9.  Federal Register Publication

The AAP agreed that, compared to the online database, the lists published in the Federal Register would be of secondary importance.  AAP suggested, however, that the Federal Register entry also include the name of the author if possible.  Comment 7, at 11.

In order to minimize costs, the Office has concluded that only the minimum information (title, name of the first owner or owner of an exclusive right identified on the NIE), will be included in the list of NIEs published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 50418]]

C. Issues Related to Registration of a Restored Work

1.  Simultaneous Registration

Ms. Lorente asserted that registration is a second formality, and asked for simultaneous filing of NIEs and registration of copyright claims.  She also argued both should be automatic and at no additional cost.  Comment 5, at 2.  Ms. Theg asked that the application for registration be modified to include the additional information requested in the NIE so that the NIE filing requirements could be satisfied at the time of making an application for registration.  Comment 9, at 1.

As discussed earlier, procedures permitting the copyright registration of restored works are not formalities in violation of the Berne Convention.  Registration is entirely voluntary for Berne works since copyright registration of restored works is not a prerequisite for the filing of a copyright infringement action.  Registration of a claim in a work involves significant additional work and by law requires a fee.  The Office has, however, attempted to keep the processing work and the fees to a minimum.

2.  New URAA Related Registration Procedures

Mr. Pierce observed that registration, especially of motion pictures, is often very burdensome for foreign works, because of the difficulty in determining original publication dates and in submitting a copy of the work as first released.  He concluded that applications will be filed for only a small percentage of the works unless the Office considers adopting more liberal deposit requirements such as accepting PAL, SECAM, VHS formats or written descriptions, allowing the registration of related works with multiple publication dates on one application, accepting approximate publication dates, and accepting a previously submitted deposit instead of requiring a new deposit.  Comment 6, at 2.  Ms. Theg asked that deposit requirements be waived entirely.  Comment 9, at 2.

On the other side, the AAP questioned the necessity for changes in the existing registration and recordation systems.  If such changes are made, the AAP asserted that they should not create precedent for other registration and deposit practices.  The AAP also questioned the need for procedures allowing blanket exemptions in some instances for depositing materials, accepting descriptive materials instead of a copy of the work, and allowing certain collections such as photos or TV series to be given a single identifying group name or title.  The AAP is concerned that these procedures will make it difficult for reliance parties to identify restored works and comply with the law.  The AAP asked that the Office instead deal with special situations on a case-by-case basis.  Comment 7, at 12-16.