Disclaimer: As usual, I am not an attorney or intellectual property professional. This article reflects my personal opinions and observations as a photographer, artist, and small business owner whose copyrighted work has been infringed multiple times. It is not legal advice.

When most creators hear “copyright lawsuit,” they probably picture federal court.

Attorneys.

Depositions.

Thousands of dollars.

Months or years of litigation.

And for a long time, that was essentially the problem.

You might have a perfectly legitimate copyright claim worth $5,000, $10,000, or $20,000, but pursuing it could cost more than the infringement itself.

That reality made copyright protection feel almost theoretical for a lot of independent creators.

Congress attempted to address that problem through the CASE Act, which created the Copyright Claims Board, or CCB, within the U.S. Copyright Office. The Board began accepting cases in 2022 and was specifically designed as a voluntary, streamlined, less expensive alternative to federal court for certain copyright disputes involving no more than $30,000.

I've now had experience with the CCB process myself.

And while I definitely would not describe it as effortless, I do think creators should know it exists. Especially as someone who has spent tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees filing in federal court for infringement.

What Exactly Is the CCB?

The Copyright Claims Board is a three-member tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office that hears certain copyright disputes.

It can hear copyright infringement claims, requests for declarations of noninfringement, and certain claims involving misrepresentations in DMCA takedown notices and counter-notices.

The biggest difference from federal court is scale.

The CCB can award no more than $30,000 total in a proceeding, regardless of how many works are involved.

That obviously makes it inappropriate for some cases.

If someone has commercially exploited dozens or hundreds of registered works and your potential damages substantially exceed $30,000, federal court may make more sense. Paying an attorney hourly or finding a contingency fee attorney to file in federal court might be the best option if your damages are higher than $30k.

But if you're dealing with an infringement where federal litigation would cost more than the realistic recovery?

The CCB might be the way to go.

It Is Much Cheaper to File

The current filing fee is split into two payments.

You pay $40 when you file, and another $60 if the case proceeds after the

respondent's opt-out period, making the total CCB filing fee $100.

Compare that with federal litigation, where the filing fee is only the beginning.

There may also be attorney fees, formal discovery, depositions, expert witnesses, motion practice, travel, service costs, and potentially years of litigation.

The CCB was intentionally designed so that people can represent themselves. You are allowed to hire an attorney, but you aren't required to have one.

For independent artists and photographers, that distinction matters enormously.

But There Is a Catch: The Other Side Can Opt Out

This is probably the single most important thing creators need to understand.

The CCB is voluntary.

After being properly served, the respondent generally has 60 days to opt out. If they do, the CCB proceeding ends as to that respondent. You haven't lost your copyright claim, but if you still want to pursue it, federal court may be your remaining option.

That can be frustrating.

You can spend time preparing your case, filing it, and arranging service, only for the respondent to say:

No thanks.

But there is another side to that.

If the respondent doesn't opt out within the deadline, the proceeding moves forward, and they give up the opportunity to have that particular dispute decided in federal court and waive a jury trial for that dispute.

So the opt-out period matters.

A lot.

Also, if they opt out, you can file in Federal Court--I've done it myself. In my opinion, it shows you tried to mitigate damages and the respondent wasn't interested.

The CCB Is Simpler Than Federal Court. BUT...It Is Not Simple.

This is something I think creators need to hear.

When people describe the CCB as “small claims court for copyright,” that can make it sound like you upload a few screenshots, explain what happened, and wait for someone to send you a check.

That is not how it works.

There is still a real proceeding.

Once a case becomes active, there can be:

• a response and counterclaims,

• a pre-discovery conference,

• discovery,

• status conferences,

• written testimony,

• evidence submissions,

• and ultimately a final determination.

You still need evidence.

You still need to understand your claim.

You still need to anticipate defenses such as fair use, licensing, ownership disputes, or challenges to damages.

And you need to stay organized.

The process is streamlined, but copyright law itself hasn't suddenly become simple.

Discovery Is One Reason the CCB Matters

One thing creators sometimes underestimate is how much information is controlled by the infringer.

You may know your photograph was used.

But you may not know:

How long was it used?

Where was it distributed?

How much money did the business make?

Who uploaded it?

Who authorized the use?

Was it used in advertising?

Were there additional copies you haven't found?

A legal proceeding gives you mechanisms for obtaining information that an angry email does not.

The CCB includes a discovery phase, although its discovery procedures are deliberately more limited and streamlined than federal litigation.

For me, that is one of the meaningful differences between simply demanding payment and actually pursuing a copyright claim.

Sometimes you don't know the full story until you get access to the other side's information.

What Can You Recover?

The CCB can award actual damages and infringer profits, subject to the $30,000 overall cap.

Depending on the circumstances and registration status of the work, statutory damages may also be available under the CCB's rules, although the CCB has its own statutory-damages limits and creators should carefully review them before deciding where to file.

That's another reason registration remains incredibly important.

You can bring certain claims involving a work while a registration application is pending, and the CCB offers an expedited registration procedure for active claims, but registration requirements still matter before the Board can ultimately issue certain determinations.

What About Attorney Fees?

Here's another major difference from federal court.

The CCB generally does not award attorney fees simply because you win.

Attorney fees and costs are ordinarily available only in circumstances involving bad-faith conduct. The Board can impose limited fee and cost awards when a party behaves dishonestly, abusively, or otherwise in bad faith during the proceeding.

So don't approach the CCB assuming:

“I'll hire a lawyer for $10,000 and make the infringer reimburse me.”

That generally isn't how this forum works.

Why Would Someone Choose the CCB?

For me, the most compelling reason is proportionality.

Imagine someone uses one of your photographs commercially without permission.

You determine that your realistic claim is somewhere around $5,000 or $10,000.

Are you going to spend $25,000 or $50,000 litigating that case in federal court?

Probably not.

And infringers know this.

That's exactly the gap the CCB was created to fill.

It gives creators a way to say:

My claim may not be worth a federal lawsuit, but that doesn't mean it's worth nothing.

Also, not everyone has the funds sitting around to file federally, but the CCB can help mitigate damages for lower costs.

It's not only $60, though. Factor in a process server, which is generally around $120.

When I Would Consider Federal Court Instead

I don't think the CCB replaces federal court.

There are circumstances where I would absolutely want to discuss federal litigation with an attorney instead.

For example:

The potential damages substantially exceed $30,000.

There are numerous infringed works.

The infringement is extensive and highly commercial.

You need remedies the CCB cannot provide.

There are complicated jurisdictional or corporate issues.

You expect extensive discovery.

Or the defendant opts out.

The right forum depends on the case.

Sometimes the CCB makes perfect sense.

Sometimes it doesn't.

There Is Also a Psychological Difference

This part isn't really legal.

It's human.

Sending someone a DMCA notice or demand letter still leaves enforcement in your hands.

You ask them to stop.

You ask them to pay.

They decide whether to take you seriously.

Filing a legal claim changes the conversation.

Now there are deadlines.

There is a docket.

There are filings.

There are consequences for ignoring the proceeding once it becomes active.

And there is a neutral tribunal evaluating the evidence.

For creators who have spent years being told “it's just a picture,” having an actual forum where the dispute can be heard has value beyond the dollar amount.

But Don't File Because You're Angry

This is probably the biggest lesson I would give another creator.

Anger is useful for motivating you to document what happened.

It is terrible litigation strategy.

Before filing anything, gather the evidence.

Document the infringement.

Preserve URLs and screenshots.

Identify who actually used the work.

Check your registration.

Determine what your normal licensing fee would have been.

Look at the commercial context.

Think realistically about damages.

I wish more creators would take this route, because the general vibe in the industry is "Oh well, its part of the industry" but if more people took legal action, maybe fewer people would be so emboldened to keep infringing....

My Take

I think the Copyright Claims Board filled an important hole in the copyright system.

Federal court remains enormously important, particularly for serious or high-value infringement.

But most working photographers and independent artists don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around to litigate every unauthorized use.

Without some smaller enforcement mechanism, copyright ownership starts becoming a right that exists on paper but is economically impossible to enforce.

The CCB isn't perfect.

A respondent can opt out.

Damages are capped.

You still have to learn the process.

You still have to organize evidence.

You may still face complicated legal arguments.

And yes, it can still be stressful.

But it gives independent creators another tool.

And sometimes the choice isn't really between the CCB and federal court.

Sometimes the choice is between the CCB...

and doing nothing.

For creators whose work has been taken, used commercially, ignored after notice, or repeatedly infringed, having another option matters.

Copyright shouldn't only be enforceable by people wealthy enough to afford federal litigation.

That's exactly why I'm glad this one exists.