Need to record vocals - No budget for a studio!

[smithers138]

The microphone that I have is a good mic. It's pro tools M-Audio mic. USB! I'm gonna try it with sonar and see what happens.

I'll keep you guys updated. Thanks

Good luck, arming tracks and setting the gain is pretty easy in sonar.. Also the effects are pretty easy to use.

 

[CFox]

I'm sure registered mail is permissible as evidence. But sending yourself a copy of something doesn't provide proof of copyright nor is it a replacement for registered copyright. If the case in question is one of copyright, the "poor man's copyright" method isn't accepted in a court of law. It's a common myth.

If somebody is worried about their work being stolen, registered copyright is the only way they could get any judgement after the fact.

It seems like a circular argument. If something is automatically copyrighted once it is recorded on a medium, then you could write the song on a napkin on the way into court. Or as a precaution you could time stamp that napkin in a tamper proof envelope with a tamperproof stamped seal.

There is no provision in copyright law regarding any such type of protection. Poor man's copyright is therefore not a substitute for registration. According to section 408 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, registration of a work with the Copyright Office is not a prerequisite for copyright protection.[2]

This contradictory statement from wiki does not mean that proof of authorship is not legally recognised as it states you dont have to register the item to have copyright protection. So proof of original copyright comes down to proof of authorship.

The United Kingdom Patent Office says this:
... it may help copyright owners to deposit a copy of their work with a bank or solicitor or send a copy of their work to themselves by special delivery (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return; this could establish that the work existed at this time. (Further details of special delivery should be available at Post Offices).

 

[FunkDaddy]

It seems like a circular argument. If something is automatically copyrighted once it is recorded on a medium, then you could write the song on a napkin on the way into court. Or as a precaution you could time stamp that napkin in a tamper proof envelope with a tamperproof stamped seal.

It's simple. When the matter at hand is one of copyright, a registered copyright trumps all. "Poor man's copyright" has no documented use as evidence in a copyright case and up against a registered copyright at a later date, the court would more likely side with the registered copyright owner.

 

[CFox]

It's simple. When the matter at hand is one of copyright, a registered copyright trumps all. "Poor man's copyright" has no documented use as evidence in a copyright case and up against a registered copyright at a later date, the court would more likely side with the registered copyright owner.

The law is never simple.Lol.

Where did you get this information from ? I just quoted above how American copyright law says you dont have to register it. No documented case does not mean it hasnt been used to settle disputes over authorship.

So I write a song and show 20 people. I have my hard drive with the demo's but I also send a CD to myself with the song and maybe session files.

6 months later you register it, release it, make some money, dont pay me. So I take you to court, subpoena the 20 people and produce my "poor mans copyright"...Who wins the case ? Or does it get settled out of court because of all the evidence I have that I am the author of the work ?

 

[FunkDaddy]

The law is never simple.Lol.

Where did you get this information from ? I just quoted above how American copyright law says you dont have to register it. No documented case does not mean it hasnt been used to settle disputes over authorship.

So I write a song and show 20 people. I have my hard drive with the demo's but I also send a CD to myself with the song and maybe session files.

6 months later you register it, release it, make some money, dont pay me. So I take you to court, subpoena the 20 people and produce my "poor mans copyright"...Who wins the case ? Or does it get settled out of court because of all the evidence I have that I am the author of the work ?

I'm no lawyer but I believe the court will side with the person who registered their copyright. "Poor Man's Copyright" is shaky at best even to prove date of completion since you can send an envelope to yourself with anything and tamper with it later (my lawyer would argue this). The 20 people amount to hearsay (or I produce 20 people who said they first heard my version) So really...if I wanted to argue my false innocence, I have the upper hand.

Registered copyright removes all hearsay and reasonable doubt and eliminates all burden of proof from my case. 20 people < registered copyright.

Copyright registration is not a prerequisite for copyright protection, you're right. You own the copyright as soon as you save the work in some tangible form. But if the issue at hand is who owns the copyright, the law will side with the person who has registered the copyright, not with somebody who has some dusty old envelope. Once again, yes, it is as simple as that.

 

[Armistice]

From the AUSTRALIAN copyright organisation's fact sheet for musicians and songwriters...

Things that DON’T make you a copyright owner
There are many myths around about how you can prove you own copyright. Some of the common ones are set out below.


Sending a copy of the work to yourself by registered mail
This is a widely held belief among musicians. Sending copies to yourself, whether by ordinary or registered post, has no legal effect whatever. At most, doing this may prove that the material existed at a particular date: it does not create copyright, and does not make you the copyright owner.

Putting the “copyright notice” on material
A copyright notice (in forms such as “© Dee Rummer 2006”) does not alter the copyright status or ownership of the material. Material that meets the requirements for copyright protection is protected whether or not the copyright notice is used.
You may put the copyright notice on your work yourself – there is no formal procedure. For example, you can hand write, type or stamp the copyright notice on music and lyrics that have been written down, and on recordings of the music (including on demo tapes).
The purpose of the notice is to let someone seeing it know that the material is protected, and that the person named claims to be the copyright owner. It can also be helpful if someone wants to use your work, as it gives them somewhere to start when they are trying to find the copyright owner. Since it does not change the copyright status of the material, the wording of the notice is not crucial. Nonetheless, it is a good idea to use the notice, or similar wording,
on material you create.

 

[CFox]

From the AUSTRALIAN copyright organisation's fact sheet for musicians and songwriters...

Things that DON’T make you a copyright owner
There are many myths around about how you can prove you own copyright. Some of the common ones are set out below.


Sending a copy of the work to yourself by registered mail
This is a widely held belief among musicians. Sending copies to yourself, whether by ordinary or registered post, has no legal effect whatever. At most, doing this may prove that the material existed at a particular date: it does not create copyright, and does not make you the copyright owner.

Putting the “copyright notice” on material
A copyright notice (in forms such as “© Dee Rummer 2006”) does not alter the copyright status or ownership of the material. Material that meets the requirements for copyright protection is protected whether or not the copyright notice is used.
You may put the copyright notice on your work yourself – there is no formal procedure. For example, you can hand write, type or stamp the copyright notice on music and lyrics that have been written down, and on recordings of the music (including on demo tapes).
The purpose of the notice is to let someone seeing it know that the material is protected, and that the person named claims to be the copyright owner. It can also be helpful if someone wants to use your work, as it gives them somewhere to start when they are trying to find the copyright owner. Since it does not change the copyright status of the material, the wording of the notice is not crucial. Nonetheless, it is a good idea to use the notice, or similar wording,
on material you create.

This is all good bro, but i was talking about disputes over authorship.

 

[Armistice]

I posted it because the "poor man's copyright" thing piqued my interest - and thought others may find it interesting too.

Not because I'm trying to get involved in the discussion you and FD are having, which does, however, run across that same topic.

 

[CFox]

I'm no lawyer but I believe the court will side with the person who registered their copyright.

There is no court case if its about who owns the registered copyright. That is obvious by checking with the registry. So wtf would it be going to court for ? For remuneration. It's all about money.

"Poor Man's Copyright" is shaky at best even to prove date of completion since you can send an envelope to yourself with anything and tamper with it later (my lawyer would argue this). The 20 people amount to hearsay (or I produce 20 people who said they first heard my version) So really...if I wanted to argue my false innocence, I have the upper hand.

You produce 20 people who perjure themselves ? I did also state tamper proof. In Australia the seal goes over the opening, and they seal it at the post office. Its up to the court to prove it has been tampered with.

Registered copyright removes all hearsay and reasonable doubt and eliminates all burden of proof from my case. 20 people < registered copyright.

Once again, registered copyright is not proof of authorship. And the law states you have copyright once you have it down on something.

Copyright registration is not a prerequisite for copyright protection, you're right. You own the copyright as soon as you save the work in some tangible form. But if the issue at hand is who owns the copyright, the law will side with the person who has registered the copyright, not with somebody who has some dusty old envelope. Once again, yes, it is as simple as that.

So, wait a minute, you agree that copyright protection exists once the creator has it in tangible form yet you still assert the court sides with the person who registers it ? So where is the copyright protection then ? It exists with the person who can prove authorship.

Yes, it really is that simple. Lol.

 

[FunkDaddy]

I don't agree that copyright protection exists when the author simply finishs the work, they own the copyright, yes, but registering that copyright is the only way to provide yourself any protection should a dispute over the copyright come about. Owning the copyright and proving you own the copyright are two very different things. Poor man's copyright will do nothing for you in that case as it isn't accepted as proof of copyright.

I'm not exactly sure how an envelope could be "tamper proof" and the simple fact that it has been in your possession the entire time, places the burden of proof on YOU to show that it has been sealed since it was timestamped, which is impossible, rendering it's use as evidence arbitrary at best. Even if we go with your statement that it would be on the court to prove it hadn't been tampered with...my lawyer would only have to prove within a reasonable doubt that it COULD have been tampered with. Once again...the registered copyright will trump this, easily.

If we're talking about a song that has earned me enough money to warrant a court case from you...why wouldn't I produce 20 people who say I wrote it first? They wouldn't be purjuring themselves as for all they know, I AM the original author. They can only testify to the first time they heard it, as only could your witnesses, which at the end of the day proves nothing. (I could have written a song 10 years ago and not play it for anybody until today, hence...heresay on either side of the case).

The registered copyrighted material will trump any other evidence except an earlier copyrighted version.

 

[CFox]

I don't agree that copyright protection exists when the author simply finishs the work, they own the copyright, yes, but registering that copyright is the only way to provide yourself any protection should a dispute over the copyright come about. Owning the copyright and proving you own the copyright are two very different things. Poor man's copyright will do nothing for you in that case as it isn't accepted as proof of copyright.

So you disagree with the law now ? Lol. Proof of authorship is what is at stake.

I'm not exactly sure how an envelope could be "tamper proof" and the simple fact that it has been in your possession the entire time, places the burden of proof on YOU to show that it has been sealed since it was timestamped, which is impossible, rendering it's use as evidence arbitrary at best. Even if we go with your statement that it would be on the court to prove it hadn't been tampered with...my lawyer would only have to prove within a reasonable doubt that it COULD have been tampered with. Once again...the registered copyright will trump this, easily.

Once again, you are making assertions. And now you are making shit up. Do you know what reasonable doubt means ? It relates to the defendant, not the evidence. The evidence is either admissible or it isnt.

we're talking about a song that has earned me enough money to warrant a court case from you...why wouldn't I produce 20 people who say I wrote it first? They wouldn't be purjuring themselves as for all they know, I AM the original author. They can only testify to the first time they heard it, as only could your witnesses, which at the end of the day proves nothing. (I could have written a song 10 years ago and not play it for anybody until today, hence...heresay on either side of the case).

Now you are wasting my time. Sorry bro, do you know what hearsay means ? It means passed on not witnessed directly. If I bring my 20 people to court and they testify they heard it on the first of Jan and you 20 people testify they heard it on the first of June, that is not hearsay, its testimony. We are trying to establish a time of authorship yes ?

The registered copyrighted material will trump any other evidence except an earlier copyrighted version.

If someone has pre issued your creation to a legal witness - eg a lawyer, that will trump your fabled registered copyright. Honestly bro, stop wasting my time.

 

[FunkDaddy]

lmao Will do Sorry you got your panties in a twist, I thought it was a fun debate

And yes, heresay was the wrong word to be using.

 

[stealth_prod]

Im glad this thread stayed on topic for once!!

But a question that comes up after reading all this is, what are you trying to accomplish by proving authorship? Idc who brings 20 people to a judge, if your proving who owns the rights to the song, its going to be the copyright holder. No sealed envelope or friends of friends are going to change that. That is why if you think a song will be good enough to steal, you should copyright it before doing anything public.

Im not trying to dip into your conversation or anything but any newbie reading this will think the "poor mans copyright" or making sure you have some people hear it on such and such date, is good enough to protect your songs and yourself. Just not true. Whats the saying? "Its not what you know, but what you can prove." Not having the registered copyright mean you dont own the song, no matter when you say you wrote it. Its a fun thread though so keep it up, need some entertaining at work.

 

[CFox]

Im glad this thread stayed on topic for once!!

But a question that comes up after reading all this is, what are you trying to accomplish by proving authorship? Idc who brings 20 people to a judge, if your proving who owns the rights to the song, its going to be the copyright holder. No sealed envelope or friends of friends are going to change that. That is why if you think a song will be good enough to steal, you should copyright it before doing anything public.

Im not trying to dip into your conversation or anything but any newbie reading this will think the "poor mans copyright" or making sure you have some people hear it on such and such date, is good enough to protect your songs and yourself. Just not true. Whats the saying? "Its not what you know, but what you can prove." Not having the registered copyright mean you dont own the song, no matter when you say you wrote it. Its a fun thread though so keep it up, need some entertaining at work.

Honestly dude, reread the important parts again.

If its going to court it means the original copyright is being contested not who owns the registered copyright. It would be obvious who owns the registered copyright by checking with the board.

The law states you dont have to register your work with the copyright board and you have copyright protection as soon as you have the creation in tangible form so its a matter of proving you created it at a certain date.

 

[grimtraveller]

Hmmmm....
Ahhhhh.....
Ooohhh......
Uuuurrrgh.......!

 

[CFox]

Hmmmm....
Ahhhhh.....
Ooohhh......
Uuuurrrgh.......!

What's your opinion Grim ? You seem to be in a shit stirring mood today bro

I noticed the thread you dug up concerning R and DM and it didnt make either of them look good.

 

[guitaristic]

ahhh...copyrights. Honestly, who cares?

I think we all secretly long for that day when we're so famous that people try to steal our music.

 

[FunkDaddy]

The law states you dont have to register your work with the copyright board and you have copyright protection as soon as you have the creation in tangible form so its a matter of proving you created it at a certain date.

Straight from the U.S. Copyright FAQ. That I think you posted earlier from as well...

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
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.

I understand you're hung up on this "proof of authorship" thing, but I don't think you understand what the argument is, the case in court would be who is the copyright owner and they would side with whoever registered it first. Simple as that (I know you love when I say that ) Copyright is automatic, protecting that copyright comes from registering it.

This all started because somebody in this thread said "Poor Man's Copyright" would be admissable in court, and it isn't.

 

[Armistice]

the case in court would be who is the copyright owner and they would side with whoever registered it first. Simple as that (I know you love when I say that

I don't want to keep stirring this up, but...

It depends upon what the case is. If there is a registered copyright and the court sides with that automatically, then why is there a case in court?

I think that if you can PROVE that you are the legal copyright owner, which is a different thing from being the holder of the registered copyright - ie. YOU CREATED THE WORK - then you'll win the dispute, which is presumably happening at all because someone ripped your toon off and made zillions out of it....

As to how you prove it, the poor man's copyright thing I think we've dealt with - interesting, but means little in a court of law - it would depend on what other evidence you have around that you created the work and how effectively you could prove it, which would have to be on a case by case basis and is impossible to theorise about in detail as each case would be different, BUT I imagine witnesses who can attest that they heard the song at a specific date, especially in a recorded form, would be useful, especially if that date precedes the registered copyright that the arsehole who stole your song now has.

Is everyone with me on this? Can I get a hallelujah? High five? Slap 'n' dap?

We won't even get into PARTS of a tune being ripped off..

Have a good weekend all..

 

[FunkDaddy]

Haha yeah, I'll go ahead and agree with all of that. No sense arguing it anymore especially since I'm mostly talking out my ass.