proceed where there is uncertainty. 81 Others provided additional suggestions. NMPA
recommended that the form distinguish between required and optional information.82 MPA stressed that it should be made clear that use of any form supplied by the Office to create a notice would not be determinative of a notices validity or legal effect, which could still be challenged by any party 78 See Authors Alliance Comments at 1; Joint Comments of Authors Guild et al. at 67; Copyright Alliance Comments at 4; MPA Comments at 15;
NSAI Comments at 10; NMPA Comments at 10;
RIAA Comments at 1213.
79 Authors Alliance Comments at 12; Joint Comments of Authors Guild et al. at 6.
80 Edell Howard Comments at 8.
81 Authors Alliance Comments at 2; see also NMPA Comments at 10 The form could also be accompanied by clear and detailed instructions and guidance as to a remitters obligations under the Copyright Act and under the Offices regulations, and could clearly state the requirements for service as well as the timeline for service, effective date of termination, and recordation; RIAA Comments at 1213 suggesting a form follow the approach of questionnaires found in sections 2310.13AC of the Compendium.
82 NMPA Comments at 10.

E:FRFM26FER1.SGM

26FER1