The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is entering 2025 facing some significant challenges.

The CCB has been heavily criticized for being inefficient, difficult for laypeople to navigate, and expensive to operate. Despite that, claimants have still managed to use the CCB successfully.

This includes creators who were awarded thousands in damages, settlements negotiated through the process, and responses to DMCA counternotices.

However, one thing that the CCB hasn’t done much is get into the weeds of complex copyright issues. Simply put, it hasn’t had to. Most of the cases filed at the CCB are relatively straightforward. The board typically deals with clear examples of infringement (or non-infringement), making the bigger question about damages rather than the nuances of copyright law.

One notable exception was last year when the CCB handled a fair use case involving a documentary about comedian Andrew Dice Clay. The board ruled in favor of the respondents, ruling that the use of the comedy special was fair use.

Now, another comedy special is challenging the CCB, this time on the issue of joint authorship. Once again, the board ruled in favor of the respondents. However, the entire case hinged upon one singular issue that could have changed the case drastically.

Background of the Case

The case is 22-CCB-0273. It was filed by Lahna Turner, the widow of Ralphie May, a comedian who passed away in 2017.

In 2003, May released a comedy special entitled Just Correct on CD and DVD. The DVD also contained a special feature that included May doing standup for US troops in Iraq.

However, to produce the DVD, Ralphie teamed up with producer Michael Bloom and his company Solaris Entertainment. Bloom is listed as both the director and one of the producers of the DVD version of the special.

Initially, Melee Entertainment distributed the special. May signed a work-for-hire agreement with Melee, turning over his rights to them. However, Turner reclaimed those rights by getting Melee to transfer them back.

Bloom, through his company, uploaded the special to YouTube in several parts (Note: The video links do not work at this time). This prompted Turner to accuse Bloom of copyright infringement, something Bloom denied.

Turner filed the claim with the CCB in December 2022. However, the board rejected the initial claim and Turned filed an amended claim in February 2023. What followed was nearly two years of back and forth between the parties.

However, the case ultimately boiled down to two key questions: First, was Bloom a co-author on the DVD and the special? Second, if he was, did he sign away his rights to Melee, Turner or anyone else?

On the first question, the board found that he was a co-author. They looked at May and Bloom’s intent to create a joint work and Bloom’s creative contributions to the DVD special. The board noted that he was credited on the DVD and that there was no dispute he had made significant contributions.

On the second, the board found no evidence Bloom had signed away his rights. Neither Bloom nor Melee had any contracts or agreements. As such, the board ruled that Bloom was a co-author and that he had retrained his rights to the work.

Since Bloom is a co-author of the special, he holds copyright interest in the work. Since he has that interest, his uploads were not infringing.

Why the Claimant Lost

To be clear, this is a very brief overview of the case. Many more facts came out in testimony and discovery.

There was much discussion of May and Bloom’s friendship, including that the YouTube videos that were up while May was alive. According to Bloom, May did not disapprove or seek revenue from them.

Bloom also attempted to register the special himself, but the Copyright Office closed the case without issuing a certificate.

In the end, only one thing mattered. Bloom had not signed his rights to the work over to Melee or anyone else.

While it might seem strange that Melee would get such an ironclad contract from May but not the producers, we must remember that this was early in May’s career. This was his first special. He would go on to do four Comedy Central specials and two Netflix ones. This was, by all accounts, relatively informal.

However, these types of informal collaborations are what make joint authorship so difficult. It can be challenging to figure out what people intended and what they contributed, especially decades after the fact.

The CCB did the best it could with the evidence it had. Ultimately, it made the right decision.

But it’s important to remember that this case could have gone very differently if Bloom’s contribution had been less or if he had signed his rights away.

Bottom Line

The case reminds us that whenever we collaborate on a creative endeavor, it’s crucial to spell out expectations in writing. While contracts aren’t fun, they prevent confusion down the road.

The simple truth is that one doesn’t know how valuable a work could become down the road. This was May’s first special. He went on to have a very successful, though unfortunately brief, career.

Though Bloom says he hasn’t made much from the uploads, it still likely generated more revenue than they thought it would at the time.

This is an interesting moment for the CCB. We get to see the board parse a highly complex case from a legal and an evidence standpoint. Overall, it did a good job of getting to the core of the matter and explaining its findings well.

But we have to ask, what does the case say about the CCB itself? Though I don’t doubt it was significantly faster and cheaper than a federal lawsuit, it still took nearly two years. Also, the CCB rejected the initial claim for being incomplete, even though a lawyer represented Turner.

Overall, the case ended well but points to areas where the CCB can improve. Hopefully, that improvement will be part of 2025.