Skip to main content

Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Submitted by James on Fri, 06/04/2010 - 18:36
CCC, Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
222 Rosewood Drive
Danvers, MA
+1 978 750 8400
+1 978 750 4343
Chief Executive Name
Tracey L. Armstrong
Chief Executive Title
President and CEO
Chief Executive Email
+1 (978) 750-8400
Key representative
Michael Healy
Executive Director, International Relations
+1 (978) 750-8400
History of the organisation
CCC was founded in 1978 at the suggestion of the U.S. Congress that an efficient mechanism for the exchange of rights and royalties be created to facilitate compliance with the then newly revised copyright law. Creators, authors, publishers and users joined together to form not-for-profit Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Year of incorporation
Year of first distribution
Year of first collection
Remarks about the Board
Since CCC’s founding, its Board of Directors has consistently included publishers, creators, and users.
Remarks about the members
CCC has no members. On a voluntary, contractual basis, CCC generally represents holders of copyright rights in textual works, including books, journals, newspapers, magazines, blogs and ebooks.
Staff total number
July 1 - June 30
Type of National legislation
Common Law
Other Law
There is no applicable U.S. statutory license or direct legislative authority. CCC obtains authorizations to license various uses of copyrighted materials through voluntary contracts with individual rightsholders. Voluntary licensing requires significant effort in sales, marketing, and customer service on both the rightsholder and user sides of CCC’s tens of thousands of contracts.
Licensing system
Voluntary Licencing schemes, without any form of back-up in Copyright Laws
Other licensing system
CCC licenses digital uses and photocopying of all kinds of text-based materials (on either a repertory or transactional basis) by users in for-profit and not-for-profit business organizations, libraries, academic institutions of all types, government agencies, medical centers, research institutes, document suppliers, and producers of academic coursepacks, as well as individuals. CCC also provides point-of-content licenses through its RightsLink service as well as some other forms of licenses through other services.
REPROGRAPHIC LICENCES - Types of works licensed
Most categories of text-based works.
Types of uses licensed
Academic (including coursepacks), business and government for both internal and external distribution, document delivery, inter-library loan, and republication.
Types of institutions/sectors licensed
Commercial and industrial businesses, professional organizations, government agencies, libraries, research institutes, copyshops, document delivery services, universities, schools and individuals
Types of uses licensed
Academic (including coursepacks), business and government for both internal and external distribution, document delivery, inter-library loan, and republication.
Types of institutions/sectors licensed
Commercial and industrial businesses, professional organizations, government agencies, libraries, research institutes, copyshops, document delivery services, universities, schools and individuals.
OTHER LICENCES - Public Lending Rights
Other areas of licensing
Incorporated in above.
Distribution methods
Title-specific distribution
Full reporting
Statistical surveys
% Author/Publisher Split
Contracts between creators and publishers
Administration costs as a percentage
Are deductions for cultural and/or social purposes made?
New developments / legislation
The bitter divisions within the U.S. Government that have been displayed across world media and have been the subject of previous reports within IFRRO, have not dissipated as 2021 has begun. However, the election of President Biden has provided the Democratic Party with thin majorities in both Houses of Congress and some ability to enact legislation if the Democratic majority in each House can remain united. Of course, at the same time, the attention of the American public and government on the health and economic devastation brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic has been focused on addressing that devastation after a year of mostly neglect by the previous administration. As a consequence, actual legislation on other issues – while submitted to Congress and even being discussed in the news – is largely being delayed. Nevertheless, in the final days of the previous Congress in late December, as part of a huge “omnibus” bill covering thousands of topics, including some relief for citizens suffering economic damage from the virus, a handful of disparate copyright and trademark provisions – each of which had been under discussion in Congress for some time – were enacted into law. The most prominent of these provisions is the CASE Act, which provides a “small claims”-type proceeding for copyright infringement claims not exceeding $15,000 each and $30,000 overall. The legislation provides the Copyright Office 12-18 months to set up an administrative tribunal (of three hearing officers) and administrative processes (“trials” conducted on paper or online, with streamlined evidence rules and no lawyers required), and it is expected that photographers and graphic artists in particular will avail themselves of the process to seek redress for infringement of their works online. To ensure passage, however, the legislation includes provisions that permit a defendant who would prefer
to litigate in federal court under regular legal process to opt out of a CASE Act proceeding; proponents hope that embarrassment at appearing to be a bully or merely petty will convince most defendants to stay within the CASE Act process. Starting in 2022, we will see whether the CASE Act achieves its proponents’ goals. In the wake of the enactment of the bill, all “pending” copyright matters that had achieved general consensus in Congress have now been addressed and resolved; it is likely that Congress will await further prodding from rightsholders or users (that there is some other legislative change with popular support) before taking up any other copyright matters –which has been Congress’s practice with copyright for many years now. Copyright experts inside (and outside) the government have regularly presented the public and legislators with well-developed arguments and suggestions for ways in which copyright law could be changed to better serve society, but there has not as yet been much support to take those on. Meanwhile, the one other item facing copyright practice (as opposed to law) is an ongoing effort by the Library
of Congress (the parent organization of the Copyright Office) to modernize the Copyright Office’s IT infrastructure and its recordkeeping regarding the copyright registration process; 2021 will see some acceleration of that effort, including with participation from the public.
New developments / court cases
As always, U.S. courts (which are organized into 90+ federal trial courts in thirteen separate appeals circuits, all supervised by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as 50 state systems, each with trial, appeals and supreme courts and all with different jurisdiction) continued this year to address thousands of copyright and related cases, sometimes with unpredictable results that end up requiring many appeals and case-by-case adjustments. (Although copyright cases arise under federal law and are therefore supposed to be heard only in federal courts, state courts often address contract and property cases that involve copyrights or copyrighted material and sometimes make decisions that can incidentally affect the course of copyright law.) Despite the pandemic, which for most of 2020 limited courts’ ability to conduct trials, litigation practice proceeded and procedural and some substantive matters were resolved by trial courts, while appellate courts continued to hear cases.

In a case described in detail in previous status reports to IFRRO, the three academic book publishers (Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and SAGE Publishing) who sued Georgia State University for copyright infringement in connection with the latter’s “e-reserves” practices, decided not to appeal the trial court’s third attempt at complying with
prevailing copyright law and practice as twice directed by the applicable Court of Appeals. The publishers decided that the clear statements of law by the Court of Appeals in two separate opinions over four years were satisfactory to vindicate their efforts to rectify practices at the university (and at similarly situated institutions) and they therefore chose to accept the trial court’s entry of an injunction against the university, even if that injunction was less clear than might have been hoped and, after 12 years, to allow the case to end.

Unusually, in early 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court decided two separate copyright cases. One decision upheld the broad sovereign immunity of the states against copyright claims (leaving the issue to Congress to resolve otherwise if it so chooses). The other decision addressed the copyright status of material published in the name of a state legislature but technically not as “law” (holding that the legislature’s fine distinction between “law” and “annotations of law” is not sustainable and that therefore the “annotations” are not protectable by copyright because they are in essence a statement of the law by the legislature). Further, in early 2021, the Court issued its decision in the long-running case of Google v. Oracle, which started as a patent case but evolved into a copyright case by the time it got to the Supreme Court. Although most observers had expected a narrow technical ruling, a majority of the Court issued a somewhat unusual fair use decision that seemed to say that Google’s use of Oracle’s APIs was a fair use because the APIs weren’t copyrightable (making the opinion internally contradictory) and then concluded by saying explicitly that the decision was unique to software APIs and the facts of this case and should not change fair use law (which is not how common law works). Unfortunately, other parties and other courts are already considering applying the decision to other situations, a result that will confuse US copyright law and probably undermine rightsholders’ infringement arguments at least for a while.
Elsewhere in copyright cases, courts continue to struggle in their efforts to evaluate infringement claims involving component parts of musical works (whether by actual sampling of tiny bits of other works or by what defendants assert is mere “inspiration” from earlier works) – decisions have come down on both sides (fair use and not), producing deeply divided opinions among artists, the industry and copyright lawyers. Finally, in more traditional copyright conflicts, thousands of "ordinary" infringement cases continue to be brought and are hotly disputed every year, often with full exploration by courts of defenses under the nearly unique fair use provisions of U.S. law. Although these cases are always very fact-specific (because that is what fair use analysis requires), both the facts (1) that the defendants’ fair use claims relating to the “transformation of works used” are upheld with some frequency (although, at least up until the week before the Supreme Court’s Google v. Oracle opinion, the scope of “what is transformative” seemed to be getting narrower and clearer) and (2) that plaintiff-rightsholders’ claims to a “making available” right in the digital environment are not being upheld frequently, continue to evolve U.S. copyright law in interesting directions.
Other new areas of development
International Advancement Program (IAP) – The IAP was established to provide a wide range of support to RROs in other countries to help them establish and advance their operations. Designed to complement the IFRRO Development Fund, the IAP may include operational and technical support and training, development of market-facing items such as copyright education tools, and monetary support as appropriate. CCC has supported several RROs under the IAP, notably those in Argentina, Colombia, Ghana, Jamaica, the Philippines and Zambia.
In late 2020, CCC published the ebook “Creating Solutions Together: Lessons to Inform the Future of Collective Licensing,” with contributions from Lois F. Wasoff, Mark Seeley, and R. Bruce Rich. This ebook summarizes how innovative copyright solutions help content users and publishers find a path forward. A free copy can be found here:
Other agreements with RROs
Number of other IFRRO members with which CCC has rights and royalty agreements : 43 - Access Copyright (Canada), Bonus Copyright Access (Sweden), CADRA (Argentina), CAL (Australia), CDR (Colombia), CEDRO (Spain), CEMPRO (Mexico), CFC (France), CLA (UK), CLASS (Singapore), CLEARedi (Italy), CLNZ (New Zealand), COPIBEC (Canada/Quebec), Copydan (Denmark), Copyghana (Ghana), Copyright Polska (Poland), COSOMA (Malawi), DALRO (South Africa), Fjolis (Iceland), HKRRLS (Hong Kong), ICLA (Ireland), IPRO (Netherlands), JAC (Japan), JAMCOPY (Jamaica), JCopy (Japan), KOPINOR (Norway), KOPIOSTO (Finland), KORRA (Republic of Korea), Literar-Mechana (Austria), Luxorr (Luxembourg), OSDEL (Greece), ProLitteris (Switzerland), Reprobel (Belgium), SADEL (Chile), SAZOR (Slovenia), SEA (Panama), SEMU (Belgium), SIAE (Italy), Stichting PRO (Netherlands), Stichting Reprorecht (Netherlands), VG Musikedition (Germany),VG WORT (Germany), ZARRSO (Zambia)
Total amount collected for all licensing
414 500 000.00
Total amount collected for reproduction licensing
Total amount collected nationally for reproduction licensing
Amount for schools
Amount for further education
Amount for higher education
Amount for government
Amount for business
Amount for other sector(s)
Levies on equipment and other mediums
Total amount collected for PLR
Total amount received for licensing from other RROs world-wide
31 100 000.00
Total amount received for reproduction licensing from other RROs world-wide
31 100 000.00
Total amount distributed from all licensing
296 800 000.00
Total amount distributed from reproduction licensing
Total amount distributed to national rightsholders
Total amount distributed to national rightsholders from reproduction licensing
1. Of which for visual works, to publishers only
to publishers and visual creator organisations
to visual creators organisations
to collecting societies only
to individual artists only
Total Amount distributed to foreign RROs
Total amount distributed from PLR
Administration Charge (actual figure)
Please select your currency
US Dollar