ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS A CONTINUING THREAT TO ARTISTIC CREATIVITY & AN ONGOING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NIGHTMARE!

 

The headlines are full of stories about artificial intelligence (“AI”). It seems AI has gone from science fiction to reality in a very short period of time. From Open AI’s ChatGPT app to Google’s MusicLM music creation tool, and beyond, the future is now. A few decades back the struggle over digital rights and copyrights was a sideshow, of concern only to a relatively small slice of the population. Now, however, everyone is online, which means that even if you don’t consider yourself a creator as such, material you write, post or share could become part of an AI engine and used in ways you never imagined. To wit, several of my clients have recently raised concerns about the threat of AI, and the threat AI may pose to authors, artists (both fine and graphic artists) as well as songwriters and musicians… so let me try to break it down.

The tech behind AI is a complicated, but at its most basic AI engines ingest massive data sets (sometimes referred to as “scrapping”), which AI engine then use to train software that can make recommendations or even generate code, art, or text. Sometimes the engines are scouring the web for endless data sets so they can learn what is on a webpage and catalog it for search queries; other times, AI engines have access to huge proprietary data sets built in part by the text, photos, and videos users have posted on their respective platforms. Unlike the music piracy lawsuits of decades ago, the AI engines are not making copies of the data they use and distributing them under the same name. When it comes to so-called generative AI, the AI engines actually produce “new” audio (music) or visual images (movies) based on prompts from a human (e.g., jazz music about my dog dying) but created based on the massive amounts of data ingested by the AI engine. The legal issues, for now, tend to be about how the data got into the engines in the first place and who has the right to use that data. However, the further digested and diluted the origin of the ingested data becomes, the harder proper credit and payment will be do sort out.

AI proponents argue that AI engines can learn from existing data sets without permission because there is no law against learning, and that turning one set of data into something entirely different is protected by the law. The was affirmed by a lengthy court fight that Google won against authors and publishers who sued the company over its book index years go, which cataloged and excerpted a huge swath of books. Now Google is making the same argument claiming that audio and visuals uploaded to its YouTube site granted permission for AI to ingest that information, also arguing a “fair use” defense. Those against AI argue that if AI is going to use original material created by others then the AI engines should get a license from the original author or creator, or from whoever owns the copyright. Otherwise, the AI engines are violating the rights of the authors and creators of the underlying materials and, even if the result is not an exact copy of the underlying work (think “sampling” in music), the resulting AI product would not exist “but for” the underlying work and the use of the AI work competes with the artists or creators’ ability to make a living.

As of now, the US Copyright Office has stated that it will not accept a copyright registration on any work of authorship created using AI. However, there is still the issue of whether the resulting AI creation infringes the copyrights of other authors when it incorporates the work of the original authors into a new AI work or some sort (regardless of how remote or miniscule the resulting use in the new AI-generated work). Using the MusicLM system as an example, the Google researchers noted that MusicLM did have a tendency to incorporate copyrighted material from training data into the generated songs. During an experiment, they found that about 1% of the music the MusicLM system generated was directly replicated from the songs on which it trained (a threshold apparently high enough to discourage Google from releasing MusicLM to the public for a long time).

As AI systems like MusicLM are made available to users, it is inevitable that this has given rise to major legal issues, even when the systems are marketed as tools to assist artists rather than replace them. AI music generators violate music copyright by creating a mosaic of coherent audio from prior works they ingest in training, thereby infringing the US Copyright Act’s reproduction right. Similar concerns have been raised around the training data used in image, code and text-generating AI systems, which is often scoured from the web without creators’ knowledge. New works generated by an AI system should arguably be considered derivative works, in which case only the original elements of the AI-generated work would be protected by copyright (although it is unclear what might be considered “original” in such a context).

It might not be long before there is more clarity on the matter. Several lawsuits are currently making their way through the courts which will likely have a bearing on generative AI, including one pertaining to the rights of artists whose work is used to train artificial intelligence systems without their knowledge or consent. Simultaneously, several large film and music conglomerates are negotiating direct licensing deals with AI companies

Current AI platforms are fledgling and imperfect, but by design AI improves and gets “smarter” the more it is used. AI may still be in the early horse & buggy stage - but AI could quickly advance to the Tesla level. Authors, creators and artists beware!

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. www.wallacecollins.com

WHAT'S THE SCORE WITH SYNCHRONIZATION RIGHTS?!

As the composer of a film or TV score or as a songwriter, artist or producer whose song is used in a movie, TV show, advertisement or video game, under U.S. copyright law you own 100% of the copyright in your work from the moment you create the work and "fix it in a tangible medium." However, you must be careful what you sign so that you do not assign away those rights without fair compensation for your work. 

When it comes to the use of music there are two copyrights: one in the musical composition or song and one in the sound recording which is the fixation of the sounds that make up the music. When music is used in synchronization with visual images, whether it is created especially for the particular score or whether it is a pre-existing song that the director wants to use in a scene in a TV show or a theatrical motion picture, this is referred to as the "synchronization" of music with visual images. Permission in the form of a synchronization license (sometimes referred to as a “synch license”) must be procured by the makers of the audio/visual production from both the owner of the sound recording (the artist or record company) and from the owner of the song copyright (the songwriter or publishing company) Sometimes these are one and the same person or entity, sometimes they are not.

A synchronization license may take various forms. If a show's producer, director or music supervisor decides that a certain pre-existing song is right for a particular scene in a film or TV show or commercial or video game, then a synch license covering the master and the composition would be requested. Depending on the length and prominence of the use, if limited solely to use in the show the amount paid can range from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousand of dollars, or more. If the company also wants the right to include the music on a soundtrack album, then additional provisions would be required for that use which would pay royalties for each record sold. Also, the song should be registered by the author with the performing rights society (e.g., ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) so that revenues from performances in foreign movie theaters (U.S. movie theaters do not pay performance royalties) and from television broadcast can be collected and paid to the author.

On the other hand, a songwriter may be specifically employed to write incidental music or underscore cues for a film or for a TV commercial or other audio/visual work. Such an arrangement may be structured as a "work made for hire" whereby the songwriter is employed to write specific music which may ultimately be owned by the producer of the film. There is no set fee for such an arrangement - it can range from a few hundred dollars for a small budget project to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a blockbuster film score. However, in such circumstances, since the production company would usually claim ownership of the copyright, the author needs to be sure to try to negotiate to receive the 50% "writer share" of performance monies and have producer only get the 50% "publisher" share - otherwise the author may not be entitled to performance royalties from his or her performing rights society and it would all go to the producer. Issues like this would depend on the careful negotiation of the contract between the parties and their legal counsel.

Since this is a complicated area the details of which are beyond the scope of this article, I would suggest that if such an offer is made to you, an experienced entertainment lawyer would be a good investment on your part.  My advice on such matters is always “don’t sign anything – other than an autograph – unless you have a lawyer review it first!”

Wallace Collins is an entertainment and intellectual property lawyer based in New York. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656;  www.wallacecollins.com 

UNDERSTANDING RECORD PRODUCER RIGHTS & ROYALTY RATE CALCULATION IN THE DIGITAL ERA

     Music producers are authors of a sound recording as a matter of copyright law. Under U.S. Copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 102), when musical sounds are “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” in the recording studio a producer qualifies for such copyright ownership. Copyright ownership can only be transferred by a signed, writing under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). In other words, unless and until the producer signs an agreement with the artist, the producer and artist are co-owners of the copyright in the sound recording and are entitled to share equally in any and all revenues which arise from the use and exploitation thereof.  Therefore, a producer and artist would share 50/50 in the sound recording copyright. Where the artist has multiple members or is a band, then the multiple authors of the sound recording would share on a pro-rata basis (i.e., 3 authors share 3 ways, 4 authors share 4 ways, etc.).

     That is the main reason why, in most instances, an artist and producer enter into a written producer agreement: to determine and adjust shares of ownership in the master and revenue division from the use and exploitation of the master sound recording. Major record labels under their record contacts with the artist wanted the master assigned to them, so producer agreements often mirrored that copyright transfer model. The producer would agree to transfer rights in the master sound recording copyright in exchange for an advance payment, royalties and producer credit on the records.

      Modern producer royalties are calculated differently than under the old record business model. The producer advance is usually an agreed upon amount, typically a portion of the amount advanced to the artist by the record company or distributor, if any, usually calculated in proportion to the royalty share between the artist and the producer for a master recording. Under the old physical record business model, the royalty was often based on suggested retail list price (SRLP), and a producer would typically agree to receive 3-5% or "points" out of the artist's 12-15% retail royalty paid to the artist by the record company. Since the newer recorded music world is mostly digital and streaming, and is calculated based on a "net receipts" basis, the mathematical translation is as follows: 15% - 25% of net receipts as the basic rate for many producers; 25% - 50%+ for established producers or producers who discover and/or develop an artist from an earlier stage.  Net receipts is the amount the artist actually receives from use and exploitation of the master recording (after distributor/retailer share). For example, if the digital streaming service pays the artist (or pays the label or distributor who then pays the artist) the amount of $100, and the producer royalty is 25% of net receipts, then the producer’s royalty should be approximately $25 out of the artist’s share. In addition, the producer also earns a pro rata share of royalty income from any use and exploitation of the sound recording just as the artist does, whether from synchronization licenses for film and TV use, from social media, and from streaming digital streaming services like YouTube, or otherwise. A producer is also entitled to a pro rata share of the amounts payable to the artist from SoundExchange for the performance rights in the sound recordings.

       As easy as this math may appear to be (or not), if you believe in yourself and your talents as a producer, give yourself the benefit of the doubt and invest in good legal representation - all the successful producers do. Your lawyer can "translate" the deal and explain its terms to you, and then help negotiate more favorable terms for you as appropriate. My advice: never sign anything - other than an autograph - without having your entertainment lawyer review it first.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 35 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656 Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com

 

Know Your Rights: A Guide for Photographers on Understanding Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights In Your Work

As a photographer, your work is your art, your business, and your livelihood. Whether you are a freelancer, a hobbyist selling your photos online, or a professional contracted for commercial projects, it is crucial to understand the legal protections afforded to you under copyright law. Having represented many photographs over the years in my law practice, in order to answer the most frequently asked questions, what follows is a basic outline of the key rights you should be aware of in order to protect your creative output.

1. You Own the Copyright the Moment You Take the Photograph

Under the U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code), copyright protection exists from the moment the photograph is created in a fixed, tangible form - which means as soon as you take the photo and save it (digitally or otherwise), you are the copyright owner.

This gives you exclusive rights to:

• Reproduce the photograph
• Distribute copies
• Display the image publicly
• Create derivative works
• License the image to others

You do not have to register the photo with the U.S. Copyright Office to own the copyright. However, registration does provide additional rights and remedies, and is required if you want to commence legal action for infringement and collect statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

2. Work for Hire

Under certain circumstances, particularly if  you are employed by a company and take photos as part of your job duties, or you are contracted for a particular project, your employer - not you - likely owns the copyrights as a matter of “work for hire” under US copyright law.

For freelancers, a work for hire agreement must be in writing and fit into a narrow category of accepted works (e.g., a contribution to a collective work or part of a motion picture). If it does not meet these criteria then you retain copyright, even if someone else paid for the shoot (unless you assign it in writing).

Best Practice: Always use a written contract clearly stating whether the work is a work for hire or a licensed work where you retain the copyright.

3. Licensing: Control How Your Work Is Used

Licensing allows others to use your photos under your terms. Licenses can be:

• Exclusive or non-exclusive
• Limited by time, geography, or medium
• Royalty-free or rights-managed

Be specific in your contracts. For instance, if you license a photo for use in a print brochure, state whether digital use is also permitted. Ambiguity often leads to disputes.

4. Model Releases: When You Need Them

A copyright gives you the right to your image, but using identifiable people in commercial contexts may violate their right of publicity or privacy.

• Commercial use (advertising, product packaging): Requires a signed model release.
• Editorial use (news, commentary, art): Generally does not require a release.
• Stock photography: Most reputable agencies require model releases for any identifiable person in a commercially licensable image.

Best practice: Get signed model and property releases when possible - it protects you and increases your options for licensing.

5. Infringement: What If Someone Uses Your Work Without Permission?

If someone uses your photo without a license:

• Document the use (screenshots, URLs, dates).
• Determine if it’s a fair use (educational, commentary, etc.—consult a lawyer).
• Send a cease and desist letter or DMCA takedown notice.
• File a copyright infringement claim if needed (only possible if the work is registered).

If you filed a copyright registration on your work prior to the infringement then you are entitled to damages in an amount up to $150,000 per infringement plus legal fees. Without a copyright registration, you’re limited to actual damages and profits which you must prove at trial.

6. Protecting Your Work Online

• Use watermarks strategically.
• Embed metadata (EXIF/IPTC) with your name and contact info.
• Consider reverse image search tools (like Google Images) to monitor unauthorized use.
• Register your most valuable work with the Copyright Office - it’s affordable and powerful.

Final Thoughts

Photography is both an art and a business. By understanding your legal rights, you can control how your images are used, protect your creative investments, and take informed action against infringement. In most cases, it is best to try to memorialize get your arrangement in writing. Remember the importance of contracts, copyright registration, and proactive enforcement. When in doubt, consult a lawyer experienced in the area for legal advice.

 

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 35 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School.

Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com

 

BASIC LEGAL TIPS FOR RECORD PRODUCERS

     These days the recorded music business is producer-driven more so than ever before. Producers not only create the sound bed and make the singer or rapper sound great performing over it, but producers also discover and develop new talent. It is important as a record producer to understand that each situation is unique, and the relationship between the record producer and the artist varies greatly depending on the arrangement between the parties as well as the genre of music. Producers have traditionally been paid for their services as employees or as independent contractors and their contributions to the creation of the sound recording in the studio are generally contractually deemed to be a work-for-hire for the artist or record label under the copyright law. As such, the copyright in the sound recordings is owned by the artist or the record label. 

     Sometimes a producer may be paid a flat fee for his services in the studio, but more frequently the producer is paid a fee that is deemed an advance against future producer royalties based on sales of the recordings. However, the paradigm keeps changing and has evolved over the years. Recorded music is more producer-driven than ever before. Producers now sometimes not only help capture the sound in the studio and use the available technology to mold the sound to be as commercially acceptable as possible, but more and more producers these days are finding and discovering new talent and developing the artist’s sound and even, in some cases, collaborating as a co-writer of the artist's songs.

     When dealing with recorded music there are two copyrights that may come into play under the copyright law: (1) one in the sound recording or the fixation of sound and (2) one in the underlying  music and lyrics, the musical composition or song. Copyright vests in the author or creator as soon as the idea is “fixed in a tangible medium”, so as soon as the author writes it down or the creator records it the copyright is created. In general the creation of the sound recording in the studio is separate from the writing of the song. This is usually true in most cases (e.g., in the rock, country and folk genres) where the artist usually comes into the studio with the song already completed or taking shape and the producer will then just assist in creating a recording of the song. In other cases, however, the producer's involvement may cover both copyrights. For example, a producer may create the musical bed or track (often before any artist, singer or rapper is even involved) so he also becomes a songwriting collaborator with the artist who writes the lyric and performs the vocals in the recording studio. In such a situation, the producer and artist become joint owners not only in the copyright in the sound recording but also, by current custom in the industry, in the underlying musical composition. It is also true that in today's top pop music world many of the producers actually co-write the songs with the artists in the process of creating the hit record (and sometimes numerous other songwriters as well).

     It is generally standard operating procedure when dealing with an artist, particularly one signed to a major record label, for a producer to be asked to sign a contract to transfer any claim of rights the producer might have in the sound recording copyright to the artist or label in exchange for an advance and a producer royalty. The amount of an advance, which is recoupable against the producer's royalties later, can range widely, and may or may not include the studio costs along with the producer's compensation depending on how the budget is structured. Producers generally earn royalties from the sale of the sound recording (and may also earn mechanical royalties and performance royalties under circumstances where the producer is also deemed a co-author of the music composition. Producer royalties are often referred to as "points" which simply means percentage points deducted out of the artist's percentage share of royalties. For example, a typical producer royalty during the old school physical era might have been "3 points" which would, essentially, be 3 percentage points out of the artist's 12-15% royalty rate under the artist's record contract (i.e., approximately 20-25% of what the artist earns in revenues, which is how many producer agreements delineate the producer royalty now in the digital streaming era: as a percentage of net revenues). In addition, the producer should earn a pro rata share of royalty income from any use and exploitation of the sound recording just as the artist does, whether from synchronization licenses for film and TV use, from social media, and from streaming digital streaming services like YouTube and Spotify.

     Keep in mind that it may, in fact, be in your best interest to "get it in writing" if you have an arrangement with someone. This is especially true in collaborative situations. Otherwise, you run the risk of a disagreement later over the actual terms of the oral agreement, and it becomes your word against that of the other party. That is not to say that an oral agreement is not a binding contract, but a written contract is easier to prove since the terms of the arrangement are in a  signed writing and - most importantly - when it comes to ownership of the copyright, in the absence of a signed writing the collaborators own it equally under U.S. Copyright law. A simple contract should set forth the basic details of your arrangement (i.e., who is paying how much, and for what? advance/fee, royalty, producer credit, etc.) and then be signed by all parties to the agreement. For example, when a producer and artist create a sound recording they are collaborators and co-owners of the copyright under copyright law, so arguably they are 50/50 co-owners of the copyright and the revenues derived therefrom unless there is a written agreement in place. It can be a complicated situation to navigate for authors and creators of sound recordings.

      At the end of the day, if you believe in yourself and your talents, give yourself the benefit of the doubt, and invest in good legal representation - all the successful producers do. Your lawyer can "translate" the deal and explain its terms to you, and then help negotiate more favorable terms for you as appropriate. My advice: never sign anything - other than an autograph - without having your entertainment lawyer review it first.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 35 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Tel: (212) 661-3656; Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com 

 

HOW TO FIND THE RIGHT ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER: THEY CALL IT “PRACTICING LAW” BUT YOU DON’T WANT YOUR COUSIN VINNY PRACTICING ON YOU!

    As an artist or creator in the entertainment industry you do not need to know everything about the business in order to succeed, but you should hire people who do. When I was a teenage recording artist back in the late 70's, I can remember being intimidated by the "suits". Now that I am on the other side of the desk, I have a broader perspective. I am here to tell you that those "suits" can help you; provided, however, that like any other aspect of your life, you use your instincts in making your selection and find the right lawyer. Your cousin Vinny the real estate lawyer might really want to get into the entertainment field (doesn’t everybody?!), but you need to find a lawyer with experience in this area of practice. They may call it “practicing law” but you don’t want your cousin Vinny practicing on you.

    The best place for you to start building your "team" of representatives is with a competent lawyer who specializes in entertainment law, which is a combination of contract, intellectual property (copyright and trademark) and licensing law. Eventually, your team could possibly include a personal manager, an agent and a business manager/accountant. Your lawyer can assist you in assembling your team. He may then function as the linchpin in coordinating the activities of your team and insuring that these people are acting in your best interests. 

    A good lawyer will navigate you safely through the minefield that is the entertainment industry. Entertainment contracts can be extremely complicated. Proper negotiating and drafting requires superior legal skills as well as knowledge of entertainment business and intellectual property practice. Your lawyer can explain the concepts of copyright and trademark to you and assist you in securing proper protection for your work. In addition to structuring and documenting a deal to maximize the benefits to you, some lawyers also actively solicit deals for their clients. Moreover, if you are not properly compensated in accordance with your contract, you may look to your lawyer to commence a lawsuit to enforce the terms of your contract. 

    When looking for a lawyer, you should not be afraid to speak with a few before retaining one. Some lawyers are with large firms but many are solo practitioners. Lawyers have various personalities and legal skills and you should seek out a situation where the "vibe" is right. Although your first contact may be on the telephone or online, most likely you will have an initial consultation for which there may be a modest charge, although some lawyers may not charge for that first meeting depending on the circumstances. Remember, your lawyer's time is money, so be prepared and be on time for your appointment. 

    It is not necessary that your lawyer like or even understand your creative endeavors be it an app, a book, music, your film or TV pilot idea. It is more important that you feel he or she is a trustworthy and competent advisor. The lawyer/client relationship is known as a "fiduciary" relationship which means that a lawyer must always act in your best interest and not his own or that of anyone else. Your lawyer is also under a duty to keep your conversations with him confidential. It is often in your best interest that it stays that way. 

    Keep in mind that a lawyer with other big name clients is not necessarily the best lawyer for you; if it comes down to taking your calls or those of a superstar, which do you think will get preference? 

    You are probably wondering, "How much will this cost?" Well, remember that the only thing a lawyer has to sell is his time. A lawyer, much like a doctor, is selling services, so if you go to him for advice you should expect to pay. With the odds of success in this business being what they are, very few lawyers will agree to work for you and wait for payment until you are successful and can pay your bills. A lawyer specializing in the entertainment field usually charges an hourly fee or a percentage of the money value of your deal. Hourly rates generally run $500 and up. Percentages on a pending deal are based on the "reasonable value of services rendered" in connection with a particular contract and generally run around 5-10% of the deal. A few lawyers may charge a set fee, such as $1,000 or $5,000, to review and negotiate certain documents. Check around to see if the fee arrangement proposed is competitive. Most lawyers will require a payment of money in advance or "retainer", which can range anywhere from $500 to $10,000 (and more for litigation matters). Even those who take a percentage of the deal as a fee may require that you pay some amount as a retainer. In addition to the hourly fee or percentage, you are usually required to reimburse your lawyer for his out-of-pocket costs, including long distance telephone calls, photocopies, postage, fax, etc. 

    You should realize that in retaining a lawyer you are making a contract even if your agreement is not written. In return for a fee, the lawyer promises to render legal services on your behalf. However, some lawyers may want a fee arrangement in writing (specifically in connection with a percentage deal) and/or a payment direction letter. A cautious lawyer will advise you that you have the right to seek the advice of another lawyer as to the propriety of a percentage fee arrangement. 

    You should consult a lawyer if you are asked to sign anything. Too many aspiring creative artists want to get a deal so badly they will sign almost anything that promises them a chance to do it. Even successful careers have a relatively short life span, especially when it comes to careers in music, movie and television. Therefore, it is important for you to get maximum returns in the good years and not sign away rights to valuable income. 

    Do not rely on anyone else (or even their lawyer) to tell you what your contract says. Your lawyer will "translate" the deal for you and explain to you exactly what you are getting into. Do not let anyone rush you or pressure you into signing any agreement. There is really no such thing as a standard "form" contract. Any such contract was drafted by that party's attorney to protect that party's interests; your lawyer can help negotiate more favorable terms for you. Everyone needs someone to look out for his or her interests. That is why you need a lawyer. If you believe in yourself and your talents then give yourself the benefit of the doubt, invest in legal representation and do not sign anything without consulting your lawyer and making sure it is the right deal for you.

    As a final piece of free legal advice, never sign anything – other than an autograph - without having your own lawyer review it first.

Wallace Collins is an entertainment lawyer and intellectual property attorney based in New York with over 30 years’ experience in music, film, television and emerging technology, and he handles many current digital media matters including issues that arise with AI. He was a songwriter and recording artist for Epic Records before receiving his law degree from Fordham Law School. Website: http://www.wallacecollins.com 

USPTO Announces Increased Filing Fees in 2025

The USPTO has announced that it is increasing its fees in 2025 as follows:

•Application fees are presently either $250 or $350. The USPTO has done away with the $250 fee; every application will be $350 for each trademark in each class.

•There’s a new fee for “insufficient information” including failure to provide a translation of the applied-for mark. The new fee is $100 per class, per mark.

•Another $100 increase is for Madrid Protocol filings. The USPTO then sends these international applications to WIPO and will charge $600 per class on top of the filing fee that each country’s IP office may charge.

•If an applicant has a long string of words to describe the goods/services for their trademark, there will be a new $200 fee to file more than a thousand characters of text.

•Note that if/when a registration is audited the USPTO charges a $250 fine per class to delete any goods from the class of goods.

•To file an amendment to allege use, or to file a statement of use, is going up from $100 to $150 per class.

•Filing a fifth-year declaration of use and incontestability will increase by $150 per class, up to $575 and filing a 10th-year renewal application will increase by $125, up to $650.