"Poor Man's Copyright"....Britney vs. Wallace

Aaron Cheney

Favorite Chord: C 6/9
Check this out.

I don't see this case going very far based on the information in the article. I bet this poor guy is now wishing he'd spent the meager $30 and done it right in the first place....

A
 
nothing was said about the "poor mans copyright" other than that is what he did. didnt even say if they were using it in court, or whether it was valid or not...
 
Hopefully he's got some people who can testify that they were aware of the song 15 years ago.
 
foreverain4 said:
nothing was said about the "poor mans copyright" other than that is what he did. didnt even say if they were using it in court, or whether it was valid or not...

That's the point of the post..... hopefully we're going to find out once and for all wether a court will even consider such a "copyright".

The article says he acquired a US Copyright in 1999, the same year the song was released on her album. My guess is that he heard the song on her album, realized he'd been ripped off, and then scrambled to get a real copyright so he could bring suit.

I'd also be willing to bet that Britney's producers or lable did a copyright search for the song, found none, and then went ahead and stole it, knowing that whatever poor schlubb wrote it wouldn't stand a chance.

Even with a proper US copyright you'ld have to have a ton of money to enforce it against a major lable. Without it he may as well just forget it. In my non-lawyer opinion, a post-marked envelope and the testimony of 1000 friends will not hold a candle to the US copyright that I'm sure Britney's people secured, which will pre-date Wallace's.

A
 
Even with a proper US copyright you'ld have to have a ton of money to enforce it against a major lable.

If this is true, then why copyright in the first place? No struggling musician is going to have a "ton of money" to battle in court against a major label. I have to believe that a registered copyright offers SOME protection.
 
I wonder, this may be a little off topic, but are polygraphs ever used in these types of intellectual property cases?

If you've got a poor Joe claiming he wrote the song, 30 witnesses claiming that he wrote it, and a postmarked envelope with a copy of the song in it, wouldn't it be worth it to put them into a polygraph machine and test them? I know someone is probably going to say that the courts won't waste the time or money on something like that, but when it means that someone is possibly cheated out of millions, I would think it would be worth it.
 
famous beagle said:
If this is true, then why copyright in the first place? No struggling musician is going to have a "ton of money" to battle in court against a major label. I have to believe that a registered copyright offers SOME protection.

A registered copyright is "prima facie" or indisputable evidence of the date of creation. If he had a registered copyright from 1990 they would have settled out of court in about 10 minutes. The case would be so strong any contingency type lawyer would be glad to take it on.
 
apl said:
A registered copyright is "prima facie" or indisputable evidence of the date of creation. If he had a registered copyright from 1990 they would have settled out of court in about 10 minutes. The case would be so strong any contingency type lawyer would be glad to take it on.

that's what I would think, but Cheney seems to think differently.
 
Aaron Cheney said:
That's the point of the post..... hopefully we're going to find out once and for all wether a court will even consider such a "copyright".

The article says he acquired a US Copyright in 1999, the same year the song was released on her album. My guess is that he heard the song on her album, realized he'd been ripped off, and then scrambled to get a real copyright so he could bring suit.

I'd also be willing to bet that Britney's producers or lable did a copyright search for the song, found none, and then went ahead and stole it, knowing that whatever poor schlubb wrote it wouldn't stand a chance.

Even with a proper US copyright you'ld have to have a ton of money to enforce it against a major lable. Without it he may as well just forget it. In my non-lawyer opinion, a post-marked envelope and the testimony of 1000 friends will not hold a candle to the US copyright that I'm sure Britney's people secured, which will pre-date Wallace's.

A

Actually, it says he didn't register until 2003, but he DID register... The fact that he submitted the lyrics in a contest in '97 (two years before the Pop-Princess' copyright reg) SHOULD be all a judge needs to hear... I'm not sure if that would constitute 'publication' or not, but if so then he misses the 5 year deadline required by the Government, but she nails it:
WWW.COPYRIGHT.GOV said:
* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

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

* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

It'll be interesting to see if Britney and Co. just end up whipping out the checkbook on this one...
 
apl said:
A registered copyright is "prima facie" or indisputable evidence of the date of creation. If he had a registered copyright from 1990 they would have settled out of court in about 10 minutes. The case would be so strong any contingency type lawyer would be glad to take it on.

The only chance this guy has is if the song was published prior to the Britany version, in which case he'd have been a fool to not register at that time in the first place.
 
Copyright

Material is legally copyrighted as soon as you stop moving your pen on the paper or stop the recorder when recording. The tricky part comes into proving that you were the first to do so. So the "poor man's copyright" really has nothing to do with the copyright itself, but just proving earliest date of creation*. Registering a copyright is just creating public record of an existing copyright, as apl is saying. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual copyright - as soon as a physical form of the material is created, it is legally yours.

I apologize if I am simply stating things everyone already knows. I just found it interesting when I finally found out all this stuff.


*Now you can do this more easily than mailing it to yourself. Just save a file with your lyrics or, if you have a music publishing program, your sheet music, and the file has a file creation date on it. Of course, this, along with a postmark, can be faked (setting back a computer clock, or finding an old unopened envelope and steaming it open to replace the contents...of course the first scenario is MUCH more believable than the first), so it behooves us all to register our copyrights. If the cost gets to you (at $30 a song) you can also register a group of songs as a collection and split up the copyright later. I can't find the information right now, but the two fees add up to much less if you are registering, for instance, 10 songs.
 
Not to mention that:

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin
 
BentRabbit said:
Actually, it says he didn't register until 2003, but he DID register...
The fact that he submitted the lyrics in a contest in '97 (two years before the Pop-Princess' copyright reg) SHOULD be all a judge needs to hear... I'm not sure if that would constitute 'publication' or not...

Oops... you're right: Britney filed in 1999. He didn't file until 2003.

Also: entering your song in contest in no way equates to having it "published".

This guy has no chance.

A
 
famous beagle said:
I wonder, this may be a little off topic, but are polygraphs ever used in these types of intellectual property cases?

If you've got a poor Joe claiming he wrote the song, 30 witnesses claiming that he wrote it, and a postmarked envelope with a copy of the song in it, wouldn't it be worth it to put them into a polygraph machine and test them? I know someone is probably going to say that the courts won't waste the time or money on something like that, but when it means that someone is possibly cheated out of millions, I would think it would be worth it.

I don't think polygraphs are admissable in court, although I'm not sure on this. I do know that they're very unreliable and can be easily thwarted. Their methodology relies on deception, and on the participant having no idea of this deception. If the participant knows how to deal with it, the polygraph doesn't mean a thing.
 
philboyd studge said:
The only chance this guy has is if the song was published prior to the Britany version, in which case he'd have been a fool to not register at that time in the first place.

Exactly.

A
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Also: entering your song in contest in no way equates to having it "published".

How so? My understading is that posting on soundclick is publishing, basically throwing it out into public access.
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Also: entering your song in contest in no way equates to having it "published".

This guy has no chance.

A

Per the instructions on Form PA:

Publication: The statute defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”; a work is also “published” if there has been an “offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display


Could be interesting...
 
apl said:
How so? My understading is that posting on soundclick is publishing, basically throwing it out into public access.

Your song is copyrighted the moment you put pen to paper or record it in some other fashion, as mjareo stated above. However, the US Government only recognizes your copyright once you've registered it with the US Copyright office. That's why the "poor man's copyright" and the testimony of 1000 friends won't work.

I think we are confusing "creation" with "publication". You can post you song online, give it to 1000 friends, and enter it in 1000 contests, but you have still only "created" it.

I will post the entire quote from section 3 of form PA that BentRabbit only posted an excerpt from. And I quote:

Section 3
General Instructions: Do not confuse “creation” with “publication.”
Every application for copyright registration must state “the year in which creation of the work was completed.” Give the date and nation of first publication only if the work has been published.
Creation: Under the statute, a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Where a work has been prepared over a period of time, the part of the work existing in fixed form on a particular date constitutes the created work on that date. The date you give here should be the year in which the author completed the particular version for which registration is now being sought, even if other versions exist or if further changes or additions are planned.
Publication: The statute defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”; a work is also “published” if there has been an “offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display.” Give the full date (month, day, year) when, and the country where, publication first occurred. If first publication took place simultaneously in the United States and other countries, it is sufficient to state “U.S.A.”


So, let's say you wrote a song, gave to 10 friends, and entered it in 2 contests. Now, let's look at the requirments for publication. Have you:

1) distributed it to the public by sale? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
2) distributed it to the public by transfer of ownership? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
3) distributed by rental, lease, or lending? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
4) received an offering to distribute? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)

I'll be the first to admit that I am no lawyer. All the above is based on my experience in the biz and knowledge of how things work. I will say that "publishing" a song involves signing a legal contract (unless you are self-publishing). I have looked over and signed publishing contracts, and they can be a little daunting. One thing they do is establish a legal date that the song existed, and that might have been this guy's only hope, as philboyd studge said earlier. As a side note, I have yet to see a publishing contract that does not have a clause that states the song's copyright number.

In thinking about it, I guess that if you have not signed a legal contract with a publisher you could argue that you are self-published. I'll also say that the copyright office and the music biz in general could have different definitions for "published".

In the end, it is all really immaterial.... my first paragraph of this post still stands.

A



p.s. (edit) In re-reading the Copyright Office instructions above, I noticed it says "distribution of copies or phonorecords". I wonder if this language has been changed since the Copyright Act was written in the '70's, when people couldn't rip their own CD's, post mp3's, or print out sheet music on their home computers.

Interesting.
 
BentRabbit said:
Per the instructions on Form PA:

Publication: The statute defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”; a work is also “published” if there has been an “offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display


Could be interesting...

Yes, and how do you prove publication?

You guessed it, by registering with the United States Copyright Office.
 
Aaron Cheney said:
Your song is copyrighted the moment you put pen to paper or record it in some other fashion, as mjareo stated above. However, the US Government only recognizes your copyright once you've registered it with the US Copyright office. That's why the "poor man's copyright" and the testimony of 1000 friends won't work.

I think we are confusing "creation" with "publication". You can post you song online, give it to 1000 friends, and enter it in 1000 contests, but you have still only "created" it.

I will post the entire quote from section 3 of form PA that BentRabbit only posted an excerpt from. And I quote:

Section 3
General Instructions: Do not confuse “creation” with “publication.”
Every application for copyright registration must state “the year in which creation of the work was completed.” Give the date and nation of first publication only if the work has been published.
Creation: Under the statute, a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Where a work has been prepared over a period of time, the part of the work existing in fixed form on a particular date constitutes the created work on that date. The date you give here should be the year in which the author completed the particular version for which registration is now being sought, even if other versions exist or if further changes or additions are planned.
Publication: The statute defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”; a work is also “published” if there has been an “offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display.” Give the full date (month, day, year) when, and the country where, publication first occurred. If first publication took place simultaneously in the United States and other countries, it is sufficient to state “U.S.A.”


So, let's say you wrote a song, gave to 10 friends, and entered it in 2 contests. Now, let's look at the requirments for publication. Have you:

1) distributed it to the public by sale? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
2) distributed it to the public by transfer of ownership? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
3) distributed by rental, lease, or lending? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)
4) received an offering to distribute? No. (The song, not the copy of it.)

I'll be the first to admit that I am no lawyer. All the above is based on my experience in the biz and knowledge of how things work. I will say that "publishing" a song involves signing a legal contract (unless you are self-publishing). I have looked over and signed publishing contracts, and they can be a little daunting. One thing they do is establish a legal date that the song existed, and that might have been this guy's only hope, as philboyd studge said earlier. As a side note, I have yet to see a publishing contract that does not have a clause that states the song's copyright number.

In thinking about it, I guess that if you have not signed a legal contract with a publisher you could argue that you are self-published. I'll also say that the copyright office and the music biz in general could have different definitions for "published".

In the end, it is all really immaterial.... my first paragraph of this post still stands.

A



p.s. (edit) In re-reading the Copyright Office instructions above, I noticed it says "distribution of copies or phonorecords". I wonder if this language has been changed since the Copyright Act was written in the '70's, when people couldn't rip their own CD's, post mp3's, or print out sheet music on their home computers.

Interesting.
About the "Poetry Contest" entries....You have only spoken of entries...But what if your "Poem" is published in a "Collection". And that "Collection" IS for sell. Doesn't this give you a bit more leverage than not? Of course, as was said earlier...Power and Money make all the difference in the world,unless you get an "Honest" Judge....yeah right....I have many "Poor Man" copies of songs,but I do believe I will keep them to myself from now on until I get them "Properly" protected.
 
Back
Top