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
Executive Director, International Relations
+1 (978) 750-8400
Key representative
Michael Healy
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.
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.
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 2018-19 fiscal year (ending in summer 2019) covered the end of the second session of the 116th Congress (during which the Republican Party held majorities in both Houses of Congress) and the beginning of the first session of the 117th Congress (for which the Democratic Party had won a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while the Republican Party continued to hold a majority in the U.S. Senate), and through all of which President Trump, a Republican, has been in the White House. As has been covered extensively in the press around the world, particularly after the substantial victories of the Democratic Party in the November 2018 midterm elections, bitter divisions within the U.S. Government continue to produce a virtual standstill on most legislative and public policy issues (even “non-political” ones) other than activities that can be undertaken by the Executive Branch alone (and of course those too have been the subject of widespread news coverage and public debate). Even the distinct improvements in the economic and employment conditions facing the United States have produced no change. As a result, there has again been very limited legislation enacted in the past year on any topic. (It should be noted that the House of Representatives alone has passed significant bills that would result in substantial changes in U.S. public policy across a wide range of topics, but almost none of them have been brought up for debate in the Senate.) Against that background, however, one significant piece of copyright legislation was passed unanimously in both Houses of Congress and enacted in late 2018: the Music Modernization Act was a bipartisan package of amendments to copyright law as applied to music (1) to draw older music performances out of 50 inconsistent state law systems and into the federal-law system with only minor adjustments about protection, (2) to create a collective for handling royalties relating to digital streaming of music (and creating a publicly-accessible database of music rights), and (3) to enact some changes in the way that royalties for compulsory mechanical licenses will be calculated and shared. Meanwhile, for a number of years responsible U.S. Government representatives have been attempting to lead a public conversation about the need for a large-scale revision of U.S. copyright law to reflect the needs of a digital-based economy, but only a few bills on narrow issues have been filed, so far without significant action. Both the Copyright Office and the Department of Commerce (which includes the Patent and Trademark Office) have presented the public and legislators with well-developed arguments and suggestions for ways in which copyright law could be changed to better serve society, and the Copyright Office has also solicited (and continues to solicit) public comment on a number of issues, including what would be required for a wholesale “modernization” effort for the Office itself. Despite all that work, congressional leaders of both parties have made clear that they are awaiting joint proposals from rightsholders and users of copyrighted works that have a substantial chance of enactment (such as occurred with the Music Modernization Act in 2018) before undertaking significant legislative effort. Observers have had mixed reactions to the process so far: many recall that the last effort to thoroughly revise the U.S. Copyright Act took more than 20 years to produce a bill on which legislative action could be taken (in 1974) in the face of widely divergent views among copyright industries, copyright users and the public, but many are also well aware of the need for new U.S. legislation if the information, entertainment and technology industries are going to be able to compete successfully on a global basis.
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.) In a case described in detail in previous status reports to IFRRO, in the autumn of 2018 the applicable Court of Appeals issued its decision on appeal of a second trial court decision in the “e-reserves” suit brought by a group of three book publishers (Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and SAGE Publishing) against Georgia State University. The Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court’s decision finding fair use by the University and directed the trial court to try once more, now with much more strict instructions about how to conduct the required fair use analysis. The parties completed their briefing to the trial court in the spring of 2019 and hope to receive a new decision from the trial court very soon. Unusually, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide significant copyright issues in its next annual term, one case addressing the scope of sovereign immunity of the states against copyright claims, and another case addressing the copyright status of material published on behalf of a state but technically lacking the force of law (which decision might also indirectly affect the copyright status of published standards that have been incorporated into law, such as privately-developed safety standards). Outside the text field, of particular note courts have been struggling 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 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), (1) defendants’ fair use claims relating to the “transformation of works used” (which are upheld with some frequency, although the scope of “what is transformative” seems to be getting gradually narrower and clearer) and (2) plaintiff-rightsholders’ claims to a “making available” right in the digital environment (which are not being upheld frequently), are both evolving 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.
Other agreements with RROs
Number of other IFRRO members with which CCC has rights and royalty agreements : 45 - Access Copyright (Canada), B-Copy (Barbados), 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), TTRRO (Trinidad & Tobago), VG Musikedition (Germany),VG WORT (Germany), ZARRSO (Zambia)
Total amount collected for all licensing
389 100 000.00
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
31 600 000.00
Total amount received for reproduction licensing from other RROs world-wide
31 600 000.00
Total amount distributed from all licensing
264 700 000.00
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