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 2025

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

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

AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Gift this article