associated fees for these services. The Compendium provides guidance regarding the contents and scope of particular registrations and records. And it seeks to educate applicants about a number of common mistakes, such as providing incorrect, ambiguous, or insufficient information, or making overbroad claims of authorship.
The Compendium does not cover every principle of copyright law or detail every aspect of the Office’s administrative practices. The Office may, in exceptional circumstances, depart from its normal practices to ensure an outcome that is most appropriate.
Standard of Deference for the Compendium
The Compendium does not override any existing statute or regulation. The policies and practices set forth in the Compendium do not in themselves have the force and effect of law and are not binding upon the Register of Copyrights or U.S. Copyright Office staff. However, the Compendium does explain the legal rationale and determinations of the U.S. Copyright Office, where applicable, including circumstances where there is no controlling judicial authority.
The Supreme Court recognized that courts may consider the interpretations set forth in administrative manuals, policy statements, and similar materials “to the extent that those interpretations have ‘the power to persuade.’” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (internal citations omitted). “The weight of [the agency’s] judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade….” Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
Courts have cited the Compendium in numerous copyright cases. See, e.g., Alaska Stock, LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., 747 F.3d 673, 684 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding the Compendium “persuasive” concerning the registration requirements for databases); Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 739 F.3d 446, 449 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding the Compendium “persuasive” on the issue of conceptual separability); Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 691, 706–07 (D. Md. 2012) (deferring to the Compendium concerning the registration requirements for collective works); Rogers v. Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 722, 732 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (“The Copyright Office’s ‘policy statements, agency manuals, and enforcement guidelines’ do not carry ‘the force of law,’ but they are entitled to some deference given the ‘specialized experience and broader investigations and information’ of the agency.”); McLaren v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120185, at **9–10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010) (concluding that the Office’s interpretation of the unit of publication regulation “is particularly compelling”).
Compendium Chapters
The Compendium’s chapter scheme addresses the following key areas:
- Background on U.S. Copyright Office and general copyright law (Chapter 100).
- Overview of the registration process (Chapter 200).
