PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2016
Fairness for American Small Creators Act
This bill establishes in the U.S. Copyright Office a copyright claims board to serve as an alternative forum for parties to choose to resolve certain copyright claims if the total damages sought by a party do not exceed $30,000.
The board must certify its determinations on copyright claims, counterclaims, and defenses for confirmation by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The board is authorized to: (1) conduct hearings and conferences; (2) facilitate settlements; (3) render independent determinations based on copyright laws and regulations without consultation from the Register of Copyrights regarding the facts of a case; (4) award damages; and (5) require cessation or mitigation of infringing activity, including the takedown or destruction of infringing materials, where the parties agree.
The bill preserves the right of parties to instead pursue a claim or defense in court.
The board may conduct proceedings through Internet-based teleconference applications.
Discovery shall be limited to the production of relevant information and documents, written interrogatories, and written requests for admission. But the board may request specific information or approve a party's request for additional limited discovery.
A party may request: (1) the claims board to reconsider its determinations, and (2) the Register of Copyrights to review whether the claims board abused its discretion in denying any requested reconsideration.
The Register of Copyrights may issue regulations to dispose of any claim with total damages of $5,000 or less through a process that provides for: (1) one copyright claims officer to consider the claim and issue a determination, and (2) a copyright claims attorney to determine whether the case shall be heard by one officer or the board.
A party may not assert before a court or tribunal any claim resolved by the board's final determination, but parties may petition the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate, modify, or correct a determination that: (1) was issued as a result of fraud, corruption, misconduct, or undue means; (2) exceeds the board's authority or was executed so imperfectly that the determination was neither final nor definite; or (3) was based on a default determination or failure to prosecute that was due to excusable neglect.
If a party fails to pay damages or comply with relief awarded in a final board determination, the aggrieved party may apply for a court order confirming the final award.
People & committees
Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6496 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6496 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6496 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6496 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.