Copyright
- Thread starter CANINE704
- Start date
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
http://www.copyright.gov/
there's a FAQ here
yes you can submit on CD.......
yes you can sing it accapella...that way the words and melody will be covered.......
you dont have to enclose lyric sheets, but i dont see any reason why you wouldnt.......
use form PA......
there's a FAQ here
yes you can submit on CD.......
yes you can sing it accapella...that way the words and melody will be covered.......
you dont have to enclose lyric sheets, but i dont see any reason why you wouldnt.......
use form PA......
Anyone who submits copyright registration for a cd or tape without enclosing lyric sheets does so at their own risk. Copyrights registrations without lyric sheets and with questionable audio legibility have been held insufficient by several different district courts in the 9th Circuit. If you're going to all the trouble and expense to register your copyright, why take chances?
Until 2 years ago the Copyright Office itself recommended enclosing lyric sheets with all recorded submittals to establish authorship. While it's not required, it is the best practice. As of last May, at least, some Registrar employees were still encouraging people to suibmit lyric sheets because it makes their job much easier.
Re the court cases, district court cases are chosen for publication in the Federal Supplement. I don't know if any of the cases have been published, but if they have been you could find them in slip opinions there, or more likely in Federal Rules Service Reporter because I think the cases were decided on Rule 56 motions for summary judgement. I'm sure they are included in some specialized newsletters or journals, but I haven't seen them in any. The ones I'm aware came out of Federal District Courts in Tucson and Los Angeles and the judges ruled that there was no infringement without clear and convincing evidence of the lyrical content of a song. I read about the cases in one of the news services available on Usenet News via Washurn College of Law Library at www.washlaw.edu.
To me it's still a question of common sense. Why go to the trouble of registering your copyright and then shoot yourself in the foot by leaving a loophole that may invalidate the registratioon, or at least, the content of the lyrics? Why take that risk when there is so little effort involved?
While lyric sheet inclusion is my opinion, it's also the opinion of the copyright section of the American Bar Association. In other words, attorneys who specialize in copyright law and represent songwriters and publishers.
Re the court cases, district court cases are chosen for publication in the Federal Supplement. I don't know if any of the cases have been published, but if they have been you could find them in slip opinions there, or more likely in Federal Rules Service Reporter because I think the cases were decided on Rule 56 motions for summary judgement. I'm sure they are included in some specialized newsletters or journals, but I haven't seen them in any. The ones I'm aware came out of Federal District Courts in Tucson and Los Angeles and the judges ruled that there was no infringement without clear and convincing evidence of the lyrical content of a song. I read about the cases in one of the news services available on Usenet News via Washurn College of Law Library at www.washlaw.edu.
To me it's still a question of common sense. Why go to the trouble of registering your copyright and then shoot yourself in the foot by leaving a loophole that may invalidate the registratioon, or at least, the content of the lyrics? Why take that risk when there is so little effort involved?
While lyric sheet inclusion is my opinion, it's also the opinion of the copyright section of the American Bar Association. In other words, attorneys who specialize in copyright law and represent songwriters and publishers.
Last edited:
It is the same in the U.S.
The copyright exists as soon as the work is set down in any form -- written, an audio recording, etc.
Registering a song that is not being shopped by a publisher does nothing except make you $30 poorer. Contrary to popular belief among amateurs, there are simply not a lot of people out there looking to steal songs from unknown writers.
Maguire
The copyright exists as soon as the work is set down in any form -- written, an audio recording, etc.
Registering a song that is not being shopped by a publisher does nothing except make you $30 poorer. Contrary to popular belief among amateurs, there are simply not a lot of people out there looking to steal songs from unknown writers.
Maguire
DC - I understand you're sentiment, but disagree for several reasons under certain circumstances -
1] Unpublished songwriters who actively shop songs to publishers, performers, managers, producers, et,al. should have the songs they pitch copyrighted. While most people in these professions are honest, ethical people, accidents do happen. Tapes and Cds get duplicated without the writer's name, address, etc.
2] People who are asked by publishers, managers, et.al to co-write with people who they don't know or know well. It's nice to have proof that Two-Chord Johnny really didn't write all that he claims to. This is probably the most commonly litigated issue in cases involving songwriting currently.
3] Anyone who performs their unpublished songs at songwriter showcases, writer's nights, open mikes, etc.
If you're writing songs to impress your wife or girlfriend or to have people pat you on the back, maybe a registered copyright isn't so important. But, if you're trying to make a living from your writing, copyright registration isn't such bad idea or a waste of $30.00.
1] Unpublished songwriters who actively shop songs to publishers, performers, managers, producers, et,al. should have the songs they pitch copyrighted. While most people in these professions are honest, ethical people, accidents do happen. Tapes and Cds get duplicated without the writer's name, address, etc.
2] People who are asked by publishers, managers, et.al to co-write with people who they don't know or know well. It's nice to have proof that Two-Chord Johnny really didn't write all that he claims to. This is probably the most commonly litigated issue in cases involving songwriting currently.
3] Anyone who performs their unpublished songs at songwriter showcases, writer's nights, open mikes, etc.
If you're writing songs to impress your wife or girlfriend or to have people pat you on the back, maybe a registered copyright isn't so important. But, if you're trying to make a living from your writing, copyright registration isn't such bad idea or a waste of $30.00.
joro
The Pie Guy
bdbdbuck said:
I do.....
The law states...
copyright for original material is in effect upon creation....
registering your songs is a safeguard for legal issues and for
publishing reasons......
I have heard a recent rumor of an individual who stole a song from someone who had posted it on-line....
The song was cut by a magor artist...
upon discovery....the real writer filed suit...
the court took the on-line posting date of the original as proof of ownership.....so I have heard....just a rumor so far....
If true,
Posting your lyric/song on-line would be a free form of copyright...
provided that the files remain intact and dated...
this would be very cool but, I still register all my finished tunes in parcels of five to ten or so....
It's almost time to write another check too....
FatBoy_Krawl
New member
This is very interesting. However, on a different style. What about someone who writes a song (such as myself) who does not read of write music and does just instrumentals? There is no real way, other than someone transcribing to get the sheet music.
I'm not saying my music is going to make the top 100, but I do place much online. I also heard many years ago (perhaps rumor) that a simple copywrite for those short on cash but wanting a copywrite was to send a CD or other media to yourself via the postal service and leave the contents unopened (obviously). This gives a goverment stamp with date. Course this only works if you keep your music on the deck and post it after you get your CD back in the mail.
Just my two cents.
I'm not saying my music is going to make the top 100, but I do place much online. I also heard many years ago (perhaps rumor) that a simple copywrite for those short on cash but wanting a copywrite was to send a CD or other media to yourself via the postal service and leave the contents unopened (obviously). This gives a goverment stamp with date. Course this only works if you keep your music on the deck and post it after you get your CD back in the mail.
Just my two cents.
FatBoy_Krawl
New member
joro said:
Only problem here is file dates on a computer can be modified forward and even backwards. I would like to know if you find out anything on this, but I would have to say it would more than likely be rumor since this can happen.
Just mho.
bdbdbuck
New member
I guess my point is, why would you want to take the chance of the court not upholding any alternate method you may have used. My stuff will probably never hit the charts either, but I feel a lot more confident about exposure knowing the songs I expose are registered. I think $30 is pretty cheap insurance.
bd
bd
FatBoy_Krawl
New member
bdbdbuck said:
This is very true. A $30.00 copywrite is much better, but honestly the fact remains that not everyone has $30.00 to put out there on something the might happen.
Mainly for myself I was posting information that 'could' save your hide and just in case. It's a lot cheaper than $30.00 and when you get a complete CD then you can submit that to the copywrite office.
We all need to save money, but still protect our creativity.
Yes -- I have posted my stuff online, though I only make the URL available to those with whom I want to share the work.
All of the various forms of "poor man's copyright" are nothing but urban legend. They provide no more protection than what the law already allows.
DCMaguire
All of the various forms of "poor man's copyright" are nothing but urban legend. They provide no more protection than what the law already allows.
DCMaguire