Legal implications: Did J.K. Rowling misrepresent her nationality to U.S. Copyright Office?

Dame J.K. Rowling accepts an award from The University of Edinburgh
Chancellor, HRH The Princess Royal

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling misrepresented her nationality and/or domicile status when she registered her book, Harry Potter and the sorceror’s stone (Reg. No. TX0004879549, Sup. TX0005164406), with the U.S. Copyright Office on 1 October 1998. Ms. Rowling indicated that her nationality or domicile status was the United States. The Business Insider (quoting The Times) quotes J.K. Rowling as saying:

 “I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
 A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. (sic) When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.”

A simple Google search also gives prima facie evidence that Ms. Rowling has not been granted American citizenship, nor was she domiciled in the United States in 1998. It seems bizarre that Ms. Rowling, a former French-English teacher would commit fraud on her copyright registration form. Any reasons, ranging from intent to negligence, would be merely speculative.

What is the legal effect of an error on a copyright registration? More specifically, how would such an error, whether intentional or not, impact an action for copyright infringement in the U.S. federal courts?

The general rule is found in § 411(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act (1976), which took effect on 1 January 1978:

 “[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights.”

An “immaterial, inadvertent errors in an application for copyright registration do not jeopardize the validity of the registration.” Data General Corporation v. Grumman Systems Support Corporation, 36 F.3d 1147, 1161 (1st Cir.1994); see Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Systems, Inc., No. 1:05 CV 1519, 2008 WL 2404972 (N.D.Ohio June 11, 2008).

U.S. federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over actions arising under the federal copyright laws. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). An action “arises under” copyright laws, “if the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the [U.S. Copyright] Act [(1976)], . . . or asserts a claim requiring construction of the Act . . . or, at the very least and perhaps more doubtfully, presents a case where a distinctive policy of the Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim.” T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir.1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1534, 14 L.Ed.2d 435(1965).

JK Rowland's US Copyright registration which indicates

 her citizenship is: USA. (click picture to enlarge)

For example, “[m]istakes such as an incorrect date of creation or failure to list all co-authors easily qualify as immaterial because the Copyright Office's decision to issue a certificate would not be affected by them.” Torres–Negron v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Data Gen. Corp., 36 F.3d at 1163). “[W]here a plaintiff's registration was procured through fraud . . . the registration becomes invalid and the courts lack jurisdiction over the case.” Id. at 162.

This means that registration, involving material errors, fraud, or an incomplete application, nullifies the U.S. federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. 17 U.S.C.A. § 411(a).

Does the fact that Ms. Rowling’s copyright registration contains an error as to her nationality affect her ability to claim remedies expressly granted by the U.S. Copyright Act? The answer is no, as that is an error in the application which did not affect the Copyright Office’s decision to issue a certificate of copyright. A material error would be fraud, in which J.K. Rowling had asserted ownership over a work in which she was not the author, owner, agent, or exclusive licensee. This was certainly not the case with Harry Potter and the sorceror’s stone. Copyright registration is a presumption of ownership. A presumption is subject to rebuttal. The main premise of the formality of registration is the presumption of ownership.

Whilst Ms. Rowling’s nationality and/or domicile is factually inaccurate on the copyright registration, that error does not affect the presumption for which copyright registration is sought.