[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                 THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE: CUSTOMERS,
                 COMMUNITIES, AND MODERNIZATION EFFORTS

=======================================================================






                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             JUNE 26, 2024
                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 
      
      
      
      
      
      
                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                
                
                
                


                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov 
            
            
                      


                                ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

56-573                     WASHINGTON : 2024 




                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                                                     
                           
                           
                           
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia            Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                      Mike Platt,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                
                 
                 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of 
  New York.......................................................     4
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                                Witness

Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. 
  Copyright Office, Library of Congress..........................     7
    Prepared statement of Shira Perlmutter.......................     9

                       Submissions for the Record

Coalition of Visual Artists letter...............................    38
Copyright Clearance Center letter................................    43
News/Media Alliance letter.......................................    46
Copyright Alliance letter........................................    49
National Music Publishers' Association letter....................    56

                        Questions for the Record

Shira Perlmutter answers to submitted questions..................    60

 
                 THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE: CUSTOMERS, 
                   COMMUNITIES,  AND MODERNIZATION EF-
                   FORTS

                              ----------                              

                             June 26, 2024

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, Bice, 
Carey, Lee, Morelle, Sewell, Kilmer, and Torres.
    Staff present: March Bell, General Counsel; Kelvin 
Bencosme, Staff Assistant; Kristen Monterroso, Director of 
Operations and Legislative Clerk; Michael Platt, Staff 
Director; Elliot Smith, Director of Oversight; Jessica Smith, 
GAO Detailee; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services; 
Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jamie Fleet, 
Minority Staff Director; Kwame Newton, Minority Oversight 
Counsel; Heather Painter, Minority Legislative Director; Matt 
Schlesinger, Minority Senior Counsel; and Sean Wright, Minority 
Chief Counsel.

       OPENING  STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL,  CHAIRMAN OF 
         THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REP-
         RESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order. I note that a quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain 
open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials 
they wish to be included therein.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the 
Committee, and our witness, for participating in today's panel.
    As part of the Committee on House Administration's 
oversight over the legislative branch, today we are focusing on 
the U.S. Copyright Office operations. We will explore how the 
U.S. Copyright Office is modernizing, assisting customers, and 
engaging with stakeholders.
    As a legislative-branch entity, this Committee has 
oversight over the U.S. Copyright Office.
    Since becoming part of the Library of Congress in 1870, the 
Copyright Office has grown to become a critical linchpin in the 
U.S. economy. The copyright industry impacts roughly 16 million 
American jobs.
    Who requires a copyright? A variety of industries engage 
with the Copyright Office on a daily basis. I will just name a 
few. You engage with singers, with songwriters, authors, 
filmmakers, the media, software engineers, and more.
    Where does the Committee on House Administration come into 
copyright issues, one may ask. The Committee has oversight over 
the Office's operations.
    Each year, the Copyright Office works with thousands of 
individuals and examines their copyright claims. These records 
are supplemented with thousands of documents, representing 
hundreds of thousands of titles of work. In recent years, we 
have seen an uptick in the volume of work submitted to your 
office.
    Today, we will explore how the Office operations have been 
challenged and how they have worked to improve customer 
experience and make it simpler, easier, and more efficient for 
everyday copyright holders to register their works.
    By registering copyrights in a timely manner, individual 
creativity and individual businesses can thrive. As the 
Copyright Office knows, many high-volume artists, like 
photographers for example, are having difficulty registering 
their work due to an expensive and time-consuming registration 
process.
    Let us use wedding photographers as an example. They may 
take hundreds, possibly thousands, of wedding photos at an 
average wedding. The current online system prevents 
photographers from uploading in large batches, making it 
difficult for them sometimes to reach critical client 
deadlines.
    Assuming timely registration of copyright is of the utmost 
importance--ensuring timely registration of copyright is of the 
utmost importance, particularly to ensure these works are 
protected.
    As technology is rapidly evolving, widespread copyright 
infringement for many content owners is becoming the status 
quo, unfortunately. Copyright infringement corrodes value and 
diminishes their ability to make ends meet. We want to learn 
more about the process and some of the burden content creators 
are experiencing today.
    In recent years, the Office has undertaken significant 
modernization efforts. This includes IT modernization and AI 
policy plans. The Committee on House Administration has been 
working with each of our support agencies, including the 
Copyright Office, to develop AI governance plans.
    In 2016, the Copyright Office established the Copyright 
Modernization Office to ensure the Office is achieving its 
mission and strategic goals on behalf of copyright owners. In 
their 2023 annual report, the Office made steady progress in 
creating a web-based, cloud-hosted, user-friendly platform.
    While the new system has improved efficiency, there is 
still more to be done to make sure the new system is meeting 
the needs of users. Over the last year, the Committee has met 
with a variety of individuals and stakeholders who engage with 
the Copyright Office and have heard their concerns.
    I look forward to a robust discussion today to ensure we 
are promoting innovation while protecting content owners' work.
    Before I yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes, I will 
note that we are expecting votes to be called at the bottom of 
the hour. There is potentially a new 20-minute rule on the 
first vote, and so, at risk of that, we will probably gavel out 
a little early. Then we will come back and pick back up where 
we leave off, whether or not that is opening statements or into 
Members' questions.
    With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 
minutes for the purpose of offering opening remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

        PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 
              ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    As part of the Committee on House Administration's 
oversight over the legislative branch, today we are focusing on 
the U.S. Copyright Office operations. We will explore how the 
U.S. Copyright Office is modernizing, assisting customers, and 
engaging with stakeholders.
    As a legislative-branch entity, this Committee has 
oversight over the U.S. Copyright Office.
    Since becoming part of the Library of Congress in 1870, the 
Copyright Office has grown to become a critical linchpin in the 
U.S. economy. The copyright industry impacts roughly 16 million 
American jobs.
    Who requires a copyright? A variety of industries engage 
with the Copyright Office on a daily basis. I will just name a 
few. You engage with singers, with songwriters, authors, 
filmmakers, the media, software engineers, and more.
    Where does the Committee on House Administration come into 
copyright issues, one may ask. The Committee has oversight over 
the Office's operations.
    Each year, the Copyright Office works with thousands of 
individuals and examines their copyright claims. These records 
are supplemented with thousands of documents, representing 
hundreds of thousands of titles of work. In recent years, we 
have seen an uptick in the volume of work submitted to your 
office.
    Today, we will explore how the Office operations have been 
challenged and how they have worked to improve customer 
experience and make it simpler, easier, and more efficient for 
everyday copyright holders to register their works.
    By registering copyrights in a timely manner, individual 
creativity and individual businesses can thrive. As the 
Copyright Office knows, many high-volume artists, like 
photographers for example, are having difficulty registering 
their work due to an expensive and time-consuming registration 
process.
    Let us use wedding photographers as an example. They may 
take hundreds, possibly thousands, of wedding photos at an 
average wedding. The current online system prevents 
photographers from uploading in large batches, making it 
difficult for them sometimes to reach critical client 
deadlines.
    Assuming timely registration of copyright is of the utmost 
importance--ensuring timely registration of copyright is of the 
utmost importance, particularly to ensure these works are 
protected.
    As technology is rapidly evolving, widespread copyright 
infringement for many content owners is becoming the status 
quo, unfortunately. Copyright infringement corrodes value and 
diminishes their ability to make ends meet. We want to learn 
more about the process and some of the burden content creators 
are experiencing today.
    In recent years, the Office has undertaken significant 
modernization efforts. This includes IT modernization and AI 
policy plans. The Committee on House Administration has been 
working with each of our support agencies, including the 
Copyright Office, to develop AI governance plans.
    In 2016, the Copyright Office established the Copyright 
Modernization Office to ensure the Office is achieving its 
mission and strategic goals on behalf of copyright owners. In 
their 2023 annual report, the Office made steady progress in 
creating a web-based, cloud-hosted, user-friendly platform.
    While the new system has improved efficiency, there is 
still more to be done to make sure the new system is meeting 
the needs of users. Over the last year, the Committee has met 
with a variety of individuals and stakeholders who engage with 
the Copyright Office and have heard their concerns.
    I look forward to a robust discussion today to ensure we 
are promoting innovation while protecting content owners' work.
    Before I yield to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes, I will 
note that we are expecting votes to be called at the bottom of 
the hour. There is potentially a new 20-minute rule on the 
first vote, and so, at risk of that, we will probably gavel out 
a little early. Then we will come back and pick back up where 
we leave off, whether or not that is opening statements or into 
Members' questions.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE,  RANKING 
       MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 
       A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership, 
for calling this on this really, really important topic. It has 
been great to work with you and your team on these important 
issues.
    I want to thank Register Perlmutter for being here today 
and for your efforts to ensure the Copyright Office keeps pace 
with what is breakneck change in the speed of changing 
technology. It is great to have you here to talk about this and 
the critical role that the Copyright Office plays in promoting 
creativity, innovation, and economic growth in our Nation.
    The Founders recognized the importance, enshrining the 
right in the Constitution as promoting the progress of science 
and useful arts. I think sometimes people are surprised when 
you mention that copyright is actually listed in the United 
States Constitution, but here we are and conducting this 
oversight of the Office to discuss the progress that has been 
made, the challenges that the Office and we all still face to 
improve the services that you provide to copyright owners and 
to the American public. Our responsibility is to ensure you 
have the necessary resources and congressional support to carry 
on the mission effectively in this ever-changing digital age.
    I do want to recognize the substantial progress the Office 
has made in recent years, thanks to your leadership and that of 
your team. Thank you to you for your hard work and the hard 
work of your staff.
    The development of the Enterprise Copyright System, the 
ECS; the launch of the Copyright Claims Board; and the 
establishment of the Copyright Public Modernization Committee 
are just a few of the highlights that I think demonstrate the 
Office's commitment to a future-facing intellectual property 
system.
    As we move forward, it seems to me it is crucial we build 
on these successes and continue to enhance the accessibility, 
efficiency, and resilience of the copyright system.
    The ongoing development of the ECS is particularly 
promising. When fully implemented, the system will provide a 
unified, user-friendly platform for registration, recordation, 
public recordkeeping, and licensure.
    As the chair has described and I understand, the dedicated 
copyright modernization funding is set to expire in the coming 
years, however, and additional fiscal support will be needed to 
avoid losing momentum on the progress you have made, so that is 
something we will all keep very much in mind.
    I do want to highlight the Office's ongoing work on 
artificial intelligence. Again, the chair touched on it. It has 
broad implications for copyright. I do not think anyone needs 
to be reminded of that.
    With the rapid advancement of generative AI, it is critical 
that the Office provides timely guidance and leadership not 
only on the scope of copyright protections in AI-generated 
works but also on the use of copyrighted materials in AI 
training on the so-called back end, when you are starting to 
train models.
    I worked on these issues back when I was a member of the 
New York State Assembly. We did not call it AI, but we talked 
about computer-generated images and computer-generated work and 
the use of someone's voice, their likeness, without consent, a 
problem that becomes even more pernicious with the explosion of 
AI technology--the ease, the ability to generate AI content. 
AI-generated deepfakes can be created using this technology in 
ways that it could not have been even a decade ago.
    The use of that technology will have a major implication 
for the worlds of copyright as well; I do not need to tell you. 
Is AI-generated content copyrightable? Who holds the copyright? 
Does the AI training process infringe on the rights of 
copyright holders when the data relied upon inevitably includes 
copyrighted work?
    In fact, just 2 days ago, three of the largest record 
labels in the world sued two AI startups, arguing the use of 
their AI technology to generate content infringes upon the 
rights of the artists whose material was used for training sets 
for those models.
    These are difficult, complex questions. I am looking 
forward eagerly to your multi-part report on how these issues 
affect the copyright domain. I understand that report is coming 
out later this year, and I am sure you will probably want to 
touch on that.
    Finally, I want to just touch on the importance of the 
right to repair, something that I have been involved in, again, 
since my time as a State legislator, and the role of copyright 
law, section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 
which prohibits the circumvention of technological protection 
measures that control access to copyrighted works even for non-
infringing purposes like repair.
    Recognizing the unintended consequences of the prohibition, 
your office has encouraged the Librarian to exempt consumer 
devices from this restriction in the past. I am grateful to you 
for that. Obviously, an issue that will continue.
    Today, the Office considers whether or not to preserve 
these protections for consumer choice but to expand them to the 
commercial and industrial equipment that has just as great, in 
fact, if not even greater, impact on our everyday lives.
    I will continue on the questioning. I do not want to go far 
beyond my time, and I appreciate the indulgence of the chair. 
Again, look forward to hearing your testimony.
    Mr. Chair, thanks again for holding this important hearing. 
With that, I will yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

         PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
      COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

    The Founders recognized the importance, enshrining the 
right in the Constitution as promoting the progress of science 
and useful arts. I think sometimes people are surprised when 
you mention that copyright is actually listed in the United 
States Constitution, but here we are and conducting this 
oversight of the Office to discuss the progress that has been 
made, the challenges that the Office and we all still face to 
improve the services that you provide to copyright owners and 
to the American public. Our responsibility is to ensure you 
have the necessary resources and congressional support to carry 
on the mission effectively in this ever-changing digital age.
    I do want to recognize the substantial progress the Office 
has made in recent years, thanks to your leadership and that of 
your team. Thank you to you for your hard work and the hard 
work of your staff.
    The development of the Enterprise Copyright System, the 
ECS; the launch of the Copyright Claims Board; and the 
establishment of the Copyright Public Modernization Committee 
are just a few of the highlights that I think demonstrate the 
Office's commitment to a future-facing intellectual property 
system.
    As we move forward, it seems to me it is crucial we build 
on these successes and continue to enhance the accessibility, 
efficiency, and resilience of the copyright system.
    The ongoing development of the ECS is particularly 
promising. When fully implemented, the system will provide a 
unified, user-friendly platform for registration, recordation, 
public recordkeeping, and licensure.
    As the chair has described and I understand, the dedicated 
copyright modernization funding is set to expire in the coming 
years, however, and additional fiscal support will be needed to 
avoid losing momentum on the progress you have made, so that is 
something we will all keep very much in mind.
    I do want to highlight the Office's ongoing work on 
artificial intelligence. Again, the chair touched on it. It has 
broad implications for copyright. I do not think anyone needs 
to be reminded of that.
    With the rapid advancement of generative AI, it is critical 
that the Office provides timely guidance and leadership not 
only on the scope of copyright protections in AI-generated 
works but also on the use of copyrighted materials in AI 
training on the so-called back end, when you are starting to 
train models.
    I worked on these issues back when I was a member of the 
New York State Assembly. We did not call it AI, but we talked 
about computer-generated images and computer-generated work and 
the use of someone's voice, their likeness, without consent, a 
problem that becomes even more pernicious with the explosion of 
AI technology--the ease, the ability to generate AI content. 
AI-generated deepfakes can be created using this technology in 
ways that it could not have been even a decade ago.
    The use of that technology will have a major implication 
for the worlds of copyright as well; I do not need to tell you. 
Is AI-generated content copyrightable? Who holds the copyright? 
Does the AI training process infringe on the rights of 
copyright holders when the data relied upon inevitably includes 
copyrighted work?
    In fact, just 2 days ago, three of the largest record 
labels in the world sued two AI startups, arguing the use of 
their AI technology to generate content infringes upon the 
rights of the artists whose material was used for training sets 
for those models.
    These are difficult, complex questions. I am looking 
forward eagerly to your multi-part report on how these issues 
affect the copyright domain. I understand that report is coming 
out later this year, and I am sure you will probably want to 
touch on that.
    Finally, I want to just touch on the importance of the 
right to repair, something that I have been involved in, again, 
since my time as a State legislator, and the role of copyright 
law, section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 
which prohibits the circumvention of technological protection 
measures that control access to copyrighted works even for non-
infringing purposes like repair.
    Recognizing the unintended consequences of the prohibition, 
your office has encouraged the Librarian to exempt consumer 
devices from this restriction in the past. I am grateful to you 
for that. Obviously, an issue that will continue.
    Today, the Office considers whether or not to preserve 
these protections for consumer choice but to expand them to the 
commercial and industrial equipment that has just as great, in 
fact, if not even greater, impact on our everyday lives.

    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. Appreciate your 
work in this nonpartisan way on the oversight of the Copyright 
Office, you and your whole team.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements, 
as well as letters for the record submitted from outside 
parties, will be made part of the hearing record if they are 
submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m.
    Today, we have one witness. We welcome Register Shira 
Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. 
Copyright Office.
    Appointed in October 2020, Register Perlmutter advises 
Congress and executive branch agencies on copyright policy and 
directs the administration on important provisions of the U.S. 
Copyright Act, leading a workforce of roughly 500 employees.
    We appreciate you being with us today and look forward to 
your testimony.
    Pursuant to paragraph (b) of Committee rule 6, the witness 
will please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witness sworn.]
    Chairman Steil. Let the record show the witness answered in 
the affirmative.
    Now, we appreciate you being here today and look forward to 
your testimony. I will remind you that we have read your 
written statement and it will appear in full in the Committee 
record. I will now recognize you for 5 minutes for the purpose 
of offering an opening statement.

    STATEMENT  OF  SHIRA  PERLMUTTER,  REGISTER  OF COPY-
      RIGHTS AND DIRECTOR, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY
      OF CONGRESS

    Ms. Perlmutter. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
report on the accomplishments of the U.S. Copyright Office in 
updating our information technology systems and serving the 
public.
    IT modernization continues to be a top priority for the 
Office as well as one of our main strategic goals. Development 
work began to build the new Enterprise Copyright System, or 
ECS, in 2020, after we received its initial funding from 
Congress.
    Since I joined the Office in October of that year, we have 
made significant progress, thanks to the close and productive 
collaboration we have established with the Library's Office of 
the Chief Information Officer, or OCIO. As we work together, 
the Copyright Office determines the evolving business 
priorities for ECS, and OCIO manages the software development 
and implementation.
    Two major components of ECS are already being successfully 
used by the public. We are now mapping out next steps and 
timing, with a focus on registration.
    The first ECS component to be developed was recordation, 
given the need to take an antiquated paper-based process into 
the 21st century. We now have an efficient online recordation 
system, which is used for more than 80 percent of submissions. 
Average processing times have fallen from months to weeks.
    We have also made available to the public a pilot of our 
new Copyright Public Records System, or CPRS. This will replace 
the existing Public Catalog with a more user-friendly system as 
the authoritative source for registration and recordation 
information.
    We are currently accelerating the pace of work on 
registration, which is the largest and most complex and most 
visible component of ECS. The Office has had an electronic 
registration system, known as eCO, for more than 15 years now. 
This system continues to function effectively, with processing 
times at an all-time low. It does have some limitations, and 
the new ECS version will be a major improvement.
    Over the past year, the Copyright Office and OCIO have, 
together, completed a great deal of work in developing the 
registration system. We have tripled the number of IT teams 
working on it, and we are further reallocating resources to 
enable rapid progress.
    Consistent with testimony I have given to Congress before, 
we expect to initiate a limited pilot of the standard 
application, as well as the eDeposit upload functionality, by 
the end of this calendar year. This will allow us to gather 
user feedback to guide further development.
    Let me mention two other areas of collaboration with OCIO. 
First, as part of our commitment to preservation and access, we 
are digitizing our historical records and making them available 
online. This summer, we have completed fully half of our over 
26,000 record books. Second, we have launched a customer 
contact center, resulting in improved user experience and 
better analysis.
    The Office has, at the same time, taken on increasing 
responsibilities in the areas of law and policy. These include 
oversight of new statutory structures, multiple rulemakings, 
and studies on important policy issues, like the one currently 
on the topic of artificial intelligence.
    Another of the Office's priorities is outreach and 
communication. We are committed to maximum transparency, and we 
consult regularly with the public in both formal and informal 
ways.
    During my tenure, we have ramped up outreach, including to 
raise awareness about new opportunities for stakeholders, with 
the establishment of the Small Claims Tribunal and 
implementation of the Music Modernization Act. We also obtain 
public input through the notice-and-comment process as well as 
holding or joining meetings as requested by stakeholders.
    On IT modernization in particular, the Office has hosted 
numerous public events. We conduct training webinars for 
systems in production, gather feedback via email, and ask users 
to complete online surveys. Responses have been very positive, 
with strong interest in additional features.
    We have also established a more sustained formal mechanism 
for receiving input. In 2021, the Librarian appointed a 
Copyright Public Modernization Committee, or CPMC, to discuss 
the technology-related aspects of the Office's services. In its 
initial 3-year term, the CPMC held six public online meetings 
as well as several informal briefings, and the Librarian has 
reauthorized it for an additional term. Once the new Members 
are selected, we plan to hold a meeting before the end of the 
year.
    I will close by thanking the Committee for its support of 
the work of the Copyright Office and the Library to enable 
continued development of copyright IT systems. I am pleased to 
answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Perlmutter follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHIRA PERLMUTTER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Register Perlmutter. Appreciate 
you being here today.
    I will begin our questions, and then we will continue with 
the Ranking Member and alternate sides. Again, votes have been 
called. I will monitor where that process is; then we will take 
a brief recess.
    Register Perlmutter, I would like to begin my conversation 
with you about the AI initiative that you mentioned in your 
testimony. It is critical the Office addresses the copyright 
challenges that result from AI-generated content head-on. It is 
impacting every corner of the creative community in the United 
States.
    As we saw just last month, Scarlett Johansson was in the 
news after an AI company used a sound-alike voice despite her 
not giving permission for her voice to be used in that manner. 
Now, we have heard concerns from songwriters, from artists, 
photographers that are struggling with similar issues, and the 
stakeholders are eagerly awaiting guidance from your office.
    It is correct that the AI initiative has been in the works 
for now over a full calendar year, correct?
    Ms. Perlmutter. The issue has been around for about a year 
and a half. We launched our study--our AI initiative studying 
the issues in March and followed up with a notice requesting 
public comment at the end of August.
    Chairman Steil. In March of last year, right?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. A little over a year ago. You got comments 
in August, and you got about 10,000 comments. Is that about 
accurate?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We did. We have read every single one of 
them.
    Chairman Steil. You have bucketed them into key categories: 
literary works, visual works, et cetera.
    I want to dive in, kind of, then, on where you are at in 
this process, because a lot of people are waiting on this. Do 
you have an expected date for your review?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. We are issuing the report in sections, 
frankly, because there are so many issues it would take too 
long to try to do one entire volume covering everything at 
once.
    The first section will deal with the issue of digital 
replicas, the issue that Mr. Morelle has raised in his opening 
statement. That section is close to being finalized, and we 
expect to issue it in the coming weeks.
    The second section of the report will talk about the issue 
of copyrightability of the output created using generative AI. 
That study we expect to issue by the end of this summer.
    Then we will turn to the infringement-related questions, 
including whether the ingestion of copyrighted works for 
purposes of training the AI constitutes fair use, in what 
circumstances it might constitute fair use, and also 
considerations related to licensing and the allocation of 
potential liability.
    That--those last sections of the report we expect to be out 
in the fall.
    Chairman Steil. Obviously, this is a big topic area, a lot 
of comments. Is there something in particular that is driving 
the delay for these reports to come forward, or is it just the 
volume of work? Can you help scale that--or scope that for me?
    Ms. Perlmutter. This is really the timeframe we expected to 
always follow. We--it takes some time, as you can imagine, to 
review 10,000 comments, so we spent the period between 
September and December doing that. Since that time, we have 
been preparing outlines and drafting.
    The only thing that has been delayed a bit is, the initial 
section of the report on digital replicas we had predicted to 
be able to publish by the end of the spring, and, as I said, it 
will now be out within the next few weeks.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you.
    One of the concerns I have heard, in particular, is whether 
or not we are going to see a patchwork of State laws. As we 
look at Tennessee--Tennessee, not waiting for the Federal 
Copyright Office, has taken it upon themselves to pass the 
ELVIS Act--the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security 
Act--a first-of-its-kind legislation prohibiting using AI to 
mimic an artist's voice without permission. It goes into effect 
July 1, just next week.
    I know you are monitoring this Act. Do you have a concern 
that there would be a series of State laws that will arrive and 
come on line prior to your report's coming out? Does that give 
you concern or does not cause you concern?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, there is a concern in general about 
having a patchwork of inconsistent State laws. That is already 
the case with State rights-of-publicity laws, which cover a lot 
of this type of conduct and they differ in many respects, one 
from the other. That is one of the things that commenters 
raised with us as one of the strong arguments they have made 
for a Federal right.
    We know, however, that Congress is not just waiting for us 
to issue the report, because one bill has already been 
introduced; another discussion draft has been circulated. There 
is legislative activity continuing even while we are preparing 
the report, and we are trying to stay abreast of all of that 
activity.
    Chairman Steil. As we think about the operations of the 
Copyright Office, obviously, a need for human capital, in 
particular, understanding AI in a way that probably was not 
prevalent, obviously, a decade ago.
    Do you feel you have the human capital and the knowledge of 
employees inside the Copyright Office to be able to navigate 
through the new questions that are arising as it relates to AI?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, I do. The Copyright Office has always 
had to grapple with, how do we apply new, emerging technologies 
to copyright principles and laws? We have always had to make 
sure that we educated ourselves sufficiently to be able to be 
thoughtful and appropriate in what our recommendations were, 
and this is no different.
    We actually spent months at the beginning of last year, 
after we launched the initiative--so throughout the spring and 
summer--educating ourselves, including having multiple meetings 
with technology companies as well as doing our own research and 
reading. I think we have a good grasp of how the technology 
works; certainly adequate to analyze the copyright-related 
issues.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. Thank you for being 
with us today.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member for the purpose of 
asking questions.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that 
exchange, which was really helpful.
    I did want--I had some questions, as well, on the question 
of AI. Without asking you to sort of preview what the 
recommendations are--because that, as you said, is going to 
come out in a series of reports--can you at least give me a 
sense of, sort of, the analysis you did and the process that 
you used to take new technology and things that would not have 
been even possible a decade ago and sort of just give me your 
thought process on how you place that against, you know, the 
standards that we have used in the past? How do you--what has 
been your charge to staff as you sort of work through this and, 
sort of, the principles that you have used?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We have basically been proceeding on two 
tracks at the same time. Because one of the Office's functions 
is to do policy analyses and assist Congress in analyzing 
copyright issues, and the other piece of our role is to 
administer the Copyright Act, which includes, of course, 
registering claims to copyright.
    We have, throughout the last few years, been looking at 
claims in works that incorporate in some way AI-generated 
material. That has been an ongoing process of having to draw 
lines and decide when there is sufficient human authorship in a 
particular work to support a claim to copyright. Because, in 
our view--and we have been upheld by the courts on this--human 
authorship is required for copyright protection.
    Mr. Morelle. You have sort of, I think--is it fair to say 
that, from your perspective, the notion of generative AI, where 
you cannot trace an author, a human author--that is not 
copyrightable? You have sort of--you have kind of already 
arrived at that conclusion, no?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we have certainly arrived at the 
conclusion that if it is purely generated by AI and there is no 
human involvement, there cannot be copyright protection.
    The District Court for the D.C.--for the District of 
Columbia has upheld that decision. It is now on appeal to the 
D.C. Circuit.
    Mr. Morelle. Because it is interesting, AI does not--I 
mean, there has to be some human involvement, right? I mean, 
you have to train the models, you have to write the algorithms. 
It does not produce it out of thin air.
    So--but it is interesting, where you--and this may be, you 
know, one of those deeply philosophical questions, ultimately, 
to arrive at it--where does human engagement stop and where is 
the tool doing the creative--or the creation of the work?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. Exactly. What we have been doing is 
trying to apply existing principles of how you distinguish idea 
from expression and how you determine whether there is 
sufficient expression to uphold a copyright.
    What we are looking at in each case--of course, you are 
right, there will be some human involvement. Humans have to 
program the machines. The question is, did a human determine 
the expressive elements of the output sufficiently so that we 
can recognize human authorship in it?
    Mr. Morelle. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We are drawing those lines every day in the 
applications we receive. We issued guidance to applicants last 
year that explained what they should do when they are trying to 
register such a work, essentially to disclaim those elements 
that were produced purely by AI and identify what the human 
authorship is of the work.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. It is fascinating, and we are looking 
forward to this continued conversation.
    I want to jump, if I can, quickly, with the last minute and 
a half that I have, around the question of right to repair and 
exemptions that I mentioned in my opening comments.
    Can you just share what factors the Office is weighing as 
it evaluates the proposed expansion of the repair exemptions to 
cover a broader range of devices beyond consumer products? 
There is agricultural equipment; there is a whole host of folks 
that are deeply interested in this. I am just sort of curious 
if you could give me an update on your thinking.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. As you recognize, we have already 
issued--or, the Librarian of Congress has issued one exemption 
for repair for consumer products, and the question is whether 
to expand it.
    Mr. Morelle. Right.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We are in the middle of the rulemaking now, 
so I cannot articulate exactly what we are going to say in 
October. I will say, we are looking at whether there has been 
sufficient evidence produced to meet the standards under the 
1201 rulemaking process.
    We have suggested in the past that Congress look at a 
permanent exemption covering right to repair that could 
possibly be broader than the evidence we see in any particular 
proposal under 1201.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. An issue I have long been involved with. 
You know, from my perspective, understanding there are rights 
here that have to be measured and balanced, but for a consumer, 
in terms of price, you know--and it is not just affordability. 
It is, if you are a farmer and you have to have a point where 
your whole year is relying on being able to harvest and your 
harvester goes down and you cannot get access to repair, it is 
really having a deleterious effect on their work and on their 
business.
    I appreciate your efforts in this and look forward to 
continuing to engage on these issues.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Recognizing where we are at in the vote schedule and the 
theory that we are going to have a first vote that is 20 
minutes long, we are going to recess now. I encourage Members 
to come back quickly. We will pick up where we left off with 
questions.
    This Committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the 
chair.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Steil. I reconvene the Committee and call it to 
order.
    We will continue with our order of questions. I now 
recognize Mr. Loudermilk for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ms. Perlmul--Ms. Perl--Perlmutter. That is hard 
to say, since I served with a Perlmutter for many years. I do 
not know if there is any relation there. Thank you for being 
here.
    You mentioned in your testimony that the modernization of 
the Copyright Office's information technology continues to be a 
top priority as well as a strategic goal.
    Can you elaborate on the Office's partnership with the 
Library of Congress and the Office of Chief Information Officer 
in this effort?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I would be happy to.
    Before I arrived at the Library, the Library had 
centralized IT work within the Library for all of the service 
units, including the Copyright Office. The way the relationship 
works is that the Copyright Office experts develop the business 
goals and priorities and needs, and then work very closely with 
OCIO to help them understand what we need and when and how, and 
then they essentially enable us to do it by developing the 
technology.
    We work extremely closely together, so I would say, at all 
levels, in both offices, we are in contact every day. I meet 
regularly with the Chief Information Officer, Judith Conklin, 
and our teams meet regularly and work together, both formally 
and informally, constantly.
    Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Do you feel like you are getting the 
support you need from the Library and the CIO in order to 
advance these technology programs?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Absolutely. We are working as a team, and 
we have a completely shared vision of where this is going and 
how to work out the timing and make it happen.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Great.
    Can you speak to the IT modernization efforts that will 
harden the Office's systems against security concerns and 
cybersecurity weaknesses, especially in the context of 
electronic deposits of published works submitted to the USCO?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. I am far from a cybersecurity expert, 
but I know that the Library has in place excellent and state-
of-the-art security processes and that, in particular, any 
electronic deposits that we get are protected in transit and 
when we receive them.
    I am sure we can get you a better answer for the record 
with more detail on exactly what is done for security 
purposes----
    Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. from a technical perspective. 
I am assured that it is a very robust system that complies with 
all of the relevant Federal standards and, in fact, is as 
protective as the way that we protect sensitive congressional 
information as well.
    Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Yes, the cybersecurity is an issue; it 
is a growing issue. It will always be an issue. Unfortunately, 
it seems like the Federal Government is often the weak link in 
the chain. That is something that concerns a lot of people, 
especially if you are going to be housing protected works or 
personal identifiable information. That is of high concern.
    Can you tell me about the elements of the new IT system 
that will directly benefit an individual copyright holder who 
is trying to register a new work?
    Ms. Perlmutter. There will be a number of ways in which it 
will be beneficial to copyright holders. Of course, it is still 
in development, and we will be able to show a limited pilot by 
the end of the year of the standard application. People will 
have a chance to see it and give us feedback, and that will--
that feedback will, in turn, go into further development.
    One of the things that I have been most excited about with 
the new ECS registration system is that it will be much easier 
for the average person to use without having any expertise.
    Mr. Loudermilk. OK.
    Ms. Perlmutter. There will be a lot of help given in terms 
of understanding terms, knowing what categories to use, knowing 
what forms to use. I think that will be a tremendous benefit.
    There will also be ways in which it will be much easier to 
upload deposits. It will be faster, it will be easier to upload 
large deposits or multiple works at a time. I think people will 
find that to be a great benefit.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Do you plan on doing some sort of 
controlled testing with real-time users, and will you be asking 
for feedback in that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that is----
    Mr. Loudermilk. OK.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. exactly what we have in mind.
    The idea is to have this limited pilot by the end of the 
calendar year. We are already getting information about people 
who are interested in participating. What we want to do is to 
prioritize those who have been using the existing online 
registration system so that they can helpfully compare what is 
in use now with what we plan to do going forward and give us 
the feedback that we can use to further shape and direct 
development.
    Mr. Loudermilk. The last question, real quickly: Do you 
have plans to keep it within budget and within the timeframe?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. We are currently operating within the 
budget that Congress has given us so far. We have a budget for 
fiscal 1925 where we did get what we had asked for for 
modernization. We have enough right now to proceed as planned 
with the limited pilot by the end of the year.
    We will be making a request in the 1926 budget for 
additional funding to ensure that we can continue in this pace 
of development.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Register, for sharing your testimony today.
    For more than 150 years, the United States Copyright Office 
has been at the forefront of protecting creators and preserving 
our Nation's stories by maintaining intellectual property for 
musicians, artists, literary authors, and other forms of 
creative content.
    Copyright is the engine of free expression, and it plays a 
central role in our access to information. Being able to create 
new materials and share that information with the public is a 
fundamental right recognized by Article 27 of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights. Copyright helps protect the value 
of the creator's work so that the creator can control how that 
information is shared.
    Extremists are making efforts across the Nation to decide 
what information is worthy of consumption by removing books 
that tell the full story about diversity, equity, and inclusion 
in the classroom. Preserving all of our history is important, 
because it reflects the cultural diversity, ingenuity, and 
challenges that the fabric of our Nation was founded on.
    Each year, I look forward to attending the Congressional 
Dialogue Dinners at the Library of Congress, because it gives 
me a chance to access the information that expands our world 
view but also to see all of the amazing archives we have, the 
history that we have in archives.
    This is why I was particularly excited when I read about 
the Copyright Office's efforts to digitize information in your 
testimony, because it makes it more accessible to people. The 
Copyright Office is undertaking a major effort to digitize and 
make available online its vast collection of historical 
records, dating back to 1870, I understand.
    Beyond digitization, what steps is the Office taking to 
enhance searchability and usability of these historic records 
for researchers and the public?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, thank you for that question. I am 
very excited about this project. We, in addition to making 
those historical public records available online--and we have 
done about half of them so far--we are working on--the next 
step will be to develop a way to extract metadata from the 
records.
    Ms. Sewell. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Right now, the great improvement is that 
people do not have to come physically to the Copyright Office 
to look at those records; they can see them online in digital 
form.
    The next step is to enable them to do the research----
    Ms. Sewell. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. without having to go through, 
laboriously looking at each page. We are working right now with 
LC Labs to test an experiment with some AI programs to see how 
we can engage in exactly that project of extraction of 
metadata.
    Ms. Sewell. Gotcha.
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think there is a lot of exciting 
potential there, and we are----
    Ms. Sewell. It is very critical that we figure out how to 
make it really searchable and usable, so I am glad to know that 
you have undertaken that.
    With over 12,000 record books available currently today, 
what is the timeline for completing the digitization of the 
remaining books?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I expect we will be able to do it in the 
next few years. We have to figure out exactly how we allocate 
all of our various resources and fundings between the other 
parts of----
    Ms. Sewell. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. ECS development and this 
digitization project. It is something we plan to do in the next 
few years--to complete in the next few years.
    Ms. Sewell. How is the Office leveraging the partnerships 
and collaborations, both within the Library of Congress and 
within--and with exterial--external--excuse me--organizations, 
to advance its historical record preservation efforts? How are 
you working with public-private partnerships to do that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that is a good question. We are 
looking at the possibility of additional public-private 
partnerships.
    Ms. Sewell. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Right now, we are doing this work on our 
own----
    Ms. Sewell. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. and making it available 
online, as I have said, through the Library's websites. I think 
the idea of public-private partnerships to do further work is a 
good one, and it is one that----
    Ms. Sewell. We should explore, actually.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. I have suggested exploring 
further, yes.
    Ms. Sewell. Exactly.
    Well, thank you for all that you are doing, and look 
forward to the digitization of all the wonderful books and 
historical records that we have. Thank you.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. Griffith is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. I need some help understanding all this. I 
understand the historical records, but when Ms. Sewell starts 
talking about books, some of those books are currently under 
copyright, and if you digitize them and you do not have a 
license, what is the legal--underlying legal authority for 
that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we are not digitizing books under 
copyright. We are digitizing our records----
    Mr. Griffith. Just your records.
    [Crosstalk.]
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. records.
    Mr. Griffith. If you are doing submissions or if you are 
putting your work in, that is not going to be digitized.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We do not take material that is not 
digitized and digitize it.
    Mr. Griffith. You are not making copies digitally of 
material that could be copyrighted--or is copyrighted.
    Ms. Perlmutter. People can submit digital copies of their 
work----
    Mr. Griffith. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. as deposits, but we do not 
take the analog copies and digitize them.
    Mr. Griffith. OK. That is not a part of your plan that is 
coming out?
    Ms. Perlmutter. No.
    Mr. Griffith. OK. All right. That is good to know.
    What documents do you have that you are going to be 
digitizing for the historical records?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We have, they are called historical record 
books, which are records of copyright registrations and 
recordations over the years. The historical public record books 
go back to the 19th century, up until 1978, when the current 
Copyright Act went into force.
    We have those. We also have card catalogs. We have a number 
of different forms of historical records. We have some 
microfilm records that we are also----
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. in the process of digitizing.
    Mr. Griffith. So--and I apologize that I am confused, but 
if I submit a book--and I have not written any yet--but if I 
submit a book to you for registration under the Copyright Act 
and you are digitizing those--let us say I give you an analog 
copy and I want it copyrighted. You are saying you are not 
digitizing those, but then you are saying anything that has 
been filed for registration.
    Tell me--explain it to me.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We are digitizing our records, which are, 
like, applications for registration or lists of----
    Mr. Griffith. Would not that include a copy of the 
underlying book, or----
    Ms. Perlmutter. No.
    Mr. Griffith. That does not?
    Ms. Perlmutter. That is the deposit copy, and that we are 
not digitizing.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I am just trying to make sure I 
get it straight.
    Ms. Perlmutter. It can be confusing.
    Mr. Griffith. It can be confusing, yes, ma'am, and I 
appreciate that.
    The purpose is just so that the historical records can be 
more easily accessed. I am fine with the historical records----
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. Really, for two purposes. One is for 
people who want to use copyrighted work so they can find out 
what is there and who owns it and get in touch with them. The 
other is for researchers.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that.
    What else is exciting going on over there that you have not 
had a chance to tell us about yet?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Oh, wow. There is so much going on. It has 
been quite something.
    One thing that we are very proud of: We have set up a new 
Copyright Small Claims Court 2 years ago, pursuant to the CASE 
Act----
    Mr. Griffith. Yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. that Congress passed in 2018.
    Mr. Griffith. I think you mentioned that earlier, yes.
    Ms. Perlmutter. It is functioning incredibly well and 
getting close to 1,000 claims having been filed. It is 
operating very smoothly and very effectively.
    Mr. Griffith. Again, just so that I am clear, you are not 
taking any documents that are filed as a part of the 
registration process and digitizing the document--the book or 
the work for copyright purposes, just the registration forms?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Just the--just the forms, the information 
that people have given us in connection with registration, but 
not the works themselves.
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Kilmer is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thanks for being with us.
    I want to talk about the local news industry. There has 
been a significant decline in the number of local newspapers 
and outlets across the country. I think that is concerning, in 
part because it keeps our constituents informed and engaged, 
and I think it plays a very important role in maintaining a 
strong democracy.
    The rise of some of the large-language-model AI tools 
presents both some new challenges for local news outlets and 
some new tools that could help them develop more sustainable 
business models.
    We all know how important local news is for our 
communities, so it is important that, as Congress engages on 
this topic, ensuring that regulation of AI tools at the very 
least does not further contribute to the decline of local 
journalism is, in my view, very important.
    I guess I have a number of questions for you in that 
regard, foremost being: Are you getting any feedback from these 
local news organizations and outlets during the listening 
sessions that you have done, in the public inquiry that is 
happening on AI, and on these copyright issues more broadly?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. I would start by saying, we actually 
did a report, now probably close to 2 years ago, about press 
publishers' rights in general, where we recognized the 
challenge for local news outlets and exactly the trend that you 
mentioned, and we expressed concern about that as well.
    We have gotten input from--certainly from the news media 
and news media organizations. I would have to go back and check 
to see if any individual local news outlets filed separately. 
Definitely, that area was well-represented in the comments we 
received.
    Mr. Kilmer. Is there an intentional effort to engage with 
news organizations during the decision-making process regarding 
copyright registration for AI-generated content?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we certainly have an open door, and 
we certainly talk to the News Media Association, among others, 
on a regular basis about their interests and concerns.
    I do not know if that answers your question.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes, I guess I am more interested in whether 
there has been any sort of assertive--I believe you when you 
say your door is open. I wonder if there is just any direct 
effort to outreach to this industry because it is so 
potentially impacted by this.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we have certainly reached out to them 
on specific issues, you know, where we have had, for example, a 
notice of inquiry or a notice of potential rulemaking--proposed 
rulemaking.
    We are, right now, in the process of finalizing a rule to 
allow group registration of news websites in a way that has not 
been possible before.
    Actually, I am quite proud of the fact that we are getting 
that rule completed in record time, because we issued our 
notice of proposed rulemaking in January, and that rule--we are 
expecting to publish the final version in July, so just under 7 
months, which is the fastest we have ever been able to put 
through a change like that and a new group registration option.
    Mr. Kilmer. Let me ask a more, I guess, specific area. 
When, you know, you are looking at potential copyright 
infringements of content that is produced by local media 
organizations, local news organizations, by these large 
language models, has your office done outreach, you know, as 
you sort of think through what those infringements might be 
and, you know, how to engage on that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we are certainly aware of the issue 
and what the infringements might be. I believe that those 
interests were represented, for example, at some of the 
roundtables and meetings that we held last spring and summer, 
in addition to submitting comments to us in the notice----
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Ms. Perlmutter [continuing]. of inquiry.
    Mr. Kilmer. Finally, what do you need from us? You know, as 
you look at specifically this intersection between your work 
and local journalism, is there anything Congress can do to 
better help you address that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, that is a good question.
    I think, in our report on press publishers' rights that I 
mentioned, we did talk about the fact that a lot of the issues 
that were raised seem to relate to areas of antitrust law and 
bargaining power questions that were beyond the scope of 
expertise of the Copyright Office but could make more of a 
difference than anything that the copyright system could 
provide.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Thanks, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Bice is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to circle back around, Ms. Perlmutter, on the 
conversation that Representative Griffith brought up about the 
copyright piece.
    Your office recently had an open rulemaking to authorize 
not just the use or disposition of electronic deposits by the 
Library of Congress but the reproduction, public display, or 
performance and distribution of new copies of electronic 
deposits.
    I want to read to you--this is from the notice: U.S. 
Copyright Office notice of proposed rulemaking concerning a 
regulatory expansion that would grant the Copyright Office 
authority to make or transfer electronic copies of published 
works of authorship submitted by the rights holders for 
registration purposes to the Library of Congress for purposes 
of its digital library operations without licenses or TPM or 
DRM protections and grant the Library authority to make yet 
further copies and provide access to the protected works, 
including over the internet, without licenses or protections.
    First of all, are not those electronic deposits not 
exclusively the rights of the copyright holders under the 
Copyright Act?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. I am not sure what the quote was from 
that you read.
    Mrs. Bice. That is actually from the rulemaking--the 
proposed rule that your office is actually putting forward.
    Ms. Perlmutter. That does not sound like the language of 
the rule, but I will take a look at it. But----
    Mrs. Bice. Yes. U.S. Copyright Office's notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. The question before from Mr. Griffith 
was about whether we take works that are not in digital form 
and digitize them, and that, the answer is, no, we are not 
doing that. The----
    Mrs. Bice. It looks like you are proposing the rule to do 
that very thing.
    Ms. Perlmutter. No. What the rulemaking is about is, when 
people deposit a work in digital form, when and in what 
circumstances it can be offered to the Library to select from 
for its collections.
    As of now, there are some works that already the Library 
can take electronic deposits, digital deposits, for purposes of 
its collections, but it is a limited category. I think it is 
just newspapers and serials. What the proposed rule would do 
would say that the Library can select from digital deposits of 
other types of works beyond just those limited categories.
    It would be under the same very strict limitations, which 
is that the electronic copies are only available on the 
premises of the Library, on dedicated terminals, by two people 
at a time who are authorized users, and do not allow any 
further copying or distribution or downloading of the copies.
    Mrs. Bice. OK. Thank you for clarifying that.
    You are saying that if an author submits a physical book, 
you are not digitizing it and then putting it in the Library of 
Congress's, sort of, database to be able to share. Is that----
    Ms. Perlmutter. No.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. correct? OK. Thank you for 
clarifying.
    I want to pivot to a little bit of a different topic. This 
year, there have been many statements that have been made by 
the Office that have caused concern regarding the efforts to 
modernize the Office's registry system.
    During a meeting in February, the Office announced a notice 
that would be published the following month in the Federal 
Register to reauthorize the Copyright Public Modernization 
Committee and requested applications from interested parties. 
The notice was actually not published until March, and then it 
was only published after Committee Members sent a letter 
requesting an update.
    It is my understanding that many of the Committee Members 
would like to meet more frequently. Can you talk about why the 
Office does not convene this critical Committee more frequently 
than it does currently?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, the Committee was set up through a 
regulation which entailed--which specified that it would meet 
publicly twice a year. Frankly, I thought at some point we 
should talk more often, and so we started having informal 
briefings in between the public meetings.
    The Committee was set up for a 3-year term, and it came to 
an end at the end of last year. We had a final meeting where we 
had a conversation with the Members about what their experience 
had been and what they would like to see going forward, talked 
about increasing the pace of meetings. I think at least 
continuing to have informal briefings in between the public 
meetings is a good idea.
    Someone had said at the last meeting--had predicted that we 
would publish the notice to reauthorize in mid-March. Just due 
to the press of business, it ended up happening at the 
beginning of May, so it was about a 6-week delay. None of that 
changed what the timing would have been to get the new 
Committee up and running.
    The deadline for applying to be on the Committee expired 
last week, and so we are looking at the applications. We will 
hold the first meeting of the new Committee this fall.
    Mrs. Bice. Do you believe that you should be given 
additional authorities or directives to meet more frequently?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I do not think it is necessary. I think we 
can change the frequency of the meetings. My understanding is 
that what the Members had been asking for was consistent with 
what we had in mind, which was a certain number of public 
meetings and then other briefings in between on specific issues 
that the Members are interested in.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mrs. Torres is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Ms. Perlmutter, for being here with us today.
    Some of the Members have already covered many of my 
questions, but I do want to ask and cover this other very 
important subject.
    As we are developing AI tools, we must not forget that AI 
serves as a supplement to human capabilities. In prioritizing 
our core values while harvesting AI, ensuring that we hold on 
to the human touch that informs our work is truly critical.
    That is why I recently introduced the International 
Artificial Intelligence Research Partnership Act of 2024, which 
would expand partnerships between U.S. cities and cities around 
the world in AI research and implementation projects that 
will--or, could spur innovation and uphold our shared global 
democratic values.
    My question to you, Register, is, can you provide a brief 
overview of key themes and issues that have emerged from the 
Copyright Office's listening session on AI and copyright to 
date, including any discussions on how the Office is partnering 
with international counterparts?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, let me start with that last part of 
the question.
    We are in regular communication with international 
counterparts. I mean, it is just absolutely clear that AI 
technologies are being developed all around the world, by 
people from different countries, that they draw on and train on 
content from around the world. We always have to be aware of 
the global context.
    I have been in frequent conversation with counterparts and 
policymakers from countries around the world that are also 
examining these issues. My belief is that the more we all share 
our ideas and our experiences, the more likely it is that we 
will get at least compatible approaches emerging around the 
world, which will avoid impeding cross-border communication and 
trade.
    Mrs. Torres. The European Union has been pretty aggressive. 
Spain, specifically, is trying to master the Spanish version of 
AI.
    You know, I want to make sure that the U.S. does not miss 
on an opportunity to ensure that we are working together side-
by-side to develop, you know, one policy that represents--that 
is representative of all of our democratic values.
    How does your office plan to update your, you know, 
guidance and regulations to keep pace with future innovations?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we are working on that right now.
    Mrs. Torres. OK.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We issued guidance in March of last year on 
how to register works that contain AI-generated material, and 
we have been able to draw on the responses to that guidance. We 
have gotten, of course, a lot of questions about it, 
hypotheticals, people raising issues that maybe had not 
occurred to us.
    Meanwhile, we keep getting new applications to register 
every day. We see in the real world how this is playing out and 
what the issues are.
    We are going to be drawing on all of that to update our 
compendium of Copyright Office practices. We do that always 
through a public notice and rulemaking process, giving people 
an opportunity to give us input.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    On the issue that was covered by my colleagues regarding 
newspaper outlets, I just want to let you know I am very 
concerned about, you know, any policy that would make it harder 
for our newspapers, especially our small newspaper groups, to 
be able to publish and correct articles as they--as the news 
continues to change and evolve.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. Thank you.
    Mrs. Torres. Please keep our office informed of any of 
those issues.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. Carey is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. You know, I want to thank the Chairman; I also 
want to thank the Ranking Member.
    I think that anybody who is watching online or who is 
watching on C-SPAN, I just want you to see how a Committee 
works in a bipartisan way. I think the level of questions that 
we have been asked--or, are asking you are very bipartisan, 
because we want to get to the issues that matter. I just wish 
that my colleagues on other Committees did the same thing.
    I want to thank you again.
    I also want to thank the witness for being here today to 
really discuss this important work with the Copyright Office.
    You know, the Copyright Office dates back to, what, the 
1800's--you know, I am a student of history; that seems like a 
long time ago to me--and serves a wide variety of interests. In 
fact, the Office issued over 440,000 new registrations alone in 
just Fiscal Year 2023.
    Am I correct with that number? I think I am. If I am not, 
you can correct me later.
    Today, I want to focus on the modernization efforts of the 
Copyright Office. With that being said, the Office is now 
almost a decade into--I want to jump on what Mrs. Torres said, 
but--the Office is now almost a decade into the development of 
the Enterprise Copyright System, or the ECS, which is meant to 
integrate and improve all of the Office's technology modules.
    Can you provide an update on the progress made in the 
modernization aspects of ECS and relate directly to the 
copyright registration system?
    It is all yours. The floor is yours.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. I will say, it has been almost a 
decade since we started talking about modernization. The actual 
development work started in 2020, so now about 4 years ago.
    We have made a lot of progress. I spoke in my opening 
statement about progress in recordation and also the 
development of the Copyright Public Record System, but you are 
asking specifically about registration. On that, I would say, 
it has been an area where we have just recently--well, over the 
last year, put a lot of our resources in particular on 
expediting work on the registration component of ECS.
    Working very closely with the Library's OCIO, we are making 
it now a top priority and moving around some of our resources 
so that we can speed up progress. That will include the launch 
of a limited pilot by the end of this calendar year.
    Mr. Carey. OK. That was going to kind of go into my next 
question, which was: Can we expect that the registration 
modernization updates will take effect all at once--you are 
kind of saying we are going to do kind of a pilot program--or 
were they going to be done in increments? Am I safe to assume 
that we are going to do it in increments, not just all at once?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, it will be all at once in the sense 
that, once the entire system is finished and we retire the 
existing eCO system, that will happen at once; we will have an 
entire system.
    My understanding of how the IT development process works is 
that we will be testing out in limited pilot with the public 
different pieces at a time so that we can get input, and then 
that will feed into the further development.
    Mr. Carey. To kind of jump on that, do you feel that the 
Office has the resources it needs to complete its modernization 
in a timely manner?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. We have--at the moment, we have the 
funding and the staff to proceed with that timing that I have 
been mentioning so that we would get the limited pilot up at 
the end of this year. Our goal is to be able to retire the eCO 
system at the end of calendar 2026.
    We have now the funding that can take us--we got the 
funding in the 2025 budget to do the current plan with the 
limited pilot. Then, moving forward, we will be making a 
proposal in 2026 for additional funding to be able to continue 
and finalize the work.
    Mr. Carey. Well, I thank you for your testimony, and I 
thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Lee is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you so much for being here with us today.
    I would like to go into a further discussion about the 
Music Modernization Act, which was signed into law back in 
2018. It established a new entity to administer certain music 
licenses and distribute the associated royalties. Streaming 
services transfer those royalties and data to the collective 
and meet certain criteria in order to obtain a so-called 
mechanical license. The collective, in turn, finds the proper 
copyright owner and distributes royalties back.
    I am interested in talking about that mechanical licensing 
collective. That is something that the Copyright Office 
oversees. Is that right?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. Who are the primary stakeholders that are involved 
in that process?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, the music publishers, the 
songwriters, and the digital services.
    Ms. Lee. Coming up on the 5-year re-designation of this 
collective, what would you say--are we facing a key moment 
here? What work and preparation is being done for looking at 
that 5-year re-designation?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we have issued a notice seeking 
public comment on the re-designation, and we are currently in 
the process of reviewing all of the comments we have received. 
The various time periods, I believe, are not yet final, so we 
are still receiving input as well as analyzing it.
    Ms. Lee. Do you have any ideas or suggestions about how 
that process might be improved?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We--we will have some suggestions once we 
issue our report.
    Ms. Lee. The timeline, then, would be: Right now you are 
getting input from stakeholders, and then after that is 
complete you will be issuing a report, and that report is where 
you will set forth any recommendations from your office?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Lee. All right.
    Ms. Perlmutter. I just should say, I mean, we have issued 
various recommendations for the MLC's operations periodically 
meanwhile. It is not as if this is the first time we have 
engaged in any oversight. This is the big reauthorization 
period.
    Ms. Lee. Are any of the recommendations that you have 
issued so far ones that you would characterize as particularly 
significant or things that you think are going to feature 
prominently in the reauthorization?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, a number of our recommendations have 
been about process. My understanding is that the MLC has been 
generally following those recommendations.
    We are also finalizing a rule right now that has to do with 
termination rights and how that affects who is the appropriate 
recipient of royalties and at what point in time by the MLC. 
That is likely to have a major impact, and that might figure 
into the final report as well.
    Ms. Lee. Now, switching gears a little bit, I would like to 
go back to this subject of artificial intelligence, 
particularly as it relates to deepfakes, misinformation. These 
are things that, I know, as Members of Congress, we all 
continue to hear great concerns about from at home as well as 
here in D.C.
    I am interested in your office's--I believe you either have 
issued or will be issuing a report on digital replicas. I am 
interested in your perspective on whether copyright law is 
potentially the right vehicle to address these challenges.
    Ms. Perlmutter. You are correct; we are going to be issuing 
a report very shortly, in the coming weeks, on the digital 
replica issue.
    There are ways in which copyright law can relate to some of 
these challenges, but it does not directly protect someone's 
identity against its replication.
    What we have right now in the United States is a whole 
array of different laws that could potentially apply in 
different circumstances. There is--and a lot of them are State 
laws, right? Publicity and privacy, unfair competition, and 
then also the Lanham Act at the Federal level.
    In our report, we are going to be looking at: In what ways 
do all of these laws, including aspects of copyright law, apply 
to what is happening out there in the world with these new 
technologies? What are the shortcomings or gaps? Should there 
be a Federal law that can possibly fill in those shortcomings 
and gaps?
    Ms. Lee. Can you tell us some of the ways in which you 
think copyright law may have a role or may provide an avenue 
for relief?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, to the extent that the person whose 
identity is being replicated is also an owner of copyright in a 
work from which the replication is made, they may have 
copyright claims.
    There also could be possible claims arising from the 
ingestion of copyrighted works that feature the voice or image 
of that individual for purposes of training machine learning.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    We have concluded our questions for the panel. I will yield 
to the Ranking Member if he has just a couple closing comments 
before we close.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank you, the staff on both sides, Members on both 
sides. I think the conversation was really an important one and 
very insightful.
    Thank you, Ms. Perlmutter, for--not only for being here 
today and being very thorough in your responses but for your 
leadership. I am sure the Chairman and I will continue to 
engage with you and your team about all the exciting--and it 
really is exciting--things that are happening and all the 
challenges that we all collectively face.
    Again, thanks for your service, and thanks for being here 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    Thank you for being here, Register Perlmutter.
    I know you have a team of about 500 people that work 
tirelessly day-in and day-out. To those that are here and those 
that are listening or watching, thank you for all the work that 
is being done.
    As noted kind of through our discussion today, there is a 
lot of work at the Copyright Office. Technology is evolving 
quickly, in particular as it relates to AI. I look forward to 
the ongoing dialog about the work the Copyright Office is 
doing, in particular, as we modernize and address some of the 
challenges that we face.
    We appreciate you being here today.
    I will also note, without objection, each Member will have 
5 legislative days to insert additional material into the 
record or to revise and extend their remarks.
    Several groups and stakeholders requested to submit letters 
for the record, including: the Copyright Alliance, the National 
Music Publishers' Association, the Coalition of Visual Artists, 
the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild, the 
Copyright Clearance Center, the News/Media Alliance, the 
Digital Media Association, the Nashville Songwriters 
Association International, the Professional Photographers of 
America, and the PLUS Coalition.
    I will submit these letters to the record, without 
objection.
    [The letters referred to follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    

    Chairman Steil. If there is no further business, I thank 
the Members for their participation, and, without objection, 
the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                    QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
                    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]