Foreign Copyright Holders and the USCO
By Jonathan Bailey • Mar 11th, 2010 • Category: Articles, News
Article Updated: See Below
It is well-known that, if you are a U.S. citizen and wish to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you have to first register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO). If you wish to collect statutory damages, you need to register either before the infringement or within three months of publication.
However, for a time it was very murky whether this element also applies to foreign authors who wish to sue within the U.S. This is because, in 1989, the U.S. became a signatory to the Berne Convention, over 100 years after the first countries signed on, which states, under article five, that “the enjoyment and the exercise of [rights under the Convention] shall not be subject to any formality.”
The theory was that. while the U.S. could do what they wanted to their own citizens, including subjecting them to the 9-month delay for a registration certificate, but they were bound by the Berne Convention to grant full rights to foreign copyright holders.
However, a decision by a U.S. District Court paints a very different picture, saying that the Berne Convention does not preempt U.S. copyright laws and that the treaty is not self-executing. This essentially means that all copyright holders, regardless of where they are located, need to register their works with the USCO before filing suit in the country if they wish to seek statutory damages.
Needless to say, considering that most nations have no formalities at all for copyright protection, this decision is going to cause some major headache for foreign copyright holders as they try to enforce their rights within the U.S.
What Happened
The case in question is Elsevier B.V. et al v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.. Elsevier holds copyright in a collection of science books that they make available through their paid database ScienceDirect and they claim that at least one of the defendants, Ingenix, allowed others to access that database unlawfully.
However, many of the works in Elsevier’s portfolio are foreign and lack copyright registration. Elsevier sought statutory damages for those works, claiming that the Berne Convention should allow them to do as such. The judge, however, ruled that the Berne Convention is not self executing, primarily because the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 said so explicitly.
The result is that, even though the U.S. is a signatory to a treaty that forbids formalities in the “enjoyment and the exercise” of copyright, foreign content creators still have to register their works with the USCO to collect all the potential damages and, most likely, to sue at all.
What Changes?
The long and short of this is that, if you are a foreign copyright holder and think you might ever want to sue in the United States for infringement, you should register your works with the USCO and keep those registrations up to date.
Failure to do so could result in you being unable to claim all the damages you would otherwise be entitled to.
To be clear though, lack of registration does not prohibit you from filing DMCA takedown notices nor does it prevent you from sending cease and desist letters, this only restricts your rights when you go to file a lawsuit. Also, you may still be able to sue and collect significant damages for the removal of copyright management information if it is an element of the case.
Still, the point remains that, regardless of where you are located, if you are considering filing a lawsuit in the U.S. at any point, it’s probably worth your while to register your work with the USCO.
My Thoughts
The decision is legally sound, of that there is no dispute. However, it is fascinating when looked at in the broader context of global politics and intellectual property.
The U.S. is one of the first nations to criticize other countries when we feel their copyright laws are lacking. We even have a “Copyright Watch List” of nations we feel are encouraging piracy through either lackadaisical laws or enforcement.
However, this ruling clearly illustrates just how dated and out of touch our own laws are in many ways. Though we are a signatory to a treaty that bars formalities in copyright enforcement, we require copyright holders to register with the USCO to enjoy the full protection allowed under law.
To make matters even worse, the USCO is a notorious mess. This includes delays 9 months and longer for receiving certificates, even after the use of the electronic registration system. Subjecting U.S. citizens to this is already inexcusable, but to force its use internationally is simply mind-blowing.
Sadly, even as we negotiate treaties that seek to push various elements of the U.S. law on other nations, we are not making any push to change our own laws and harmonize them with the rest of the world. The USCO copyright registration system is a dinosaur in many ways and should be done away with.
Especially since we signed a treaty almost 25 years ago that said we would do away with formalities.
Bottom Line
In the end, the result of this is pretty clear, if you are a copyright holder not in the U.S. but may want to sue for copyright infringement in a U.S. court, you need to register your works and keep those registrations up to date if you want all of the damages to be at your disposal.
It is a huge pain and a hassle that most copyright holders outside of the U.S. will be uncomfortable and unfamiliar with, but it is a fact of life at this time.
Hopefully we will begin to see some changes in the law that will make this unnecessary but, in the meantime, it is a reality that we all most adapt to and live with.
Update
Commenter Terry Hart pointed out that there was a previous case on this issue, in the same court, that slipped under my radar and answered this question previously. He also clarified that the issue of registration only affects the ability of the foreign copyright holder to collect statutory damages, not file suit, an element I was admittedly unclear on. I’ve updated the article to reflect these changes.
| | Protect Your Work. Subscribe to Plagiarism Today via Email or RSS. |

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

This is not a novel question, and contrary to what this article says, it is not too murky of a question either. As the same court said almost a year ago, statutory damages are not available to foreign copyright owners unless they timely register their work in the United States. Football Ass'n Premier League v. YouTube (633 F.Supp.2d 159, 162 S.D.N.Y.2009) held this and cited to a number of previous cases holding the same, stretching back to the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act.
It should also be pointed out that, contrary to this article's assertion, the Elsevier case doesn't talk about foreign author's needing to register in the US as a prerequisite to suing for copyright infringement at all – it's only concerned with the availability of statutory damages to foreign unregistered works. It is my understanding, as this case and the Football Ass'n case mentioned above indicate, that it is generally accepted that foreign authors can sue for copyright infringement in the US without first registering their work with the Copyright Office.
Terry, thank you very much for the info. I've updated the article and it should reflect your comments. I greatly appreciate the corrrections.
Jon, I'm confused about this. What is the purpose to ascribe tho the Berne Convention? What would be a case in which people are protected by it being from another country?
To be clear, the Berne Convention does have a great deal of importance still. The long and short of it is that the signatories of the convention have all agreed to respect one another's copyright the same as if it were their own.
In short, if I, a U.S.-based author, discovered my work was being infringed upon in France. I could sue in France under the same terms as any French citizen.
The convention was also supposed to do some harmonization of copyright laws, including the removal of formalities, but that particular element has not been adopted in the U.S.
This only deals with the ability of foreign authors to claim statutory damages in a U.S. court without a copyright registration. It does not change the fact that the works are protected, just the damages that are collected.
Hope that clears things up some, even though I fear I may have made things worse…
Hey Jon. I don't know if You have read the recent Supreme Court case, Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, which seems to be related to the Elsevier case that you blogged about. In Muchnick, the Supreme Court determined that section 411(a) of the Copyright Act is not a jurisdictional requirement, as the Second Circuit had held. About the Second Circuit's ruling, the court said, “We disagree. Section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim that does not restrict a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction.”
The case arose when several members of a certified class sought to sue for infringement. Some of the members of the class had registrations, and some did not. The Second Circuit believed that the claims should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because some of the plaintiffs in the class did not have registrations.
The syllabus for the opinion can be found at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-103.ZS...
I followed that case pretty closely. Unfortunately, it's not going to change much for U.S. citizens. The reason is simple. Even though it is not a jurisdictional issue, is still a claim-processing rule. As such, from what I understand, the court can hear a case but not process any claims without it. It was useful in this case because it was heading to a settlement, but no judgement can be rendered without it.
http://www.iplawalert.com/2010/03/articles/copy...
It also doesn't address some of the thornier issues about registration, namely whether having it on file is adequate or if you have to have certificate in hand.
It's an interesting case, but it's impact for most copyright holders, it seems, is about nil. Sadly.
Thanks for the heads up!