Supreme Court refuses to hear Copyright Royalty Board challenge

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Supreme Court refuses to hear Copyright Royalty Board challenge

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the organisation that sets royalty fees for copyrighted music.

On Tuesday, the court refused to grant a writ of certiorari by Intercollegiate Broadcast System (IBS), an association of non-commercial webcasters broadcasting to educational institutions, which challenged the authority of the Copyright Royalty Board.

The Copyright Royalty Board, a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress, was created under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. IBS had argued that the board should instead be appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate.

The case stemmed from the board’s decision to make noncommercial educational webcasters pay an annual fee of $500 per channel to play unlimited amounts of music. Challenging the fee before the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia, IBS argued that the $500 charge was invalid because the board’s structure was unconstitutional.

In July 2012, the appellate court agreed that the Copyright Royalty Board was unconstitutional because of restrictions on the Librarian of Congress’s ability to remove the judges, but fixed the issue by removing these restrictions.

Having decided that the board’s structure was unconstitutional at the time it determined the fee, the appellate court vacated the board’s decision but did not address IBS’s arguments regarding whether the rate structure was correct.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Europe’s largest intellectual property convention and trade fair is back: IP Service World 2026 takes place in Munich from November 23–25 – the 16th edition, with 1,400-plus attendees from 55-plus nations, 100-plus speakers, and 100-plus exhibitors. Three days. Two focused areas. One IP marketplace.
Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
Gift this article