U.S. Copyright Office Fee Hike Faces Industry Response
The U.S. Copyright Office is proposing fee increases that have united creators across the board in opposition from musicians, writers, painters, and related organizations.
by Nina K. Malik
U.S. Copyright Office proposed the registration fees’
≈43%
In return, they received 164 comments from some of the nation's most influential creative and news organizations; the response suggests widespread concern about the accessibility of copyright protection. The Office connects the measure to inflation-linked cost recovery. However, industry leaders argue the move is predicated on flawed financial analysis and threatens to raise significant barriers for the very creators the system is designed to protect.
Music registrations have been steadily decreasing, as reflected in U.S. Copyright Office Annual Reports. In 2023, there were 147,477 music-related registrations; by 2024, that number had dropped to 146,827, and in 2025, it fell further to 137,476–a 6.4% decrease in just one year. This decline is part of a broader trend: overall registrations across all creative works fell from 441,526 in 2023 to 415,780 in 2025. these numbers reflect wider challenges with accessibility and affordability throughout the creative sector.
The American Association of Independent Music, the Recording Academy, and the Songwriters Guild of America detailed in joint filings how streaming economics–with per-stream payouts of fractions of a cent–have created what they describe as "dire" economic conditions for independent artists. The Authors Guild presented survey data showing that over 63% of its members have used the lower-cost Single Application, and that the proposed fees would likely prevent 30% of respondents from registering their works in the future, with another 31% uncertain if they could afford it.
With AI tools on the rise and creators being squeezed out of the Office, it will likely be much harder for creators to file class-action lawsuits against AI developers over copyright infringement because, without registration, creators cannot seek statutory damages or attorneys' fees–the economic tools that make enforcement viable for individual artists.
The proposed fee increases arrive amid an unprecedented transformation of music intellectual property into a global financial asset class. According to new WIPO research, at least $20.4 billion has poured into music rights acquisitions since 2019, with financial giants including BlackRock, Blackstone, and Apollo Global Management building in-house funds to acquire catalogs from artists like Britney Spears ($200 million), Justin Bieber, Bruce Springsteen, and Pink Floyd.
WIPO analysis shows media coverage of
"music rights securitization"
exploded from 56 articles in 2014 to 450 by 2024–outpacing all other music industry news categories. U.S. Copyright Office data reveals that music rights transfers increased 65% by 2020, while the use of music rights as collateral in financial transactions nearly doubled since 2010. Investors increasingly target established catalogs.
Why the boom? The streaming economy has made future revenues predictable and transparent. WIPO research analyzing platforms like K-pop-focused Musicow shows music IP assets remain largely insulated from stock market fluctuations (market beta of approximately 0.07), offering institutional investors portfolio diversification with stable, above-market returns–particularly appealing to pension funds seeking alternatives to traditional bonds.
While Wall Street values established music catalogs at hundreds of millions and institutional investors pour billions into acquiring rights, individual creators struggle to afford $65-$95 registration fees to protect new works. This fee structure threatens to concentrate IP ownership among those who can already afford protection, leaving emerging artists vulnerable in face of AI-generated content and digital infringement.
Several major industry groups, including the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the News/Media Alliance (NMA), have strongly criticized the methodology the Copyright Office used to justify its proposed fee increases. They argue that the Office's cost study artificially inflates expenses by including overhead from departments not directly tied to registration services, such as policy and international affairs–a major departure from how costs were calculated in the 2020 fee study.
According to the NMA, this change has caused overhead costs to soar, now totaling $5.41 in overhead for every $1 spent on actual registration work, compared to just $1.14 a few years ago. The RIAA asserts that these questionable calculations directly affect the proposed fees. The AAP further notes that the study fails to account for the substantial value of deposit copies that copyright applicants provide to the Library of Congress, which the Library values at nearly $58 million per year.
Critics also stress that the Office did not analyze how fee hikes might discourage creators from registering their works, despite several years of declining registrations–a trend that, if worsened, could ultimately negate any intended revenue gains and erode the public copyright record.
Compounding the frustration is the Office's long-delayed and costly IT modernization project. Industry groups question why applicants using what they describe as a deficient, outdated system are being asked to further fund the development of the new Enterprise Copyright System (ECS) through registration fees.
The Association of American Publishers stated:
"The Office's services have fallen short as issues persist for rightsholders using these services. Progress on the Office's IT modernization effort has not been adequately reported and remains murky, which compounds the difficulties in justifying the proposed fee hikes."
Not all comments were in opposition. The United States Internet Preservation Society (USIPS) supported the proposal, arguing that the Office's cost recovery is "unsustainably low" and that American taxpayers should not subsidize the system for its users. USIPS also supports eliminating the Single Application, contending it attracted a high number of unqualified submissions and that higher fees would encourage more carefully prepared applications, thereby improving the quality of the public copyright record.
The impassioned response to the proposed copyright fee schedule for 2026 has crystallized a fundamental debate: Is copyright registration a self-funded government service that should achieve full cost recovery, or is it the foundational infrastructure of the creative economy, requiring accessible pricing to fulfill its constitutional mandate to "promote the progress of science and useful arts"?
The Office itself has previously acknowledged this tension. In its 2020 fee study, the Office stated it "must set fees such that each new fee recovers a reasonable percentage of the cost of processing the claim, but does not result in a more permanent disincentive to register works and a long-term decrease in fee receipts."
The current proposal's statement that "while the proposed increase in fees may reduce service volume, at least temporarily, the decrease should be offset by a more consistent long-term level of cost recovery" represents a notable shift in philosophy that critics argue prioritizes revenue over participation.
As the Office weighs the
164 comments,
its decision will have real-world consequences for American creators' and journalists' ability to protect their work in an increasingly complex digital landscape, particularly as unauthorized AI scraping operates with few guardrails and threatens to undermine intellectual property laws and regulations.
The convergence of declining registrations, collapsing commercial windows for new music, and a $20+ billion institutional investment boom in established catalogs reveals a system increasingly inaccessible to the creators it was designed to serve. Fee increases threaten to accelerate this divide, concentrating IP protection among legacy rights holders while leaving emerging artists vulnerable in the digital age.
The Copyright Office has issued a separate notice of inquiry (NOI) to gather public input on possible alternative fee structures for registration services that could be adopted once the new Enterprise Copyright System (ECS) Registration component is in place. The Office will use this information to analyze the feasibility and desirability of alternative fee structures, including their potential economic impact.
Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on June 24, 2026.
This inquiry is separate from the Office's pending rulemaking proceeding that proposes adjustments to the current fee schedule. Information about the proceeding is available on the Copyright Office Fee Study rulemaking webpage.
