Don’t Be an Edge Case at the CCB

After what turned out to be a lengthy dry period, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) has issued 5 final determinations since the beginning of July, including two in the past two weeks.

However, both of the most recent final determinations are important ones to note. One perfectly illustrates why it is never a good idea to rely on an implied license, especially when it is relatively trivial to obtain a written one. The second, finalizes a decision we talked about in May, ordering an attorney to pay $100 for acting in bad faith.

Both claims are something of edge cases for the CCB. They both deal with issues that, while certainly related to copyright, are not issues that the board has dealt with before, at least not in a final determination.

As such, it’s worth taking the time to review both final determinations and what they mean for other rights holders and the CCB more broadly.

Ultimately, both of these rulings are reminders that, while edge cases happen, you certainly do not want to be the one testing the waters. That’s especially true when it’s an easy mistake to avoid.

1: 24-CCB-0126 – Gideons v. Buechner

This case pitted graphic designer Richard Gideons against his former client Chris Buechner. At dispute in this case are two separate images that Gideons created for Buechner, one entitled 2 Many and the other entitled Sober Skull.

It’s worth noting that Buechner did not respond to the claim or participate in this case in any way. However, the CCB is not considering this a default determination because of the outcome of the case, which is actually in favor (mostly) of the defaulting party.

While we have seen that before, the actual decision here is not that Buechner did not do anything wrong, but rather, that the dispute at the core of the case is a contract dispute, not a copyright infringement claim.

The reason for that is simple, Gideons did not have Buechner sign an agreement to use the images. Instead, the two parties had a lengthy a complicated conversation about the images and payment for them. According to Gideons, he was paid approximately $250 for the images. However, he feels that was far too little for what amounted to over 60 hours of work.

The Board doesn’t dispute that there may be a contract dispute here or an issue of unpaid license fees. However, since there was no written license agreement and Gideons did not have a revocation clause for non-payment, the CCB dismissed the claim without prejudice, saying it was more appropriate for a state or federal court.

The Takeaway

In the end, this case is a reminder that, no matter how friendly you are with the person you are working with, it’s important to have a written agreement that is clear, concise and covers all the bases.

On the surface, this should have been a perfect case for an implied license. There was a ton of written communication and verifiable history between the two parties. However, because of decisions made in the moment, decisions probably made without thinking, the board dismissed the claim without prejudice, kicking it back to a potential state or federal court.

2: 25-CCB-0121 – Johnson v. Sampson

As mentioned above, I wrote more about this case in May of this year. However, to quickly recap, this case centers around the patterns featured on saddle blankets. Julie Johnson is the designer of various patterns, including the Zane Pattern, which she sells for $200 per blanket.

According to Johnson, in September 2023, she noticed Sambo Sampson was selling a similar pattern on his website. Sampson initially responded “aggressively” and said that he would remove the pattern from his website. However, he did not do so and that prompted Johnson to file a claim with the Copyright Claims Board.

However, the big controversy in this case deals with Sampson’s attorney, Will Wooten. Wooten claimed that there was no evidence that Johnson had repeatedly asked Sampson to remove the pattern. However, that evidence was already filed with the CCB.

After that, Wooten claimed that Sampson had created his pattern himself. However, Sampson then corrected his own attorney, saying he purchased it from a provider in India. That, in turn, matches what Sampson told Johnson in 2023.

However, Johnson still had a significant problem. The board was unable to find any evidence that Sampson had made any sales of the pattern. Since damages at the CCB are based on actual damages, this meant that Johnson may be unable to recover more than the $750 statutory minimum.

But the board decided that Sampson’s aggressive behavior and refusal to remove the pattern warranted raising the floor. As such, Johnson was awarded $1,500 in damages and another $100 from Wooten for acting in bad faith.

The Takeaway

Ultimately, Sampson and Wooten did everything they could to make this case worse for themselves. Sampson’s initial reaction, failing to remove the pattern despite promises to do so and then Wooten making clearly false claims just made things worse for both of them.

To be clear, Wooten argues that he acted in good faith and had simply made errors. But the information was already in the record. He should have reasonably known that the information he was providing was false, even if he relied on his client’s claims.

The case shows that the CCB will take action against both parties and lawyers who don’t engage in good faith. But at the end of the day, this shouldn’t have been a case at all. If Sampson had simply removed the pattern, I doubt that Johnson would have filed a claim at all.

Bottom Line

Hopefully, both of these cares are edge cases for the CCB. It would be deeply concerning if Sampson and Wooten’s behavior were the norm or a large percentage of claims dealt with obtuse implied licenses.

In the end, I think that the board handled both cases as well as they could. Though I know that many will say that a $100 penalty is too low or that the $1,500 judgment doesn’t go far enough, I think that the board did the best they could with the system that they have.

That said, the board really is best configured to handle straightforward cases of copyright infringement where the potential damages are low. Though the damages in both of these cases are likely low, neither were particularly straightforward.

The board did a great job dealing with those anomalies and did its best to apply the system it has to these cases.

Ultimately, for both Gideons and Sampson, these cases are a reminder that you don’t want to be an edge case. As a party in a case like this, even if you are on the losing side, you want to ensure you did everything you could to strengthen your case and reduce that you don’t make things worse for yourself.

Sometimes that’s a simple as getting a written agreement and/or removing the content you said you’d remove. At the CCB, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.