copyright of original song

[paddedcell]

Registering your work with the copyright office creates a legal presumption that you are the creator of the work. This means that someone who challenges the origins of the work must overcome that legal presumption with lots of very convincing evidence. The contesting party then becomes the one that has to do all the work, because the law considers you to be the creator of the work until it is definitely proven otherwise in court.

As others have mentioned, it's really not that likely that someone will steal your stuff, but if that possibility keeps you up at night, spend the $35 and copyright the song. I'm sure I've written over a hundred songs that I've jotted down somewhere, but I've only copyrighted about 15 or 20 that I thought were really good, or that I was shopping around. I'd love it if some major artist ripped off my stuff -- quite besides the ultimate flattery, I'm sure that their attorney and mine could come up with a sweet little settlement (I'm not greedy). . .

But -- I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. . .

 

[joey2000]

emailing is not the same - it's a fairly easy task to edit the headers to make the email appear to have been sent before it really has.

? If you send yourself an email, you can actually show it in your inbox and it has the date/time stamp. You cannot fake that. That's why emails are typically admissible as evidence in court.

I seriously seriously seriously doubt very many songs, written by average joes, are being stolen.

I'm not saying it has never happened but IMO it would be an extremely rare thing.

Agreed. But it's a nice peace of mind to have just in case. Plus for some it gives it that "official" or "professional" feel.

Mailing to yourself is not a recognized method of proving ownership in the US.

I think it is if it was sent certified and it's unopened.

 

[Farview]

I think it is if it was sent certified and it's unopened.

In the US it isn't. I remember hearing about a case where it did not work. But, of course it was several years ago and I don't know the specifics off the top of my head.

 

[sparky123]

don't really want to sell it. just to make sure if i put this out for feedback( and it is a well written and performed song by my daughter, mostly acoustic,vocals) that no one else can steal it. thank you all for the help. i might go the gov way but then a company like legal zoom would make it easier .. just cost a bit more. thank you again

 

[Pinky]

? If you send yourself an email, you can actually show it in your inbox and it has the date/time stamp. You cannot fake that. That's why emails are typically admissible as evidence in court.

This is not entirely accurate/true. I can fake email send/delivery dates rather easily, and they will appear in your inbox as the faked date. It would depend on the email system though, just saying that it isn't a fool proof means of verification.

 

[Chili]

I think it is if it was sent certified and it's unopened.

From the copyright.gov website.

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.

LINK

Also from copyright.gov circular Copyright Basics

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

LINK


This is in the US; as others have said in the past, in the UK, posting a letter to yourself is acceptable.

 

[Pinky]

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.

Let's be clear that in the eyes of the copyright office this may not be adequate, but that does not mean in a court of law it would not be seen/permissible as evidence. The copyright dept phrased that very carefully. It's not misleading, if you filed a complaint with them and wanted them to handle it within the scope of their department, then yes they would see the sealed mail as insufficient. However, the likelihood is the proceedings would actually take place in a court of law outside of their department and at which time anything can be submitted as evidence, and it's the judge/jury's responsibility to give weight to it. [at least that's my layman's understanding of law]

The copyright department has every reason to push people into sending them money, and it makes claims filed with their department easier to process if everyone is on board. But just because something is not registered with them doesn't mean it's a free-for-all regarding that publication or recording [what's being implied here is that non-registration = free license for anyone to steal].

There is of course the use of this:

Creative Commons

^^^ The point being, it clearly indicates the rules for use of things found on your (band/project's) music page. Someone takes a song from your music page and puts it in a movie, for example, they likely violated the terms of your use license.

 

[Chili]

You wouldn't file an infringement complaint with the copyright office in the first place. They don't take complaints or claims. You have to go to court to get relief from the infringer. LINK And if you're going to take someone to court for infringement, your works have to be registered.

The judge has to base his decision on law, he can't just willy-nilly decide what is right or wrong. There is no US law that allows for the poor man's copyright.

And you are correct, not registering a copyright does not make it a free-for-all. The copyright laws are very clear that once your put your content into a tangible form, it is your property.

Good discussion, though.

 

[Pinky]

And you are correct, not registering a copyright does not make it a free-for-all. The copyright laws are very clear that once your put your content into a tangible form, it is your property.

But... according to your explanation if it's not copy-written then anyone can steal it(?) [as I will have no 'proof' it was mine]. So how is it fundamentally mine, and yet, not?

[it's certainly an important enough discussion, although I have better odds of getting hit by lightning than having one of my songs stolen]

 

[Farview]

But... if it's not copy-written then anyone can steal it(?). How is it mine, and yet, not?

[it's certainly an important enough discussion, although I have better odds of getting hit by lightning than having one of my songs stolen]

No one can steal it legally, but without registration, you can't file suit against them or even prove that they stole it from you.

The catch is that you can't file an infringement suit in the US without registering with the copyright office.

 

[Pinky]

No one can steal it legally, but without registration, you can't file suit against them or even prove that they stole it from you.

The catch is that you can't file an infringement suit in the US without registering with the copyright office.

Okay, now THAT makes sense.

Related line of thought - what if they register something that isn't their's?

 

[Chili]

But... according to your explanation if it's not copy-written then anyone can steal it(?) [as I will have no 'proof' it was mine]. So how is it fundamentally mine, and yet, not?

[it's certainly an important enough discussion, although I have better odds of getting hit by lightning than having one of my songs stolen]

I never said it wasn't copyright protected. It is, just as soon as you make it a tangible object. Record it, write it down, or what ever else there is. It's yours, you are the owner and the copyright holder. Registering that copyright is a different matter and that is what the copyright office is for. They are a one-stop clearinghouse for copyright ownership in the US, provided by the government for that specific purpose. When a judge goes to look at an infringement case, he will most likely decide in favor of whoever registers the work first.

I'm willing to bet the problem doesn't occur due to someone out n out stealing your material, but from collaborations, bandmates and people who are close to you and want a piece of your song. You bring a song to your friends in the band to play at a gig, record, or whatevers, and the drummer will think he's a co-writer because he played the song.

 

[Farview]

I can't tell you how many times one guy in a band copyrights all the songs and the rest of the band wants to beat him senseless because he put everything in his name.

A guarantee than no one is trolling the MP3 area of this or any other forum to find songs to steal.

 

[Pinky]

When a judge goes to look at an infringement case, he will most likely decide in favor of whoever registers the work first.

It still sounds like two different issues.

If you create something and don't register it, it's yours. But if someone steals it and registers it, it's now their's? [according to posts here]

Issue 1: The work is mine.

Issue 2: The thief registers it, now it's no longer mine.

The hurtle in my mind I can't overcome is how I am implicitly the owner, but that gets trumped and all my rights vanquished because someone else steals and registers my already "owned" work. See? You can't own something then not own it without having freely 'sold' it. Just because you don't sell it and someone else takes it doesn't mean you can't sue them to recover that stolen item using whatever proof of ownership is available. IMO the copyright office is making this intentionally confusing so people just 'give in' and hand them money. But I don't think it's all that confusing, nor do I find anything on their site definitively saying "unless you pay us you don't own it". Ultimately that's what's being said here though, you only own it until someone else registers it and says they do.

I stand by my reasoning that anyone can contest the theft of their music regardless of a copyright held/not held.

 

[Chili]

It still sounds like two different issues.

If you create something and don't register it, it's yours. .

Yes. It is two different issues. Ownership and registration.

But if someone steals it and registers it, it's now their's? [according to posts here]

Yeahhh, maybe. That's where you would have to prove infringement. But if it comes down to he said/she said, especially among band members, then yeah, if you didn't register your work and they did, they could claim ownership and probably win. That would suck.

Issue 1: The work is mine.

Issue 2: The thief registers it, now it's no longer mine.

I think so. They stole it from you.

The hurtle in my mind I can't overcome is how I am implicitly the owner, but that gets trumped and all my rights vanquished because someone else steals and registers my already "owned" work.

Owning something and registering that ownership are two different things.

IMO the copyright office is making this intentionally confusing so people just 'give in' and hand them money. But I don't think it's all that confusing, nor do I find anything on their site definitively saying "unless you pay us you don't own it". Ultimately that's what's being said here though, you only own it until someone else registers it and says they do.

Yeah, that's called theft. It probably is a little confusing because the laws have to cover every situation and doesn't pertain only to music. It has to cover all copyrightable material.

I stand by my reasoning that anyone can contest the theft of their music regardless of a copyright held/not held.

You're kind of missing something here. If you wrote the song, you own the song. It's registering that ownership that is the question. It's not a matter of "copyright held/not held"; you hold it. But if someone uses your work and claims it as their own, you've got to prove it's yours. You can contest the theft all you want, but the only way to do that in court is with US Copyright Office registration.

You register your car. A thief steals it. You can claim ownership because you have it registered. Not really a whole lot of difference with songs. Just that your car is registered with the state and your song is registered with the feds.

 

[Chili]

BTW, I'm not a lawyer and there are some lawyers who hang out around here. I can only repeat what I've read off the copyright.gov website. It's all there to read. Kind of tedious to extract the information from all their circulars and pdf's, but it's there.

 

[Farview]

You buy a CD.
I walk into your house and steal it.

Do you still own the CD?

You call the cops on me. Can you prove that the CD is yours? If you can't prove it's yours, you don't own it anymore. The ownership was stolen from you. That's how theft works.

You are getting tripped up over the idea of ownership vs. practical ownership.

 

[Pinky]

You're kind of missing something here. If you wrote the song, you own the song. It's registering that ownership that is the question. It's not a matter of "copyright held/not held"; you hold it. But if someone uses your work and claims it as their own, you've got to prove it's yours. You can contest the theft all you want, but the only way to do that in court is with US Copyright Office registration.

You register your car. A thief steals it. You can claim ownership because you have it registered. Not really a whole lot of difference with songs. Just that your car is registered with the state and your song is registered with the feds.

Okay, I think we're getting to the heart of the matter.

What you're saying is really just an opinion. It's not that someone can't fight to get their 'ownership' back, it's just that the registration (or lack of) makes getting that back more difficult. The key here is more difficult. Not registering doesn't imply surrendering rights to the material or waiving the right to retain ownership. I think that's the important takeaway from where I'm seeing this issue.

The car analogy is poor because there's many other items that prove ownership, namely the title. If someone is dumb enough to leave their title in the glove box, then they deserve to lose the car! Registering the car is just a way for the State to make a buck. That isn't much different from what I see the copyright office doing.

The CD analogy isn't really applicable(?). We're not talking petty theft of material goods ("Possession is 9/10 of the law"). In a way comparing material theft and theft of intellectual property reveals just how tricky and nuanced the subject is. it just isn't apples to apples.

There's always a means to getting something back that's been stolen. It's not *that* cut/dry. I see the benefit and spirit in which this system is attempting to operate, but it doesn't account for many possible scenarios (and most importantly a scenario in which the thief registers the stolen goods). If the law is truly constructed in this way I hope someone does steal my work so I can have this contested in the highest courts. But I doubt the interpretation here is the entire story. Like you, I'm not a lawyer and don't see enough info online to be able to make any definitive statements about what would happen in all situations (but they could, just can't find it). Again, it almost seems vague on purpose which indicates to me this is more a case of a service being sold than law being enforced. The copyright office registration is like that extended warranty/insurance plan they're trying upsell. The fact we're inherently owners by law is almost like the fine print.

 

[gecko zzed]

What you're saying is really just an opinion. It's not that someone can't fight to get their 'ownership' back, it's just that the registration (or lack of) makes getting that back more difficult. The key here is more difficult. Not registering doesn't imply surrendering rights to the material or waiving the right to retain ownership. I think that's the important takeaway from where I'm seeing this issue.

Some opinions carry more weight than others. In this case, Chili is on the mark.

The moment you convert a musical idea into tangible form (as Chili has explained), you have something that is yours and you can claim ownership of it. Tangible form includes a recording of it, or sheet music.

A difficulty arises when I say that it is not yours and that you stole it from me. The 'tangible form' that you have is not going to help you much here. I will say that I don't care that you have made a tape of it. I will say the fact of you having a tape doesn't make it yours and that it just means you recorded my ideas.

This is where the copyright office comes in, and ultimately is my undoing. You can say to me, "sorry, but it's my song, I wrote it and registered my copyright 15 years ago." I, having the idea, but having no tangible form and not registering anything, have no means of proving my case. You do.

It's not means of extracting money. It's a means of securing your intellectual property.

Here's more stuff about copyright:
Copyright Basics for Musicians - Music Copyright Law

 

[mjbphotos]

Pinky - look at a practical (recent) court example: Spirit/estate of Randy California vs Led Zeppelin. Both pieces of music were copyrighted. Spirit's song was first. The court decided (or would have it was not settled out of court? I'm not even sure if this is still resolved) based on 'similarities' and the fact that the Spirit song (copyright) came first.
If Spirit/California had not copyrighted the song, Led Zep could have said they wrote it first and demoed it, which California heard and copied, and Zep would have won in court.