what will I need to do to copyright my song?

[takamine58]

I would like to copyright a song I have written but I don't have a clue what I need to do. Also, how do you go about getting your song to the right person?
Thanks!

[al_dave]

... but I have an aunt that used to write her own songs back in the 50s and 60s and she said you could mail them to yourself through the regular USPS mail and have them copyrighted. I have no I dea what you have to do these days, aside from creating your own publishing company with ASCAP or BMI. I used to have some forms for that crap about 12 years ago, but I've since lost them. Also the band I wrote the songs with is equally kaput, so no big loss, I guess...

Sorry I couldn't really help. Maybe I shouldn't have replied at all...

Dave

[Shockadelica]

"When is my work protected?
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. "

This is taken directly from the US Copyright website located HERE

You can print off the forms you need to 'register' your copyright from the website HERE

[TimOBrien]

Originally posted by al_dave
... but I have an aunt that used to write her own songs back in the 50s and 60s and she said you could mail them to yourself through the regular USPS mail and have them copyrighted.

NOPE.

Court cases have been lost trying this. People have lost big money.

The ONLY legal way to copyright is through the Copyright Office.

[pianokey88]

Here is some useful info:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

DTB

[SonicAlbert]

Originally posted by al_dave
... but I have an aunt that used to write her own songs back in the 50s and 60s and she said you could mail them to yourself through the regular USPS mail and have them copyrighted. I have no I dea what you have to do these days, aside from creating your own publishing company with ASCAP or BMI.

That mailing yourself an envelope thing is indeed an old wives tale. File the proper copyright forms with the copyright office. Also, you DO NOT have to be a member of ASCAP or BMI, or create your own publishing company in order to copyright your musical works. Any individual can do it.

Don't take any shortcuts, read the info on the copyright web site, fill out the forms, and pay the registration fee.

[takamine58]

Thanks to everyone for all the info. I really appreciate it.
How much does it cost to do this?

[SonicAlbert]

All the info is on the copyright web site. I think it is $30 per copyright. However, you can file individually for each song, or group several together as a collection under one copyright. The important thing is that you follow the link to the web site and read it all.

[takamine58]

I really appreciate the copyright info. Thanks to everyone.

[rjt]

It also takes a very long time. It was many months after I mailed the form in that I found out I made a small error filling it out. They were nice and let me refile, but I think it took about a year overall.

Take Care

[Adam P]

There is a difference between copyrighting something and registering a copyright. Like someone pointed out, a copyright exists as soon as a work is in a fixed, tangible form. So, as soon as you make a recording of the song, or write out sheet music and lyrics, you have a copyright. As for the "mailing it to yourself" trick, the point of this is to establish a date. If you mail a sealed envelope containing a cassette with a recording of your song, it goes through the post office and is post marked on that date. As long as you don't unseal the envelope, you have legal evidence that you created a particular work at a particular time. As for registering with ASCAP or BMI, this allows you to register as the owner of the publishing rights of a song. As the owner of the publishing rights, you get the power to decide who records the initial version of a song (if they want to, obviously). It also allows you to collect any due royalties.

I recommend that anyone who is concerned with this aspect of the music biz read Donald Passman's book, "All You Need To Know About The Music Business". Its great, though sometimes a bit tedious, reading. His style really makes most topics fairly easy to grasp, and anyone seriously involved with music should know and be aware of those sorts of things.

[rjt]

Well, I guess in today's world the issue really isn't when you have the copyright, but who can prove they have the copyright. Anything short of registering it is just that..... short. You can register a bunch of songs as a collection, doesn't cost much, but it does take a long time. This is the highly recommended method if you value your work.

Take Care

[rjt]

This topic has been covered a number of times before. I thought I had read some pretty interesting discussions on it. Here is one of the best:

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/sho...ight=copyright

[Adam P]

Originally Posted by rjt

Well, I guess in today's world the issue really isn't when you have the copyright, but who can prove they have the copyright. Anything short of registering it is just that..... short. You can register a bunch of songs as a collection, doesn't cost much, but it does take a long time. This is the highly recommended method if you value your work.

Take Care

If you mail the material to yourself, it has your name on it, and therefore shows that you are the owner of the copyright. If someone wants to dispute that with you, fine...let the court decide. But if you have a federally date-stamped sealed envelope containing the material, things will be in your favor (unless, of course, you've blatantly ripped someone off...but if you do that, you're stupid anyway).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this as a sole means of proof of copyright ownership by any means. You should definitely pursue the proper channels if you are in any way serious about your music. I'm just trying to point out that it does legally show proof of ownership and date, and is more than just "an old wives tale".

[rjt]

I'm not sure if you looked at the thread that I linked to on the site. One challenge was to show any case that have ever been won with that method of "proof." Aside from the fact that dates etc can be change, envelopes opened and resealed, and the court costs of defending yourself if that is your proof, one reply on that thread pointed out that people can simply mail themselves unsealed envelopes. The post office may or may not seal them.... what does it cost someone trying to run a scam... send yourself 10 a week. Then when a song comes out, draw up the chord chart, record a tape or whatever and seal it in the envelope. The point in that thread is that it does not constitute legal proof for some of those reasons.

My point is that if it makes you feel better to send yourself a chord chart or tape fine. Doesn't help much if you do go to court, but you'll feel better. To me, it is like saying.... he must have been a drunk driver, there was a half-empty bottle of scotch at his house. I guess that's a type of evidence, just won't help you much. The danger is, you'll feel too good while you are grasping at straws and not do what it takes.... simply fill out the forms and pay the money to the copyright office.

Lots of people believe the mail it to yourself idea. I can't conclusively prove it doesn't work (you can never prove the null hypothesis, well Karl Popper tried... see where it got him). But I wouldn't even waste the money on the stamp.

Anyway, good discussion on this topic as usual.

Take Care

[royharper3220]

you have to have the copyrighted work registered to sue for infringement. you can register after infringement, but there are benfits from registering first.

[Adam P]

Originally Posted by rjt

I'm not sure if you looked at the thread that I linked to on the site. One challenge was to show any case that have ever been won with that method of "proof." Aside from the fact that dates etc can be change, envelopes opened and resealed, and the court costs of defending yourself if that is your proof, one reply on that thread pointed out that people can simply mail themselves unsealed envelopes. The post office may or may not seal them.... what does it cost someone trying to run a scam... send yourself 10 a week. Then when a song comes out, draw up the chord chart, record a tape or whatever and seal it in the envelope. The point in that thread is that it does not constitute legal proof for some of those reasons.

My point is that if it makes you feel better to send yourself a chord chart or tape fine. Doesn't help much if you do go to court, but you'll feel better. To me, it is like saying.... he must have been a drunk driver, there was a half-empty bottle of scotch at his house. I guess that's a type of evidence, just won't help you much. The danger is, you'll feel too good while you are grasping at straws and not do what it takes.... simply fill out the forms and pay the money to the copyright office.

Lots of people believe the mail it to yourself idea. I can't conclusively prove it doesn't work (you can never prove the null hypothesis, well Karl Popper tried... see where it got him). But I wouldn't even waste the money on the stamp.

Anyway, good discussion on this topic as usual.

Take Care

Originally Posted by Adam P

IDon't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this as a sole means of proof of copyright ownership by any means. You should definitely pursue the proper channels if you are in any way serious about your music. I'm just trying to point out that it does legally show proof of ownership and date, and is more than just "an old wives tale".

Maybe you missed this?

[rjt]

I'm just trying to point out that it does legally show proof of ownership and date, and is more than just "an old wives tale".

Actually, I didn't miss that. I suppose this is where we agree to disagree. I believe that it does not legally show proof of ownership and date and is essentially useless. If it makes someone feel good to use it, fine. The danger is that they won't take the real step they need to prove their ownership.

Take Care

[rjt]

Alright, spending far more time on this than anyone should, I did a web search. Most sites say that mailing something to yourself is useless. Some say that it is useless, but do it anyway. A couple say that it is good protection. Here are some that I (biased point of view) found most helpful:

http://www.copyrightauthority.com/poorman.htm

http://registermycopyright.com/poor.html

http://www.musicbizadvice.com/scam.htm

http://www.riger.com/articles/copyright.html

I doubt if anyone will every conclusively "win" with this debate. My advice, do what you are comfortable with.

Take Care

[Rev E]

Great comments so far!

I will chime in. Just for background, I just graduated from law school and am in the process of studying for the bar exam later this summer. My presumed speciality is Intellectual Property (copyrights, trademarks, etc), Entertainment law, and Civil Litigation. This is just for background and certainly is not intended to either be deemed as "legal advice". Nor do I intend to make my opinion any more valid than the other supported opinions that have already been expressed. I just want to make it clear that copyrights, particularly as they relate to music is very dear to me and has been my focus for the last few years of study.

Poor Man's Copyrights
There is a great deal of myth, lore and discussion about this method. The earlier comments about copyrights being granted inherently upon creation is spot on, in my opinion. Per the Copyright Act, you have copyright protection the moment your work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression (lyrics on a paper, music notation written out on paper, notation and/or lyrics on computer hard disk, the chalkboard, the song recorded on hard disk, tape, vinyl, digital tape ... you get the picture). Any tangible medium will suffice--a napkin even. Copyright protection is one issue. Registration of that copyrighted work is another.

Registration
There is only one (1) source that can register a work. It is the US Office of Copyrights. Not ASCAP, BMI, your songwriter's guild, etc. The only place to officially register your work is the US Copyright Office. The forms are fairly simply to fill; the fee is fairly small (currently $30). Registration of your work in the US Copyright Office creates a (legal) presumption that you are the owner of that work. This is bigger than you may imagine. The long and the short of it is that once you have a presumption in your favor, the opposing party has the burden of proof to disprove/refute your established legal presumption. So do yourself a favor and register your works. Plus, in most cases registration in the U.S. Copyright Office is a prerequisite to filing an infringement suit. And, without a registration you cannot get statutory damages (which for intentional infringement is up to $150,000 per infringement). So registration is a no-brainer.

What about this Poor Man's Copyright Thing? What does it get you?
The short answer is "it gets you nothing." You already have copyright protection inherently upon creation and fixation in a tangible medium. Mailing a tape of the song does nothing to upset that grant. Many lawyers say the poor man's copyright thing is pretty worthless ... and for good reason. The Poor Man's method may be, however, helpful in establishing a time of creation ... and presumably ownership. The large white elephant in the room, however, is that the method can be easily faked by taking a blank envelope, writing your own address on it, not sealing the envelope. When it arrives you put anything you want in it--at whatever date you want. Can the poor man's stuff be used in court? Yes, but not likely as substantive evidence (evidence attesting to be what it claims to be).

For example, you're in court trying to testify that you created Song X on XYZ date. You attempt to offer the sealed envelope as such proof. As strange as it sounds the mailed tape may not come in as direct evidence. It is "hearsay" ... an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but in my opinion no exceptions apply to the above scenario. (perhaps the business records exception... but it's a stretch). The tape may come in, not as substantive evidence, but to impeach your testimony if you testify otherwise... or you may use the tape as 'non-hearsay' to refute a claim that you are lying about your stated date of creation... but the sealed tape, with all its previously stated flaws, likely will not come in as direct evidence to prove your date of creation... Though it may be helpful to you, personally, as a stamped date to jog your memory as to when the work was created.

What Evidence Is Likely to Come Into Court?
Testimony... by a living, breathing person who can attest to your date of creation--yourself included. (If pretrial, an affidavit from that living, breathing person). You can use the poor man's method as a way to date stamp the creation ... but you can do this with a simple note signed by both you and your witness... Heck you can even notarize it if you want. But, be warned that the notarization only attests to your identification. It does not go to the 'truth' of the document's assertions. So in the end, if you have an infringement suit, you will still have to show that you, indeed created the work in question. You will still have to offer evidence, usually by witnesses agreeing with that creation date. You will still have to show that the alleged infringer had access to the work to copy it. These are factual issues that (usually) a jury will decide, and as such they depend on your credibility as a witness and the strength of your evidence and presentation (i.e. your lawyer's skills).

What do you do About this Poor Man's Thing?
If you want to do it, be my guest. At worst, it will establish a date of creation to jog your memory, in the event you have to testify as a witness or sign an affidavit. However, don't fool yourself into believing that the Poor Man's method actually established a copyright.

Incidentally, I have done several searches in state and federal caselaw databases and I have yet to find any case that involved the use of such evidence. It appears not to exist... which I can only imagine helps the myth grow.

Do yourself a favor and register your work as soon as you can afford the $30 fee. If it's too high a price for one copyright, put several songs together as a "compilation" and register the compilation. Compilations make searching the copyright office for a single song title a bit more difficult, but the copyright protection is there all the same as if the work were registered individually. Have a witness or two or three verify your date of creation. Sign a simple document if you care. Personally, I think the Poor Man's method is not particularly useful, because you can create a date stamp in other ways (notarized document, witnessed document, date stamp on a hard drive or CD, etc). If you want to do it, it certainly does not hurt. But, it will not be a substitute for a registered copyright; it is no more proof of ownership of the copyright that without it; you have copyright protection inherently without it; and it has the tendency to make you complacently believe that it has greater value than it is really worth.

Just my 56 cents.
E-

[rjt]

Rev E, thank you for that response. Very informative. I would ask, a number of people have said that the PMC (poor man's copyright) works with a "registered letter" as that is always sealed and the seal is marked with date etc. My guess is that there is no case law regarding this, or you would have mentioned it. However, does it strengthen your claim as opposed to sending the tape to yourself via registered mail?

Take Care

[Rev E]

Originally Posted by rjt

... I would ask, a number of people have said that the PMC (poor man's copyright) works with a "registered letter" as that is always sealed and the seal is marked with date etc. My guess is that there is no case law regarding this, or you would have mentioned it. However, does it strengthen your claim as opposed to sending the tape to yourself via registered mail?

When I searched, I searched for both registered letters, certified mail, poor man's copyright, and common law copyright. I found no case law utilizing any of those types of evidence. My guess, after such an extensive search, is that those cases don't exist. I could be wrong, but it seems that most of the people who employ the PMC are generally not the type of folks whose music has been stolen and utilized commercially in any significant way ... OR maybe my search results mean that folks who don't have the money or good sense to register their copyrights do not generally have access to lawyers for filing suit against infringers.

If, in fact, a registered letter is sealed it may be better factual evidence of ownership of the copyright at a particular time ... but as I indicated earlier, a registered letter is still technically "hearsay" and cannot (generally) be used as "direct evidence". Such a letter still could be used indirectly in court, but only to jog the memory of the witness as to the date of creation (prior recollection recorded). Consider this example of testimony.

Q: Mr. X why have you filed this suit against YZ Publishing?
A: Because I wrote a work that sounds exactly like the work they said they published.
Q: When did you create your work?
A: I'm not sure?
Q: Is there anything that would refresh your memory?
A: Yes ... I sent myself a copy of the work via registered mail after I created it

[Objection, your Honor... Hearsay. The witness is attempting to introduce hearsay to prove the fact in issue OR Objection. The witness is trying to bolster his testimony by introducing hearsay testimony. Move to strike the testimony concerning the fact that a registered letter was sent and permission to instruct the jury that they cannot consider the fact that the created music was sent to by the creator to himself via registered mail]
Court: Opposing Counsel? Response?
Opposing Counsel: yada yada yada
Court: Granted. The witness may only testify as to when he created the work. Members of the jury, you may not consider the assertion that the witness sent his completed work to himself via Registered Mail. You may only consider the claim by the witness of when he created the work.

Q: Is there anything that would refresh your memory?
A: Yes, I have a dated letter right after I created the work.
[Witness is handed the (registered) letter to look it over. Letter is taken back from the witness]
Q: Is your memory refreshed?
A: Yes.
Q: What date did you create your work that you claim to be infringed?
A: XYZ date.
Q: Do you have any witnesses to the creation of your work?
A: Yes, I played a Dat tape of the work to my writing partner and my manager the day after I made it.

Q: Can you demonstrate how the work sounded on the date of creation?
A: Yes. I can play the Dat tape that I made on the day I created it.
Q: [taking Dat tape] Is this tape is in the same or substantially the same condition as when you made it [it's more likely that an expert would have verified the authenticity of the tape ... no changes ... before trial]?
A: Yes. [or stipulated by opposing counsel]
[Counsel (to the Court). Your Honor, at this time we request permission to play the Dat tape to the members of the jury]

[Play tape] ... etc.

But as you can see, by my scenario, if the opposing counsel is even halfway decent, the fact that the letter was sent via registered mail is no more beneficial given that it is technically hearsay and inadmissible bolstering of the witnesses' testimony. It certainly doesn't hurt, but the fact that the mail was "registered" will not likely be admissible "directly."

[rjt]

Thanks for an informative (and informed) response to an "endless debate" question. My thought is that many will continue to believe the PMC "myth", but that is their choice.

Take Care

[Cazzbar]

Wow... this place is a goldmine... came here today to find out about a sound module and copyright laws... not disappointed !

Was just reading about copyright information on the BBC web site here in England... the legal 'expert' there recommends the post it to yourself method. After reading this thread I feel I'm more of an expert than him now. I doubt if proof of copyright is that different between the two countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic...rightp03.shtml

Mikey.

(p.s. not sure what this valuable and important thread is doing hiding awaying in this section though !)

[rjt]

Cazzbar,

I don't think this debate will ever be settled. I have one CD and it is registered! Wow $30! I did a web search for about an hour before I posted the links about 4-5 posts ago. Like a said there, most people said it was worthless, a few said it was worthless-do it anyway and fewer still said it was valid. As long as there a few saying it is valid, I'm sure people will continue to do it. I think this is the kind of thing you have to make up your own mind about. Me?.... copyright the compilation for $30.

Take Care