USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 1 of 50
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED]
`No. 21-5203
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`____________________________________________________
`
`VALANCOURT BOOKS, LLC,
`v.
`
`MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; SHIRA PERLMUTTER, in her
`official capacity as Register of Copyrights for the U.S. Copyright Office,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
`ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, ASSOCIATION OF
`COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE
`___________________________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
`Case No. 1:18-cv-01922-ABJ
`Hon. Amy Berman Jackson
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Jonathan Band
`Jonathan Band PLLC
`21 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 296-5675
`jband@policybandwidth.com
`
`Erik Stallman
`Samuelson Law, Technology
` & Public Policy Clinic
`UC Berkeley School of Law
`587 Simon Hall
`Berkeley, CA 94702
`(510) 642-2485
`estallman@clinical.law.berkeley.edu
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS UNDER REVIEW,
`AND RELATED CASES
`
`Counsel for amici curiae certify as follows:
`
`(A) Parties and amici:
`
`All parties, intervenors, and amici appearing in the proceedings below are
`
`listed in the Brief of Appellants.
`
`(B) Rulings under review:
`
`References to the rulings under review appear in the Brief of Appellants.
`
`(C) Related cases:
`
`Amici are unaware of any related cases.
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, the American Library Association, the
`
`Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research
`
`Libraries (amici library associations) state that they have no parent corporations and
`
`that no publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity owns ten percent
`
`(10%) or more of any amicus library association.
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... x
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ........................................................................ x
`
`STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI ................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`I. The Deposit Requirement Is a Valid Condition on a Statutory Right Because
`It Helps Fulfill the Essential Bargain of Copyright. .......................................... 4
`A. The Deposit Requirement Is Part of the Quid Pro Quo of Copyright
`Protection. ................................................................................................ 5
`B. The Deposit Requirement and the Library of Congress Have Become
`More Essential to Fulfilling the Purpose of Copyright Over Time. ........ 7
`II. The Deposit Requirement Ensures Preservation of and Access to Significant
`Works at Risk of Disappearance. ..................................................................... 11
`A. Works Deposited Under § 407 Support a Comprehensive and Diverse
`National Collection. ............................................................................... 12
`B. The Library of Congress’s Preservation Efforts Allow the Public to
`Access Works After Rightsholders Lose Their Incentive to Provide
`Them. ..................................................................................................... 14
`C. Access to Deposited Works Expands the Store of Public Knowledge
`and Leads to the Creation of New Works. ............................................. 19
`III. Costs Imposed by § 407 Are Minor Compared to the Benefits That
`Rightsholders Receive From the Copyright System. ....................................... 21
`A. The Burdens of § 407 Have Been Overstated. ....................................... 21
`B. Rightsholders Benefit From Copyright Protection and Enforcement
`Even Without Registering Their Works. ............................................... 24
`C. Authors and Publishers Benefit From Library Deposits. ....................... 25
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 27
`
` iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 29
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Am. Soc’y for Testing & Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 896 F.3d 437
`(D.C. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ................................................................ 17
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ......................................................... 7
`
`Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020) ............................. 24
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) ........................................ 6
`
`Ladd v. L. & Tech. Press., 762 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................... 7, 10
`
`Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) ................................................ 5
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ......................... 5
`
`Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990) .................................................................... 4
`
`Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) ....................................................... 6
`
`FEDERAL LAWS AND STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 8111 .................................................................................................... 24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1201 .................................................................................................... 25
`
`17 U.S.C. § 407(c) ............................................................................................ 21, 22
`
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c) .................................................................................................. 25
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2319(c) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`An Act to Establish the “Smithsonian Institution,” for the Increase and Diffusion of
`Knowledge Among Men, 9 Stat. 102 (1846) ........................................................ 8
`
` v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`The Copyright Act of 1710 (the Statute of Anne), 8 Ann. c. 19. (1710) (Gr. Brit.) 7,
`8
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.19(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.19(c) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.19(e) ............................................................................................. 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.24 .................................................................................................. 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.24(d) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 202.19(c)(5) ...................................................................................... 22
`
`Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only Online, 75 Fed.
`Reg. 3863 (Jan. 25, 2010) ................................................................................... 11
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`An Act for the Purpose of Securing to Authors the Exclusive Right and Benefit of
`Publishing Their Literary Productions for Twenty-One Years, in The Perpetual
`Laws of the Commonwealth of Mass. (Adams and Nourse, 1789),
`https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation.php?id
`=representation_us_1783d [https://perma.cc/273W-6NF6] ................................. 8
`
`Elizabeth K. Dunne, Study No. 20: Deposit of Copyrighted Works, in Copyright
`Law Revision Studies Prepared for the Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks, and
`Copyrights of the Comm. On the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print
`1960) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Sen.
`Misc. Rep. No. 120, 31st Cong., 1st Sess. (1850) ................................................. 9
`
`S. Rep. No. 100-352 (1988) ................................................................................ 5, 10
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS
`
`Libr. of Cong., Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year
`Ending Sept. 30, 2020 (2020), https://www.loc.gov/static/portals/about/reports-
`
` vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`and-budgets/documents/annual-reports/fy2020.pdf [https://perma.cc/F77K-
`PPKP] ........................................................................................................... 11, 20
`
`Libr. of Cong., Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for the Fiscal Year
`Ending September 30, 2019 (2019),
`https://www.loc.gov/static/portals/about/reports-and-budgets/documents/annual-
`reports/fy2019.pdf .............................................................................................. 20
`
`Libr. of Cong., Fiscal 2021 Budget Justification (2020) ....................................... 18
`
`Libr. of Cong., Fiscal 2022 Budget Justification (2021) ....................................... 18
`
`Robert Wedgeworth & Barbara Ringer, Advisory Committee on Copyright
`Registration and Deposit: Report of The Co-Chairs (1993) .... 10, 11, 12, 13, 19,
`23, 24, 25
`
`The Section 108 Study Group Report, U.S. Copyright Office, Mar. 2008,
`https://www.section108.gov/docs/Sec108StudyGroupReport.pdf ..................... 21
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`A Study of the Current State of American Film Preservation: Volume 1, Libr. of
`Cong. (June 1993), https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-film-preservation-
`board/preservation-research/film-preservation-study/current-state-of-american-
`film-preservation-study/ [https://perma.cc/9LKQ-S4FV] .................................. 17
`
`Craig Joyce, “A Curious Chapter in the History of Judicature”: Wheaton v. Peters
`and the Rest of the Story (of Copyright in the New Republic), 42 Hous. L. Rev.
`325 (2005) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Daniel J. Boorstin, The Indivisible World: Libraries and the Myth of Cultural
`Exchange, in Center for the Book Viewpoint Series No. 15 (1985) ................... 12
`
`Ed Yong, What Was Lost in Brazil’s Devastating Museum Fire, The Atlantic (Sept.
`4, 2018), https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/brazil-rio-de-
`janeiro-museum-fire/569299/ [https://perma.cc/4LYM-LJLZ] .......................... 15
`
`Ellen C. Dement, The Making of a National Library, 2 Vand. Hist. Rev. 74.
`(2017) .................................................................................................................... 9
`
` vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`Gen. Info. Programme and UNISIST, Lost Memory – Libraries and Archives
`Destroyed in the Twentieth Century, UNESCO CIl-96/WS/1 (Mar. 1996) ....... 16
`
`Jody Rosen, The Day the Music Burned, N.Y. Times (June 11, 2019),
`https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/11/magazine/universal-fire-master-
`recordings.html [https://perma.cc/3HXN-6RE3] ......................................... 16, 17
`
`John Y. Cole, America’s Greatest Library: An Illustrated History of the Library of
`Congress (GILES 2017) ....................................................................................... 9
`
`Kenneth E. Harris & Susan E. Schur, A Brief History of Preservation and
`Conservation at the Library of Congress (Oct. 2006),
`https://www.loc.gov/preservation/about/history/pres-hist.pdf ........................... 18
`
`LC Lowers Age of Users for Main Reading Room, 19 Libr. of Cong. Gazette 1
`(May 2, 2008) ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`Libr. of Cong., Introduction to Collections Policy Statements,
`https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cps.html [https://perma.cc/2YCN-MQAJ] ..... 13
`
`Libr. of Cong., Library of Congress Collections Policy Statements: Ethnic
`Materials—United States (Updated Apr. 2022),
`https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/ethnic.pdf [https://perma.cc/RGS9-FVHH] ... 14
`
`Libr. of Cong., Library of Congress Collections Policy Statements: LGBTQIA+
`Studies (Rev. Mar. 2022), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/lgbtqia.pdf
`[https://perma.cc/MQ6C-TH97] ......................................................................... 14
`
`Libr. of Cong., Library of Congress Collections Policy Statements: Literature and
`Language (Rev. Mar. 2022), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/litlang.pdf
`[https://perma.cc/Z9QX-3YMB] ............................................................ 12, 13, 14
`
`Libr. of Cong., Library of Congress Collections Policy Statements: Women’s and
`Gender Studies (Rev. Apr. 2022), https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/wgs.pdf
`[https://perma.cc/FMU9-KSJ4] .......................................................................... 14
`
`Mike Casey, Why Media Preservation Can’t Wait: The Gathering Storm, 44 Int’l
`Ass’n of Sound and Audiovisual Archives J. 14 (2015) .................................... 16
`
`Nora McGreevy, Why the Cape Town Fire Is a Devastating Loss for South African
`Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Mag. (Apr. 20, 2021),
`
` viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cultural-heritage-historic-library-
`destroyed-south-africa-blaze-180977539/ [https://perma.cc/XC6Y-2QA5] ...... 15
`
`Our History, Valancourt Books, https://www.valancourtbooks.com/our-
`history.html [https://perma.cc/CHP6-JPEE] ....................................................... 26
`
`Overview, The Nat’l Libr. Service for the Blind and Print Disabled (2020),
`https://www.loc.gov/nls/about/overview/ [https://perma.cc/J7Y3-VCAZ] ........ 20
`
`Parul Zaveri, Damage to Libraries Due to Water Related Disasters, Library
`Philosophy and Practice, Libr. Phil. Prac., Aug. 2014 ...................................... 16
`
`Pranshu Verma, Meet the 1,300 Librarians Racing to Back Up Ukraine’s Digital
`Archives, Wash. Post (Apr. 8, 2022),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/08/ukraine-digital-
`history/ [https://perma.cc/6HNJ-AL3Y] ............................................................. 15
`
`Request Items Through Interlibrary Loan, 5 Libr. of Cong. Mag. 6 (2016) .......... 20
`
`William F. Patry, 3 Patry on Copyright (2022) ...................................................... 17
`
`Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Reflections on Copyright: I, 45 Colum. L. Rev. 503
`(1945) .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ACCORD: Advisory Committee on Copyright Registration and Deposit
`
`ACCORD Report: Robert Wedgeworth & Barbara Ringer, Advisory Committee
`on Copyright Registration and Deposit: Report of the Co-Chairs (1993)
`
`Berne Convention: The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
`Artistic Works
`
`The Library: The Library of Congress
`
`Valancourt: Valancourt Books, LLC
`
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Except for 37 C.F.R. § 202.19, all pertinent statutes and regulations are
`
`contained in the Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
` x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI1
`
`The American Library Association (“ALA”), established in 1876, is a non-
`
`profit professional organization of more than 57,000 librarians, library trustees, and
`
`other friends of libraries dedicated to providing and improving library services and
`
`promoting the public interest in a free and open information society.
`
`The Association of College and Research Libraries (“ACRL”), the largest
`
`division of the ALA, is a professional association of academic and research
`
`librarians and other interested individuals. It is dedicated to enhancing the ability of
`
`academic library and information professionals to serve the information needs of the
`
`higher education community and to improve learning, teaching, and research.
`
`The Association of Research Libraries (“ARL”) is an association of 126
`
`research libraries in North America. ARL’s members include university libraries,
`
`public libraries, and government and national libraries. ARL programs and services
`
`
`1 In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, no party’s counsel
`authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money
`that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and no person
`contributed money that was intended to fund preparing and submitting the brief. Fed.
`R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E). The Library of Congress is a member of the Association of
`Research Libraries. The Library of Congress did not contribute any funds specific
`to the preparation or submission of this brief, or provide assistance in that regard.
`All parties have consented to the filing of this amicus brief. Counsel for amici are
`not aware of any other amicus brief to be filed in support of Defendants-Appellees.
`
` 1
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`promote equitable access to and effective use of recorded knowledge in support of
`
`teaching and research.
`
`Collectively, these three library associations (amici library associations)
`
`represent over 117,000 libraries in the United States.
`
`The amici library associations submit this brief because of the importance of
`
`the deposit requirement to accomplishing their member libraries’ mission to collect
`
`and preserve works embodying our cultural heritage. Deposit is essential in
`
`supporting the efforts of the Library of Congress to provide public access to a
`
`comprehensive national collection. The Library participates in many programs that
`
`ensure that library users throughout the country have access to those works, both
`
`during and after copyright owners’ period of exclusivity. That public access is part
`
`of the essential bargain struck by our copyright laws and the mission of the amici
`
`library associations and their member libraries.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Understanding the § 407 deposit requirement’s relationship to our copyright
`
`system turns on understanding the role the Library of Congress plays in that system.
`
`The purpose of this brief is to explain that role and the function of the § 407 deposit
`
`requirement in fulfilling it.
`
`A fundamental part of the quid pro quo of our copyright system is a temporary
`
`and federally enforced period of exclusivity for copyright owners—with appropriate
`
` 2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`limitations and exceptions—in exchange for public access to creative works after
`
`the period of exclusivity. Congress included the § 407 deposit requirement to help
`
`effectuate that bargain by channeling significant published works into the Library’s
`
`national collection. Congress’s decision enjoys substantial deference under our
`
`copyright precedent. It is also rationally related to a legitimate government interest
`
`and the conferral of a statutory benefit under our Takings Clause jurisprudence.
`
`Cases regarding personal property are inapposite because copyright interests are not
`
`common-law property rights.
`
`The deposit requirement’s connection to the purpose of copyright has only
`
`strengthened over time. With the birth of the Library of Congress, the deposit
`
`requirement has served to preserve works in a national collection available to the
`
`public both during and after the term of copyright protection. It is unsurprising that
`
`Congress chose to retain the requirement even after dispensing with formalities to
`
`conform the Copyright Act to the Berne Convention.
`
`Section 407 deposit allows the Library and the Copyright Office to ensure that
`
`significant works enter the national collection regardless of registration status,
`
`popularity, or commercial exploitation. This ability is particularly important as
`
`copyright terms now span longer than rightsholders’ interests in preserving the
`
`works they own. Without the Library’s extensive efforts to preserve deposit copies,
`
`works would be lost long before the period of exclusivity expires. As happened in
`
` 3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`this case. The Library’s efforts to put deposit copies into the hands of the public,
`
`regardless of their location or disability, similarly furthers the purpose of copyright.
`
`Finally, the costs of complying with the deposit requirement are modest
`
`compared to the benefits rightsholders receive and a fair exchange for copyright’s
`
`tax on readers. An assessment of those costs must include the flexibility § 407
`
`affords the Copyright Office to ensure that the requirement does not impose undue
`
`burdens. It must also account for the full benefits that publishers like Valancourt
`
`Books receive from copyright, including the ability to exploit a rare public domain
`
`work that the publisher found in—of all places—a library.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. The Deposit Requirement Is a Valid Condition on a Statutory Right
`Because It Helps Fulfill the Essential Bargain of Copyright.
`
`The deposit requirement is foundational to U.S. copyright law and helps fulfill
`
`the constitutional purpose of copyright. Congress, through the Copyright Act, has
`
`“creat[ed] a balance between the artist’s right to control the work during the term of
`
`copyright protection and the public’s need for access to creative works.” Stewart v.
`
`Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 228 (1990). The deposit requirement is an essential part of that
`
`balance because it ensures “public access to the products of [authors’] genius after
`
`the limited period of exclusive control has expired.” See Sony Corp. of Am. v.
`
`Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). It is thus rationally related to a
`
`legitimate government interest and a valid condition on a statutory benefit.
`
` 4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 16 of 50
`
`
`While copyright law in the United States has changed significantly, library
`
`deposit has remained an important fixture. In 1846, through the Smithsonian Act,
`
`Congress formally initiated deposit for use in libraries in order to build a national
`
`collection. Elizabeth K. Dunne, Study No. 20: Deposit of Copyrighted Works, in
`
`Copyright Law Revision Studies Prepared for the Subcomm. on Patents,
`
`Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Comm. On the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.
`
`(Comm. Print 1960), at 11–12. Even after the Berne Convention, Congress retained
`
`the deposit requirement for library use because it is a necessary tool in building a
`
`national collection. See S. Rep. No. 100-352 at 45 (1988). As the mission of the
`
`Library of Congress has evolved, the deposit requirement’s connection to the core
`
`purpose of copyright has only strengthened.
`
`A. The Deposit Requirement Is Part of the Quid Pro Quo of Copyright
`Protection.
`
`As the Court in Monsanto explained, Congress may condition voluntarily
`
`sought benefits on the furnishing of certain private property if that condition
`
`rationally relates to a legitimate government interest. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`467 U.S. 986, 1007 (1984) (conditions on voluntarily sought government benefit
`
`(registration to sell pesticides) were “rationally related to a legitimate Government
`
`interest” and constitutional). Valancourt laid claim to that economic advantage when
`
`it affixed copyright notices and a warning to potential infringers of its works. JA
`
`113.
`
` 5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 17 of 50
`
`
`Comparisons to the “basic and familiar use of property” at issue in Horne are
`
`improper. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 366 (2015). Copyright is not a
`
`basic and familiar use of property. It has been clear since at least Wheaton v. Peters
`
`that copyright is not a common-law property right, and that Congress may prescribe
`
`the conditions under which it is enjoyed. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591,
`
`663–64 (1834). Nor does the Copyright Act rest on “any natural right that the author
`
`has in his writings . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be
`
`served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to
`
`authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings.” Am. Soc’y for
`
`Testing & Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 896 F.3d 437, 445 (D.C. Cir.
`
`2018) (citing to H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222, at 7 (1909)). Far from a natural property
`
`right of authors, “the principle of copyright is a ‘tax on readers for the purpose of
`
`giving a bounty to writers.’” Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1195
`
`(2021) (quoting Thomas Macaulay, Speeches on Copyright 25 (1913)). And
`
`Congress, “weighing advantages and disadvantages, will determine the more
`
`specific nature of the tax, its boundaries and conditions, the existence of exceptions
`
`and exemptions, all by exercising its own constitutional power to write a copyright
`
`statute.” Id. at 1195–96.
`
`Just as fair use is a valid limitation on the scope of exclusive rights conferred
`
`by the Copyright Act, the deposit requirement is a valid condition on the enjoyment
`
` 6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 18 of 50
`
`
`of those exclusive rights. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. This is true regardless of whether
`
`noncompliance with that condition results in forfeiture of the exclusive rights. Both
`
`fair use and the deposit requirement ensure that copyright “ultimately serves the
`
`purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works.” Fogerty
`
`v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 527 (1994). The § 407 deposit requirement
`
`accomplishes this objective by promoting public access to works both during and
`
`after the period of copyright exclusivity.
`
`B. The Deposit Requirement and the Library of Congress Have Become
`More Essential to Fulfilling the Purpose of Copyright Over Time.
`
`The purpose of the deposit requirement has evolved over time. The most
`
`notable development in that evolution has been the creation of the Library of
`
`Congress and its public-facing mission. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Ladd,
`
`“[t]he Copyright Clause grants copyright protection for the purpose of promoting
`
`the public interest in the arts and sciences. Conditioning copyrights on a contribution
`
`to the Library of Congress furthers this overall purpose.” Ladd v. L. & Tech. Press.,
`
`762 F.2d 809, 814 (9th Cir. 1985). Although the failure to deposit works with the
`
`Library is no longer grounds for forfeiture, the connection between the § 407 deposit
`
`requirement and the purpose of copyright persists.
`
`The deposit requirement finds a precursor in the Statute of Anne. The
`
`Copyright Act of 1710 (the Statute of Anne), 8 Ann. c. 19. (1710) (Gr. Brit.). The
`
`Statute required nine copies of each published work to be deposited for distribution
`
` 7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 19 of 50
`
`
`to prominent libraries such as the Bodleian at Oxford University. Id. art. V.
`
`Massachusetts’ 1783 copyright statute similarly provided that one copy of every
`
`copyrighted book be forwarded “to the library of the university at Cambridge
`
`[Harvard], for the use of said university.” An Act for the Purpose of Securing to
`
`Authors the Exclusive Right and Benefit of Publishing Their Literary Productions
`
`for Twenty-One Years, in The Perpetual Laws of the Commonwealth of Mass. 369–
`
`70 (Adams and Nourse, 1789).2 The first federal copyright law, the Copyright Act
`
`of 1790, contained a deposit requirement to the office of the Secretary of State,
`
`which appears unrelated to access and preservation. Craig Joyce, “A Curious
`
`Chapter in the History of Judicature”: Wheaton v. Peters and the Rest of the Story
`
`(of Copyright in the New Republic), 42 Hous. L. Rev. 325, 361 (2005).
`
`The Smithsonian Institution Act of 1846, however, established a direct
`
`connection between deposit and the building of a national collection. The Act
`
`provided that one copy of each work should be delivered to the Librarian of the
`
`Smithsonian Institution and to the Librarian of Congress within three months after
`
`publication to build a national library. An Act to Establish the “Smithsonian
`
`Institution,” for the Increase and Diffusion of Knowledge Among Men, 9 Stat. 102,
`
`106 (1846). Charles Jewett, the librarian appointed to the Smithsonian, stressed the
`
`
`2 For authorities available on the internet, URLs appear in the Table of Authorities.
`All sites were last visited on June 1, 2022.
`
` 8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 20 of 50
`
`
`importance of the deposit requirement in building a national library: “[t]o the public,
`
`the importance, immediate and prospective, of having a central depot, where all the
`
`products of the American press may be gathered, year by year, and preserved for
`
`reference, is very great.” Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the
`
`Smithsonian Institution, Sen. Misc. Rep. No. 120, 31st Cong., 1st Sess. at 35 (1850).
`
`In an effort to centralize copyright registration and deposit, the Copyright Act
`
`of 1870 transferred all deposits to the Library of Congress. John Y. Cole, America’s
`
`Greatest Library: An Illustrated History of the Library of Congress 42 (GILES
`
`2017). Originally built as a reference library for members of Congress, the Library
`
`has expanded to become a key resource for the American public. Ellen C. Dement,
`
`The Making of a National Library, 2 Vand. Hist. Rev. 74 (2017).
`
`While eliminating copyright formalities, the Berne Convention left room for
`
`member countries to request deposit copies and to impose fines for failure to comply.
`
`Jane C. Ginsburg, The U.S. Experience with Formalities: A Love/Hate Relationship,
`
`33 Columbia J. L. & Arts 311, 316 (2010). When implementing Berne, the Senate
`
`Committee on the Judiciary recognized that deposits under § 407 worked to advance
`
`the purposes of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. S. Rep. No. 100-352, at 45
`
`(1988). The Committee reasoned that, even though deposit would no longer be a
`
`condition of copyright protection, it remained “an element of the ‘quid pro quo’ paid
`
`by authors and copyright owners for the benefits they enjoy as copyright
`
` 9
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5203 Document #1949303 Filed: 06/03/2022 Page 21 of 50
`
`
`proprietors.” Id. The Committee also emphasized that the expansion of the deposit
`
`requirement to include works that