Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Should You Record a Transfer or Document against a Copyright?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on March 11, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Suppose that you have an assignment of a copyright or a security agreement for a copyright.  Are you required to record this assignment or security agreement against the copyright registration?  Should you record this assignment or security agreement with the U.S. Copyright Office?  The answer is YES!

In the United States, 37 C.F.R. § 205 states that “any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document.”  Thus, documents pertaining to copyrights are recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office.

Not all documents are eligible for recordation with the U.S. Copyright Office.  Documents must “pertain to a copyright”.  These type of documents must have a direct or indirect relationship as to the existence, scope, duration, or identification of a copyright, or to the ownership, division, allocation, licensing, transfer, or exercise of rights under a copyright.  Examples of documents eligible for recordation include assignments, security interests, exclusive and nonexclusive licenses, contracts, powers of attorney, certificates of change of corporate title, and decrees of distribution.  Examples of documents ineligible for recordation include a bill of lading referring to a shipment of motion pictures and an assignment of rights in a patent or trademark.

Documents eligible for recordation must be complete by their own terms, be legible, include an original signature (or proper certification if submitted as a photocopy), and be accompanied by the correct fee.  Otherwise, the document will be returned unrecorded.  Any document for recordation that contains a reference to a schedule, appendix, exhibit, addendum, or other material has to be attached for recordation with the document.  The U.S. Copyright Office does not determine the legal sufficiency of any document submitted for recordation.  The U.S. Copyright Office also does not screen the document for errors, discrepancies, or content and does not generally correspond with the submitter about the sufficiency of the document.

When all of the elements required for recordation, including an eligible document, fee, and any additional required information are received in the U.S. Copyright Office, it will receive a date of recordation.  The document is returned to the submitter with a certificate of recordation after the document has been recorded.  The recordation process may take several months or longer to be processed in the U.S. Copyright Office. Because of this, the submitter may request that the U.S. Copyright Office provide a return receipt.  To obtain a return receipt, the submitter must submit an extra copy of the form and a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.  The U.S. Copyright Office will then attach a date-stamped return receipt to the extra copy of the form and send it back to the submitter in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.

You are not required to record a transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.  The recordation is voluntary.  However, to encourage document recordation, the law provides certain legal advantages including priority between conflicting transfers and “constructive notice” to the public.  The benefits of recordation include establishing a public record of the contents of the transfer or document such that members of the public are deemed to have knowledge of the facts stated in the document and cannot claim otherwise.  Some courts have held that, in order to perfect a creditor’s interest, a security interest in a registered copyright must be recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office.

True and accurate copies of the recorded documents are available for public inspection in the U.S. Copyright Office. Documents accepted for recordation are numbered, cataloged, and imaged for the public record.  The U.S. Copyright Office’s online Public Catalog indexes the recorded documents under the names of the parties, the titles they contain, and where applicable, the registration number(s) for the works associated with the documents.  The certificate of recordation bears the date of recordation and the volume and document number identifying the recorded document.  A numbered copy of the original document will be made available by the U.S. Copyright Office to the public upon request for public inspection and copying.

Based on the above, you should voluntarily record your assignment or security interest in a copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.  By doing so, you will provide constructive notice. A third party will be able to search the records of the U.S. Copyright Office and cannot argue that it did not know of the transfer or security interest against the copyright registration.  Therefore, it is recommended that you record your assignment or security interest with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Connect with Dan on LinkedIn. 

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmail Daniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Stridon News and Insights
  • Taft Class Action & Consumer Insights
  • Labor and Employment Law Insights
  • Age of Disruption
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo