Why the Copyright Office Refuses Some Registrations

The Copyright Office refuses a registration for one of two reasons: the material is not the kind of thing copyright protects, or the application does not match the deposit. Both are fixable in many cases, but the fix depends on knowing which one you got. A copyright registration refused on subject-matter grounds may be a sign the work belongs in a different system entirely, often trademark. A refusal based on the application can usually be cured with a corrected filing. This post lists the grounds we see most, the correspondence that precedes a refusal, and the appeal routes. For the filing process itself, see our post on how to register a copyright online; for help with a refusal already in hand, our copyright registration service handles responses and reconsideration requests.

Not enough original authorship

Copyright requires a minimal amount of creative expression. The threshold is low, but it is not zero, and several categories fall below it as a matter of long-standing Office practice. Names, titles, slogans, and short phrases are refused regardless of how clever they are. Lists of ingredients, blank forms, standard calendars, and familiar symbols are refused. Typeface designs as such are refused. Works consisting entirely of information that is common property, such as height and weight charts, are refused.

A short phrase or slogan that functions as a brand may be protectable as a trademark instead. The trademark and intellectual property registration page explains that route. A compilation of facts can be registered if the selection and arrangement reflect creative choices, but the registration covers the arrangement, never the facts.

Ideas, methods, and systems

The Copyright Act excludes ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, and discoveries from protection, even when they are described in a copyrightable work. An application that describes the claim as a “business method,” a “system for,” or a “technique” will draw correspondence or a refusal. The written description of the method can be registered as a literary work; the method itself cannot. Reframing the claim in the application, so that it identifies the text or code rather than the function, often resolves the issue. Where the method is genuinely novel, patent law is the relevant system, and trade secret law may apply if the method is kept confidential.

Useful articles without separable design

Clothing, furniture, lamps, and other useful articles are not protected as such. Design features of a useful article are registrable only if they can be perceived as a work of art separate from the article and would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work on their own. The Supreme Court set that two-part test in 2017, and the Office applies it. A print on a fabric can qualify; the cut of a dress cannot. An application for a product design should identify the separable artistic elements and claim those, not the article.

Insufficient human authorship

As of this writing, the Office’s position is that copyright protects only material created by a human author. A work generated entirely by an artificial intelligence tool in response to prompts is refused. A work that combines human-authored material with AI-generated material can be registered, but the applicant must disclose the AI-generated portions and exclude them from the claim, and the human contribution must itself be more than minimal. An application that omits the disclosure risks a later challenge to the certificate. The Office has published guidance on how to describe such claims, and the field is moving, so check the current guidance before filing anything with AI-generated components.

Application and deposit problems

Many refusals and most correspondence come from the paperwork rather than the work. The deposit does not match the title or the description of authorship. The application claims material the applicant does not own, such as a stock photograph, an open-source library, or a prior registered version that was never excluded. The work-for-hire question is answered yes for a contractor’s work with no qualifying agreement. The claimant is a company but the transfer statement is blank. The publication date is missing for a work described as published.

The examiner typically sends correspondence with a deadline before refusing on these grounds. Answer within the deadline, and answer the specific question. If the correspondence reveals a true error in the application, it may be better to let the examiner amend it than to resubmit, since the effective date is preserved only for the original filing.

What to do after a copyright registration is refused

A written refusal is not the end. The applicant can file a first request for reconsideration with the Office, generally within three months of the refusal date, explaining with reference to the law and the Office’s own practices why the work qualifies. If that request is denied, a second request goes to the Office’s Review Board, again within a set window. The Review Board’s decision is the Office’s final action and can be challenged in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act. Each stage has a fee.

Separately, a refusal does not close the courthouse. The Copyright Act allows an applicant whose registration was refused to file an infringement suit anyway, provided the application was proper and notice of the suit is served on the Register of Copyrights, who may choose to appear on the registrability question. That route is used when infringement is ongoing and the applicant believes the refusal was wrong.

Correcting a certificate that issued with errors

A registration that issued with a mistake in it (a misspelled author, a wrong year of completion, an omitted co-author) is corrected through a supplementary registration. It adds to the public record and cross-references the original rather than replacing it. It cannot be used to add new material to the work or to reflect a transfer of ownership, which is recorded separately. Errors in the author and claimant fields deserve prompt correction, because a defendant in a later suit will use them to attack the presumption of validity that a clean certificate provides, a point covered in our post on why registration matters when copyright is automatic.

If your application drew correspondence or a refusal, a consultation with Capitol Law Partners can determine whether to respond, reconsider, refile, or pursue a different form of protection. Schedule a consultation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

Attorney Cagatay Ersoy. Practical strategy for founders, investors, and growing companies.

Need help with this topic? See our copyright registration and refusal response page or schedule a consultation.