The Copyright Office Just Reviewed the CCB. Is It Actually Working?

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.

I recently wrote about the Copyright Claims Board, or CCB, as an alternative for creators who can't realistically spend tens of thousands of dollars pursuing copyright infringement in federal court.

Now we have something even better than opinions about whether the system works:

The U.S. Copyright Office studied it.

This month, the Copyright Office released its congressionally required CASE Act Report, examining the CCB's first several years of operation.

And the overall conclusion was surprisingly positive.

More Than 1,700 Copyright Claims

Since the CCB opened in June 2022, more than 1,700 claims have been filed by people in the United States and abroad.

The Copyright Office concluded that the CCB has been successful in resolving copyright disputes, facilitating settlements, and providing access to creators who otherwise might not have been able to practically enforce their copyrights in federal court.

Personally, I have filed several actions myself and I have found it to be a good alternative for cases against small businesses or individuals rather than dragging it through federal court for a larger award that may not be collectible, plus the costs can really add up fast.

The entire reason the CCB exists is because owning a copyright doesn't mean very much if enforcing it costs more than the infringement is worth.

For photographers, artists, writers, musicians, and other independent creators, that has always been one of copyright law's biggest practical problems.

But the System Isn't Perfect

The report also identified some very real problems.

One of the biggest?

Service of process.

As of the end of 2025, approximately 35% of otherwise compliant claims were dismissed because the claimant failed to file valid proof of service.

That's a huge amount.

And it's especially significant because the CCB was specifically designed to be accessible to people representing themselves.

The Copyright Office acknowledged that service has been particularly difficult for pro se claimants and that differences among state service rules have created confusion and frustration.

I have personally faced this, however with my background in litigation management, I am at an advantage over others. Understanding what types of service are permissable, how it must be served and even a good process server company (I really liked abclegal --no affiliation) can be challenging enough to force some to give up.

However, the board does allow you to email them for clarification and they are extremely helpful, moreso than a federal court would be.

It also costs around $120 per address and # of attempts. So that $40 filing fee isn't all you'll spend, and once you serve, you'll spend another $60 to keep going. While that's not attorney level costs, federal actions cost around $400-$500 to file, so the cost savings is more on the attorney fee side.

Even the Instructions May Be Too Complicated

The report also discusses concerns about how difficult the process can be for people without attorneys.

Commenters suggested simpler instructions, visual guides, sample successful filings, shorter guidance documents, instructional videos, and less legal jargon.

The Copyright Office says it is already exploring improvements.

I think that's important because "streamlined" doesn't necessarily mean "simple."

Copyright law is complicated.

Asking photographers, artists, and writers to navigate legal pleadings, service requirements, discovery, evidence, and damages without attorneys is always going to involve a learning curve.

Making the system easier to understand doesn't weaken it.

It makes it more accessible to the people it was created for.

The Copyright Office Wants Changes

Perhaps the most encouraging part of the report is that the Copyright Office isn't declaring victory and walking away.

It recommends changes to make CCB proceedings shorter and simpler, including improvements involving compliance review and service.

It also recommends allowing respondents who intend to participate to waive the remainder of the 60 day opt out period rather than forcing both parties to wait for the entire period to expire before moving forward.

This part I agree with as well, not only do the respodents get the 60 days to determine if they want to participate, then they get another 30 days I believe to respond once they reply. That is IF they don't opt out.

In my experience, most cases require a response within 30 days of service. 90 days is far too long to get the process started, and it doesn't end there, the waiting times between steps is unusually long.

Those may sound like small procedural changes.

When you're actually involved in a case, they're not.

Weeks and months matter.

I also really hate the opt out option. Every time I've chosen the CCB against bigger companies they simply opt out, as if accountability is optional. By the time they do, I've wasted the initial filing fee, the service fees and months, when I could have filed in federal court and had some traction.

My Take

The biggest takeaway from this report isn't that the CCB is perfect.

It clearly isn't.

It's that the experiment appears to be working well enough that the Copyright Office isn't recommending abandoning it.

For decades, independent creators faced an ugly economic reality: you could own a valid copyright, have evidence of infringement, and still be unable to afford to enforce it.

The CCB doesn't solve that problem completely.

But according to the Copyright Office's first major review, it is helping.

And now we have several years of real-world experience showing where the cracks are.

Fix the service problem.

Simplify the process.

Make the instructions easier for people without attorneys.

Shorten unnecessary waiting periods.

Keep improving access.

Because copyright shouldn't only be enforceable when the infringement is worth enough money to justify a federal lawsuit.

The CCB was created to fill that gap.

Three years in, the Copyright Office's conclusion seems to be that its worth keeping but definitely needs improvement. As a former auditor, I agree with their assessment and am glad they were so thorough in their review and recommendation.