Do you/will you copyright your songs?

[joey2000]

Without even hearing it, I can promise you that I don't want it.

lol - sure you SAY that -

That's the only difference between me and Led Zeppelin. The only difference.

I hope not, for your sake.

I looked into it once and it seemed that if you wrote it, you have implied copyright.

? No. Not in the USA anyway. I don't know why this keeps popping up. There's no such thing. In fact the whole concept is rather silly, if you think about it. You need to prove you came up with it first in SOME way.

 

[Chili]

? No. Not in the USA anyway. I don't know why this keeps popping up. There's no such thing.

Yeah, it's a thing. I think we had this conversation once before about a year or so ago. In the US, as soon as your song is in some tangible form, it is copyrighted and you own that copyright. Registering that copyright is a different matter; that's how you prove your ownership.... in the US.

In the UK, it's different. It's possible to mail the song to yourself to get the postmark. Evidently, the UK does not have a government clearinghouse for intellectual property like the US does, so this kind of registration works over there. It does not work in the US. You gotta send your tunes to the copyright office if you want protection against theft.

Of course, like Jessica said, it would be really cool if someone stole one of my songs.

 

[fat_fleet]

If it really came down to it, having all the time stamped stem tracks, meta-data, and modify dates on your computer must count for something, no?

 

[fat_fleet]

But someone would have to learn my songs before they stole em. Not to be smug, but I don't see it happening.

 

[Steenamaroo]

? No. Not in the USA anyway. I don't know why this keeps popping up. There's no such thing. In fact the whole concept is rather silly, if you think about it. You need to prove you came up with it first in SOME way.

Having copyright and evidence of having copyright are two totally different things.
If I write a song I own that and have the rights to it.
If you steal it and I contest it, one of us has to prove something.

 

[Steenamaroo]

If it really came down to it, having all the time stamped stem tracks, meta-data, and modify dates on your computer must count for something, no?

I guess it's different in different countries but I'd hope there'd be some common sense used in the absence of irrefutable evidence.

If you suddenly claim ownership of a song I wrote, I'm going to have an absolute shittonne of not-quite-evidence to strongly suggest that it's mine.
There'll be email references the song in various discussions, copies of lyrics sent via email providers, cloud services, note apps, etc, handwritten copies, audio sessions, backups of audio sessions, mp3 bounces at various stages of the mixing process, royalty company registrations, online distributor registrations (depending when you steal it), records with publishers, details of communications with mastering engineers (again, depending when you steal it).
Various people would have copies - co writers, managers, mastering engineers, maybe contributing musicians, friends/family.
Traces of having sent copies to people - maybe copies on soundcloud or e-paper trails with wetransfer or dropbox, feedback threads on forums with mp3 links or uploads..

Obviously not everyone would have all of these things, but a lot of them are common and accessible.

I have no idea if this would ever be taken into account but there'd also be trends and traits in the writing that would be comparable to a wealth of previous works.
Commonly used lyrical patterns, inflections, rhyme styles, melodic styles and traits.

Now, I get that none of this is really evidence but it's a lot better than what you're going to have, right?

Maybe this is bullshit and irrelevant - I'm not pretending to know how it works..it's just what I keep telling myself.

 

[joey2000]

Yeah, it's a thing. I think we had this conversation once before about a year or so ago. In the US, as soon as your song is in some tangible form, it is copyrighted and you own that copyright. Registering that copyright is a different matter; that's how you prove your ownership.... in the US.

OK I decided to look this up and I stand corrected and pass the crow. It appears the laws changed in 89. Damn I'm old. That said though, it is a bit confusing.....eg from this page: Copyright Law of the United States | U.S. Copyright Office we get:

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

As you said. OK. But:

The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

??? That sure sounds like "fixed in a tangible form" etc to me.

If it really came down to it, having all the time stamped stem tracks, meta-data, and modify dates on your computer must count for something, no?

No. Those are all easy to change/copy/etc. (Well I can't speak for stem tracks offhand; the rest is easily done)

 

[Chili]

Damn I'm old. That said though, it is a bit confusing.....

It sure is...

??? That sure sounds like "fixed in a tangible form" etc to me.

Nope. Fixed in tangible form simply means it is on some medium you can hold, like paper (as in sheet music or charts), a CD, tape, vinyl, etc. It means it isn't an idea in your head.

Poor man's copyright is the idea of mailing your song to you in a sealed envelope. The post office would put a stamp on the envelope to mark the date. If you ever had the need to go to court, the presumption would be that the envelope is still sealed with an authentic postal stamp, and you opened the envelope in court and there would be proof that you wrote the song on or before the day of the stamp. But in the US, a judge has to base his decision on the law and there is no law that supports using the poor man's copyright. But there is a law about registering your song with the copyright office and the judge would use that.

If it really came down to it, having all the time stamped stem tracks, meta-data, and modify dates on your computer must count for something, no?

No. It's too easy to change the system time on your computer if you wanted to back date a track.

 

[gecko zzed]

1 You can't copyright an idea. That's why copyright doesn't accrue until you have the song in some 'tangible form', i.e. a recording or a score.

2 "Poor man's copyright" is often suggested as evidence (a) of you creating something, and (b) when you created it. There are problems with this, the most obvious being that mailing something to yourself doesn't prove you created it.

"Simply placing a work into an envelope and mailing it to yourself does not prove ownership. You sign no forms, make no statements and offer no proof of creation. People mail things that they do not hold the copyright to all of the time and the courts know that.

Second, envelopes can be steamed open and postmarks can be smudged, altered or unreadable."

3 Registering with a copyright office is the way that your ownership is secured and backed up.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/08/25/the-myth-of-poor-mans-copyright/

 

[joey2000]

Nope. Fixed in tangible form simply means it is on some medium you can hold, like paper (as in sheet music or charts), a CD, tape, vinyl, etc. It means it isn't an idea in your head.

Which is still fuzzy if not just plain stupid. ie what if I email to myself? That is fixed, but it's not "tangible," at least not in the literal sense that I can touch it exactly. And why does it being "tangible" - say on a sheet of paper - count, but if I then mail it to myself, somehow that's LESS valid, apparently-? wth?

It just seems very weak to me that something has some kind of implied "copyright" even if it's not registered. In fact IMO it's incredibly stupid and precisely because of the kind of things we're talking about.

 

[Chili]

You're still confusing ownership and registration. Two different things.

You build a car from the ground up, you own it, right? Of course you do, it's yours. But the state wants to know that, so you have to register it. It's that simple. You have to register it if you want to drive it on the street. But then, the state says, you can't just send the registration to yourself in the mail... that proves nothing. You have to register it with us (so you can pay taxes). You go to the DMV, sign the forms which says you own the car and they issue you a title.

 

[gecko zzed]

Which is still fuzzy if not just plain stupid. ie what if I email to myself? That is fixed, but it's not "tangible," at least not in the literal sense that I can touch it exactly. And why does it being "tangible" - say on a sheet of paper - count, but if I then mail it to myself, somehow that's LESS valid, apparently-? wth?

'Tangible', in copyright, refers to a documentable presence of something. Objects, such as music scores and CDs, have a physical presence that can be seen and handled. Note, though, that it is not the object itself that is significant, it is what's written or recorded onto it. An electronic file is not tangible in the physical sense, but it is something that can be shown to exist. But emailing something to yourself doesn't prove ownership. It just proves you emailed something to yourself. A composition, if it is just an assembly of ideas in someone's head, exists only by assertion, and assertions are not evidence. To prove that you wrote it, you need to provide evidence that others recognise as evidence.

It just seems very weak to me that something has some kind of implied "copyright" even if it's not registered.

It is the cornerstone of intellectual property rights. If you create something, it belongs to you at the moment of creation (noting that there are exceptions which are not germaine to this discussion). Registration is simply a way of providing a trail of evidence that says to the world, "I created this, this is mine, hands off".

In fact IMO it's incredibly stupid and precisely because of the kind of things we're talking about.

It may appear that way. But should it actually be that way, how would you prefer to see it work?

 

[VomitHatSteve]

You're still confusing ownership and registration. Two different things.

You build a car from the ground up, you own it, right? Of course you do, it's yours. But the state wants to know that, so you have to register it. It's that simple. You have to register it if you want to drive it on the street. But then, the state says, you can't just send the registration to yourself in the mail... that proves nothing. You have to register it with us (so you can pay taxes). You go to the DMV, sign the forms which says you own the car and they issue you a title.

This metaphor breaks down pretty quickly. Unlike a car, you're absolutely allowed to use your unregistered work in the public sphere; unfortunately, you have no legal recourse if it's stolen. So it's more like if you built a car from the ground up and somebody stole it. You could bring the police right to the driveway where your car is parked, but if you didn't register it, you have no way to prove that you built it rather than the current holder.

 

[Chili]

This metaphor breaks down pretty quickly. Unlike a car, you're absolutely allowed to use your unregistered work in the public sphere; unfortunately, you have no legal recourse if it's stolen. So it's more like if you built a car from the ground up and somebody stole it. You could bring the police right to the driveway where your car is parked, but if you didn't register it, you have no way to prove that you built it rather than the current holder.

picky, picky, picky. I'm just trying to explain the difference between ownership and registration.

 

[mjbphotos]

Which is still fuzzy if not just plain stupid. ie what if I email to myself? That is fixed, but it's not "tangible," at least not in the literal sense that I can touch it exactly. And why does it being "tangible" - say on a sheet of paper - count, but if I then mail it to myself, somehow that's LESS valid, apparently-? wth?

It just seems very weak to me that something has some kind of implied "copyright" even if it's not registered. In fact IMO it's incredibly stupid and precisely because of the kind of things we're talking about.

So how do you prove that email was sent on such-and-such a date - those things can easily be changed in the computer (or the printout you bring to court). Same thing with any of the communications regarding the song (lyrics emailed, etc) that Steen mentioned.

 

[Nola]

So how do you prove that email was sent on such-and-such a date - those things can easily be changed in the computer (or the printout you bring to court). Same thing with any of the communications regarding the song (lyrics emailed, etc) that Steen mentioned.

Emails have headers with all that information, including routing information/IPs/dates/times. Headers can't be changed. It's metadata, and it should hold up in court just fine.

 

[joey2000]

You're still confusing ownership and registration. Two different things.

? No I'm not; I get they are 2 diff things. And sorry, but as stated, your car analogy is not valid.

'Tangible', in copyright, refers to a documentable presence of something. Objects, such as music scores and CDs, have a physical presence that can be seen and handled. Note, though, that it is not the object itself that is significant, it is what's written or recorded onto it. An electronic file is not tangible in the physical sense, but it is something that can be shown to exist. But emailing something to yourself doesn't prove ownership. It just proves you emailed something to yourself.

Based on that logic, then why would something written down or on a CD (etc) be any better? It just proves I have something on paper or CD, or whatever. I could have stolen that and copied it too. It's a very inconsistent/flawed logic they seem to have. Then again, this is the govt we're talking about

It is the cornerstone of intellectual property rights. If you create something, it belongs to you at the moment of creation

But as you've already pointed out, that is meaningless because you have to be able to PROVE that you created it. I think if you emailed it to yourself and no one can provide proof that they created (had) it at an earlier date, that should be sufficient proof, because it shows PROVEN possession of it on that given date.

how would you prefer to see it work?

If you haven't registered it, you don't have any protection, because you can't prove you're the author. The medium is irrelevant.

So how do you prove that email was sent on such-and-such a date - those things can easily be changed in the computer

? I'll bite, how? Don't think so. That's why emails are admissable as evidence now.

 

[Greg_L]

Maybe you should contact an actual copyright lawyer.

 

[gecko zzed]

Based on that logic, then why would something written down or on a CD (etc) be any better? It just proves I have something on paper or CD, or whatever. I could have stolen that and copied it too. It's a very inconsistent/flawed logic they seem to have. Then again, this is the govt we're talking about

Writing something down on paper or recording something to a CD does not of itself constitute proof of ownership, and nor was that what I or others were saying. What I was actually saying is that a song you write doesn't exist as far as copyright is concerned until it is 'written' down somehow. Until you do that, it is, as said before, just a collection of ideas in your head. You can't copyright ideas. Until you render those ideas into a tangible form there is nothing to copyright. However if you do write a song and render it into tangible form, you automatically own it.

As I and others have said, simply owning it is not enough. You need to be able to prove it should you be challenged. That's why you use a copyright office. Someone may attempt to defraud a copyright office by pretending the stuff they've written down is theirs. But if you have registered your work, you have recourse to the courts to address that.

 

[rob aylestone]

In copyright disputes, evidence is everything. Evidence as to when something existed is probably the critical one. Ironically, the people who now put their music, through one of the many organisations who submit your work to Spotify, iTunes, Amazon etc now have an absolute proof of date of existence, as multiple instances of dating evidence exist. What I don't quite get is the confusion over registration. At least in the UK, nobody takes money off you to register anything, unless it's trademarks or other allied items. Here, if you create it, the right is created at the same time, and our disputes are usually around the creation date. People register their products with agencies who work for them and collect revenue.

Registration systems for rights in other countries, and I may have misunderstood them, seem to simply offer access to a database that can be used for evidence purposes. Registration seems to offer nothing else I can see?

Recent copyright disputes in the press rely on date evidence and then the tricky matching of two or more products. Registration was not a factor in these cases. They had clear date evidence, and the dispute was settled based on matching the claims.

I view it like Getty Images. They legally are on solid ground. They can prove products are theirs, they can show dates and they have no fears using the court systems in many countries. Their aggressive pursuance of their rights are viewed as excessive and money centred by many, but they fiercely protect their rights. No registration needed.

Copyright is in many ways like libel actions. You may be 100% able to initiate action, but can you afford to?

If your country has a registration system, if it's cheap and simple, use it. Not using it does not remove your right, does it? Not in the UK it doesn't.