3 Updates from the Copyright Claims Board

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) has been unusually busy over the past week. With two final determinations (one default and one contested) and the CCB barring a filer for the second time, it has been unusually active at the board.

However, this level of activity may start to become the new normal. The CCB launched over two and a half years ago. Though many issues remain, much of the growing pains and startup challenges should be in the past.

So, while each case is worthy of a deeper dive, it may not be practical. As such, I will touch on these three cases here to give you an idea of what is happening at the CCB.

1: CCB Awards Minimum Damages in “Liberal Tears” Case

The first final determination is in case 23-CCB-0240, Wendy Papula v. Celil Akgobek. Papula is a graphic designer who created a parody of the Starbucks logo that featured the words “Liberal Tears”. Shen then sold the design on mugs and t-shirts on Amazon.

She accused Akgobek of infringing her design and selling it on similar t-shirts at a lower price on Etsy. Papula filed a takedown notice against the product, but Akgobek filed a counter-notice to get it restored. However, shortly after that, he removed the product voluntarily.

During the case, Papula declined to hand over financial documents that may have indicated lost revenue on her part. Akgobek, on the other hand, provided evidence that he had only sold one shirt, for which he earned roughly $13.50 in profit.

Though the CCB ruled in favor of Papula, with no evidence of actual damages, the board awarded her the statutory minimum of $750. This is far less than the $5,000 Papula had sought.

2: CCB Awards $5,000 to Infringed Poet

This case is a default judgment. It is 24-CCB-0028, Helen Walters v. Spring Pet Products LLC.

In December, we examined another case (and another default judgment) involving Helen Waters. This case is very similar in every way.

Walters, a UK poet and designer, found her poem being used on a Shopify site. As with the previous case, she filed a takedown notice against the work, but the site’s owner filed a counter-notice. Almost immediately after the counter-notice, she filed the claim with the CCB.

The company never responded to the claim, pushing it toward a default judgment. Regarding damages, Walters presented the same evidence she did in her previous case, showing that a license would have cost £1,500, or roughly $2,000. The CCB did the same calculations and lowered that amount to $1,850.

However, the lowering didn’t matter. The CCB followed its standard practice of tripling the actual damages, which put it above the $5,000 threshold for a “smaller claims” case. As such, the board awarded Walters $5,000 in damages, precisely as it did in the previous case.

3: CCB Extends Ban on Already-Barred User

Finally, the last item involves case 25-CCB-0035, Louise Bowden vs. Elara Bowman. However, the case doesn’t really involve Bowden directly.

Instead, the case involves James A. Colwell, an online content creator who claims that several of his videos were uploaded to platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Discord, and Google Drive without his permission.

This resulted in him filing a series of takedown notices and those he targeted filing a series of counter-notices to get the videos restored. Regardless of the validity of the takedown notices, Colwell filed a series of claims with the CCB, claiming that the counternotices were false.

However, the board explained to him that such claims were only valid if the falsehood restored the allegedly infringing material. He provided no evidence that this happened. The board also says that he provided a variety of other misstatements and misinformation. As such, on December 2, 2024, the board dismissed all of Colwell’s claims and barred him from filing new cases for a year.

However, this didn’t deter Calwell. According to the board, he filed another claim but with a different person as the claimant. Unfortunately for Calwell, the board noticed that his name was on the copyright registrations and essentially repeated the finding of bad faith.

Now, the bar will end on February 13, 2026, instead of December 1, 2025.

Bottom Line

After a period of relative quiet during late 2024, the CCB has been picking up significantly over the past month. More rightsholders are becoming aware of it, and those who have been using it are becoming more comfortable in doing so

To be clear, the CCB has a slew of issues. There are also a lot of things that the board could do to improve accessibility and efficiency.

However, it’s also likely that we’re just now getting to where the board is going at or near full speed. It has gotten much faster at accepting or rejecting claims, and the timeline of the process is constricting.

This could wind up being an exciting year for the CCB. As I said previously, 2025 is judgment time for the CCB. This is its chance to prove it can be both efficient and effective.

Here’s hoping that it proves both to us.