17 U.S.C. § 410

Registration of claim and issuance of certificate

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) When, after examination, the Register of Copyrights determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that the other legal and formal requirements of this title have been met, the Register shall register the claim and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration under the seal of the Copyright Office. The certificate shall contain the information given in the application, together with the number and effective date of the registration.(b) In any case in which the Register of Copyrights determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited does not constitute copyrightable subject matter or that the claim is invalid for any other reason, the Register shall refuse registration and shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for such refusal.(c) In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court.(d) The effective date of a copyright registration is the day on which an application, deposit, and fee, which are later determined by the Register of Copyrights or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be acceptable for registration, have all been received in the Copyright Office.(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2582.)Historical and Revision Noteshouse report no. 94–1476

The first two subsections of section 410 set forth the two basic duties of the Register of Copyrights with respect to copyright registration: (1) to register the claim and issue a certificate if the Register determines that “the material deposited constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that the other legal and formal requirements of this title have been met,” and (2) to refuse registration and notify the applicant if the Register determines that “the material deposited does not constitute copyrightable subject matter or that the claim is invalid for any other reason.”

Subsection (c) deals with the probative effect of a certificate of registration issued by the Register under subsection (a). Under its provisions, a certificate is required to be given prima facie weight in any judicial proceedings if the registration it covers was made “before or within five years after first publication of the work”; thereafter the court is given discretion to decide what evidentiary weight the certificate should be accorded. This five-year period is based on a recognition that the longer the lapse of time between publication and registration the less likely to be reliable are the facts stated in the certificate.

Under section 410(c), a certificate is to “constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” The principle that a certificate represents prima facie evidence of copyright validity has been established in a long line of court decisions, and it is a sound one. It is true that, unlike a patent claim, a claim to copyright is not examined for basic validity before a certificate is issued. On the other hand, endowing a copyright claimant who has obtained a certificate with a rebuttable presumption of the validity of the copyright does not deprive the defendant in an infringement suit of any rights, it merely orders the burdens of proof. The plaintiff should not ordinarily be forced in the first instance to prove all of the multitude of facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the defendant, by effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the plaintiff.

Section 410(d), which is in accord with the present practice of the Copyright Office, makes the effective date of registration the day when an application, deposit, and fee “which are later determined by the Register of Copyrights or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be acceptable for registration” have all been received. Where the three necessary elements are received at different times the date of receipt of the last of them is controlling, regardless of when the Copyright Office acts on the claim. The provision not only takes account of the inevitable timelag between receipt of the application and other material and the issuance of the certificate, but it also recognizes the possibility that a court might later find the Register wrong in refusing registration.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRegistration of Claims to Copyrights and Recordation of Assignments of Copyrights and Other Instruments Under Predecessor Provisions

Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 109, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2600, provided that: “The registration of claims to copyright for which the required deposit, application, and fee were received in the Copyright Office before January 1, 1978, and the recordation of assignments of copyright or other instruments received in the Copyright Office before January 1, 1978, shall be made in accordance with title 17 as it existed on December 31, 1977.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 967 cases (205 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Cambridge Univ. Press v. Becker, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
Cambridge Univ. Press v. Becker, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2012). · cites it 39× “136], 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c) states: In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.”
Horror Inc. v. Miller, 15 F.4th 232 (2d Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). 7 “The statutory presumption is by no means irrebuttable, but it does order the burden of proof.”
Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. Iac/interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “17 U.S.C. § 410 (d). Thus, Cosmetic can now allege the registration element of an infringement claim, irrespective of whether registration accrues at application or issuance.”
La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “17 U.S.C. § 410 (a), (b) (emphasis added).”
DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 870 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 410 (c). DRK PHOTO V. MCGRAW-HILL 19 intent; the problem is that what the parties intended was invalid under the Copyright Act.”
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “III 2009), but that provision was not made applicable to the presumption of copyright validity set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c), which remains subject to the pre-2008 standards.”
Kernel Records Oy v. Timothy Z. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 410 (a). Registration of a work may be obtained at any time during the subsistence of the work’s copyright.”
Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “” 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c) (2012). A certificate of registration “constitute[s] prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.”
Atari Games Corp. v. Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights, 888 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 6× “The Significance of Registration in this Controversy Section 410 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 410 , provides in part: (a) When, after examination, the Register of Copyrights determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited constitutes…”
William Darden v. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, 488 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “” 17 U.S.C. § 410 (a). If so, then the Register must issue a certificate of registration to the applicant, see 17 U.”
Dmarcian, Inc. v. Dmarcian Eur. BV, 60 F.4th 119 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “dBV attempts, for the first time in its reply brief, to cast doubt on the copyright’s validity because dInc deposited an updated version of the 2012 source code with the Copyright Office.”
United Fabrics Int'l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “” 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c); see also S.O.S., Inc.”
— 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) — 11 cases
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 619 F. Supp. 2d 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Sorenson v. Wolfson, 96 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Haan Crafts Corp. v. Craft Masters, Inc., 683 F. Supp. 1234 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
Princess Fabrics, Inc. v. CHF, Inc., 922 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.