Copyright Question

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I registered some music with the Copyright office but it seems to take
sooooooo long to hear back from them and I need to send out some of my
music.

I noticed that on a DATA CD that I made of the music, the files have a
'date created' when righ clicking the properties menu ........ Would
this pass as evidence of time of possesion in case of any problems?

Thanks

Marysue

 

[geek]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content. If
it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An easy
way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the material
to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
excellent proof of date.

This may suffice in the short term until you hear back from the Copyright
office.

m.

--


mikerekka at hotmail dot com hates spam


"marysue" <marysue1980@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:87f9f47f.0410102154.6cd9881c@posting.google.com...
>I registered some music with the Copyright office but it seems to take
> sooooooo long to hear back from them and I need to send out some of my
> music.
>
> I noticed that on a DATA CD that I made of the music, the files have a
> 'date created' when righ clicking the properties menu ........ Would
> this pass as evidence of time of possesion in case of any problems?
>
> Thanks
>
> Marysue

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:46 GMT, "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content. If
>it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An easy
>way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the material
>to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
>excellent proof of date.
>
>This may suffice in the short term until you hear back from the Copyright
>office.
>
>m.


This is a myth that refuses to die. Mailing a certified copy to
yourself and leaving it sealed does nothing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 10 Oct 2004 22:54:41 -0700, marysue1980@hotmail.com (marysue)
wrote:

>I registered some music with the Copyright office but it seems to take
>sooooooo long to hear back from them and I need to send out some of my
>music.
>
>I noticed that on a DATA CD that I made of the music, the files have a
>'date created' when righ clicking the properties menu ........ Would
>this pass as evidence of time of possesion in case of any problems?
>
>Thanks
>
>Marysue

Your cancelled check to the Register of Copyrights is enough to prove
that your application is in the system.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"marysue" <marysue1980@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:87f9f47f.0410102154.6cd9881c@posting.google.com...
> I registered some music with the Copyright office but it seems to take
> sooooooo long to hear back from them and I need to send out some of my
> music.
>
> I noticed that on a DATA CD that I made of the music, the files have a
> 'date created' when righ clicking the properties menu ........ Would
> this pass as evidence of time of possesion in case of any problems?

No, since someone could always mess with a computer's date before altering a
file.

But you don't need to wait until you hear from the copyright office. The
copyright itself exists from the moment you create the piece; the
registration is simply a solid piece of evidence that it had been created by
a particular time. For all intents and purposes, the registration is valid
once the mailed item arrives in the Copyright Office and is date-and-time
stamped by the receiving clerk. In practice, I'd say wait a week after you
send it to the Copyright Office, then start shopping it around.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, not even close. But I've copyrighted several pieces
in my time, and spoke to the folks at the Copyright Office at least once,
maybe twice, just to find out what was up.

Peace,
Paul

 

[Andrea]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<O4qad.526759$OB3.105682@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "marysue" <marysue1980@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:87f9f47f.0410102154.6cd9881c@posting.google.com...
> > I registered some music with the Copyright office but it seems to take
> > sooooooo long to hear back from them and I need to send out some of my
> > music.
> >
> > I noticed that on a DATA CD that I made of the music, the files have a
> > 'date created' when righ clicking the properties menu ........ Would
> > this pass as evidence of time of possesion in case of any problems?
>
> No, since someone could always mess with a computer's date before altering a
> file.
>
> But you don't need to wait until you hear from the copyright office. The
> copyright itself exists from the moment you create the piece; the
> registration is simply a solid piece of evidence that it had been created by
> a particular time. For all intents and purposes, the registration is valid
> once the mailed item arrives in the Copyright Office and is date-and-time
> stamped by the receiving clerk. In practice, I'd say wait a week after you
> send it to the Copyright Office, then start shopping it around.
>
> Note: I'm not a lawyer, not even close. But I've copyrighted several pieces
> in my time, and spoke to the folks at the Copyright Office at least once,
> maybe twice, just to find out what was up.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

You could also send/upload the music to a CD-R on demand service, for
a short run, just a few or just 1, you would have a dated invoice and
shipping receipt. This would help if you intend to use a creative
commons deed for your work, instead of plain old copyright.
Andrea
http/www.andrearogers.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:46 GMT, "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content. If
>it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An easy
>way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the material
>to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
>excellent proof of date.

What's "double-register"?

I wonder if the Post Office would refuse to send an unsealed
registered packet? Would they notice?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< But you don't need to wait until you hear from the copyright office. The
copyright itself exists from the moment you create the piece; the
registration is simply a solid piece of evidence that it had been created by
a particular time. For all intents and purposes, the registration is valid
once the mailed item arrives in the Copyright Office and is date-and-time
stamped by the receiving clerk. In practice, I'd say wait a week after you
send it to the Copyright Office, then start shopping it around. >>



This is all absolutely correct. I might add that while all conventional "poor
man's copyright" methods establish a date of authorship, the law is clear that
you can not sue for, or collect statutory damages in a copyright infringement
suit without registering a copyright form. The best protection you can hope for
without copyright protection is a cease and desist - hardly the only remedy you
want. Your best protection is your form winging it's way to Washington.

.....I'm not a lawyer either, etc.
Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rick Ruskin" <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:bh2lm01hmh77ls5iih7es5ev1me0dba1pj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:46 GMT, "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content.
>>If
>>it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An
>>easy
>>way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the
>>material
>>to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
>>excellent proof of date.
>>
>>This may suffice in the short term until you hear back from the Copyright
>>office.
>>
>>m.
>
>
> This is a myth that refuses to die. Mailing a certified copy to
> yourself and leaving it sealed does nothing.

That's not necessarily true. Under U.S. copyright law, you do hold a
copyright on any material you write the second you create it. Your
copyright is valid whether or not you register with the copyright office and
you need only demonstrate that you created the work in question. That could
be proven any number of ways.

BUT, IIRC, you can only seek monetary damages on infringed work if you have
registered your work with the copyright office.

In general, there is probably no good reason to register until right before
you're about to publish a work.

--Nick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <fvtkm052q0ps0rtq67tdjcqrrfnrlp9jo7@4ax.com> l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk writes:

> "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content. If
> >it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An easy
> >way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the material
> >to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
> >excellent proof of date.

That used to be a rumor in the US, but it's been proved ineffective
enough so that only people who haven't done their homework or those
who don't think their compositions are worth $20 to protect still do
it.

> I wonder if the Post Office would refuse to send an unsealed
> registered packet? Would they notice?

They probably wouldn't notice, and they don't notice (and re-seal) on
delivery unless it's really falling appart. You could lightly seal an
envelope so that it would go through the postal handling system
intact, un-seal it, and when you write something worth protecting a
year later, stick it in and seal it up. That's why this doesn't hold
up in court.

However, if you don't bother to protect your copyright and eventually
find yourself having to defend it in court, you should grin and burst
with pride (and try to settle out of court). Unless of course it's a
former partner or band member who's trying to profit from your
creativity, in which case you should pop him one in the chops (and
then you'll have something worth settling in court, but you'll
probalby lose that one).



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[geek]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Double registering is a term here for the package having to pass through two
registered offices, basically being date stamped twice. The package should
be sealed and remain sealed, only opened if you're challenged on the
copyright.

Mike.

--


mikerekka at hotmail dot com hates spam


"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fvtkm052q0ps0rtq67tdjcqrrfnrlp9jo7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:46 GMT, "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content.
>>If
>>it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An
>>easy
>>way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the
>>material
>>to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
>>excellent proof of date.
>
> What's "double-register"?
>
> I wonder if the Post Office would refuse to send an unsealed
> registered packet? Would they notice?
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[geek]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I personally know of one case where the decision was made by this method. I
agree there are other, better, ways to deal with this but if someone's in
such a rush to pass the material around this would be an ounce of
prevention.

Mike.

--


mikerekka at hotmail dot com hates spam


"Rick Ruskin" <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:bh2lm01hmh77ls5iih7es5ev1me0dba1pj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:46 GMT, "geek" <mikerekka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I know in Canada you own the copyright as soon as you create the content.
>>If
>>it ever comes into question, the earliest proven creation date wins. An
>>easy
>>way to secure that date up here is to double-register a copy of the
>>material
>>to yourself. Leave it in tact and the postal date stamp will provide an
>>excellent proof of date.
>>
>>This may suffice in the short term until you hear back from the Copyright
>>office.
>>
>>m.
>
>
> This is a myth that refuses to die. Mailing a certified copy to
> yourself and leaving it sealed does nothing.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Lfwad.2104$tn5.1534453@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com writes:

> That's not necessarily true. Under U.S. copyright law, you do hold a
> copyright on any material you write the second you create it. Your
> copyright is valid whether or not you register with the copyright office

True.

> BUT, IIRC, you can only seek monetary damages on infringed work if you have
> registered your work with the copyright office.

That's the gist of it but it's more detailed. You can seek damages no
matter what, but you're limited to what you can collect (and what for)
if you don't have proof by registration.

> In general, there is probably no good reason to register until right before
> you're about to publish a work.

Unless someone else is about to publish your work. That's what this is
all about usually.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1097520525k@trad...
>
> In article <Lfwad.2104$tn5.1534453@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
> delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com writes:
> Unless someone else is about to publish your work. That's what this is
> all about usually.

My understanding is that such theft is extremely rare.

$20 per song is a lot of money if you write a lot of songs and most decent
songwriters do. One option is to jumble a bunch of tunes together, give it
a name, and copyright the whole lot as a single work. It's still just $20.

Another option is don't worry about it too much. If you're that good, it's
far more likely you'll get screwed in perfectly legal ways.

--Nick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nick wrote:
>
> My understanding is that such theft is extremely rare.
>
> $20 per song is a lot of money if you write a lot of songs and most decent
> songwriters do. One option is to jumble a bunch of tunes together, give it
> a name, and copyright the whole lot as a single work. It's still just $20.
>
> Another option is don't worry about it too much. If you're that good, it's
> far more likely you'll get screwed in perfectly legal ways.

Actually, the filing fee for a copyright application has been increased
to $30.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <0XQad.2180$HX6.1961096@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> delonas@NOSPAMcultv.com writes:

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote
> > Unless someone else is about to publish your work. That's what this is
> > all about usually.
>
> My understanding is that such theft is extremely rare.

It's not unheard of, but sometimes there are "issues" with co-writers
who go their separate ways. However, while someone may not publish
exactly your work, it's possible that you'll find something out there
that's highly derivitive. If you can prove it and you're adequately
protected, you can collect. Think "My Sweet Lord."

> $20 per song is a lot of money if you write a lot of songs and most decent
> songwriters do. One option is to jumble a bunch of tunes together, give it
> a name, and copyright the whole lot as a single work. It's still just $20.

That can put you into some sort of restictive area when you go to
publish your own songs, unless you publish them as the same collection
that you copyright as a collection. I don't remember the particulars.
It's good if you're in a friendly environmnet and you know you won't
have any problem collecting royalties from others who use your songs
from that collection. But if you're a serious songwriter - and by that
I mean that you not only INTEND to make money from your songs, but
that you actually DO - then $20 a song is just a cost of doing
business. Also, the best songwriters know what to throw away, and they
don't register everything they write.

> Another option is don't worry about it too much. If you're that good, it's
> far more likely you'll get screwed in perfectly legal ways.

And if you're just average and don't have a good agent, chances are
nobody who would make a killing off your music will never hear it
anyway. And in that situation, if you hear a work by a famous artist
that you think sounds derivitive of your song, you'll have a harder
time proving that they heard your work than the'll have proving that
they didn't.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ceKdndPhK5yEuvHcRVn-qw@portbridge.com> mcp6453@earthlink.net writes:

> Actually, the filing fee for a copyright application has been increased
> to $30.

Good! Then maybe some people will give up songwriting and get a job.
<g>


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"mcp6453" <mcp6453@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ceKdndPhK5yEuvHcRVn-qw@portbridge.com...
> Actually, the filing fee for a copyright application has been increased to
> $30.

Dang!

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1097598140k@trad...
> It's not unheard of, but sometimes there are "issues" with co-writers
> who go their separate ways. However, while someone may not publish
> exactly your work, it's possible that you'll find something out there
> that's highly derivitive. If you can prove it and you're adequately
> protected, you can collect. Think "My Sweet Lord."

Yeah. The most famous cases involve theft of established songs, that
presumably were properly copyrighted. I can't think of too many cases of
the theft of unknown songs. Then again, maybe those complainants are bought
off. I know I could be bought off pretty easily for one of my tunes. I
also think I have a better chance of hitting the big game than of one
getting stolen.

My brother is a cartoonist and other cartoonists rip him off all the time.
He'll publish a cartoon and the next day the exact same cartoon, drawn by
others, will be in several papers around the country. It annoys him, but
neither he nor his employer have ever done anything about it. I think
that's kind of the way the business works. Besides, it'd be easy to argue
that such cartoon concepts are obvious given current events.

Still, it happens to him pretty often.

> That can put you into some sort of restictive area when you go to
> publish your own songs, unless you publish them as the same collection
> that you copyright as a collection. I don't remember the particulars.
> It's good if you're in a friendly environmnet and you know you won't
> have any problem collecting royalties from others who use your songs
> from that collection. But if you're a serious songwriter - and by that
> I mean that you not only INTEND to make money from your songs, but
> that you actually DO - then $20 a song is just a cost of doing
> business. Also, the best songwriters know what to throw away, and they
> don't register everything they write.

Yeah, but sometimes good songwriters are surprised. IIRC, one of Todd
Rundgren's biggest hits -- "In the Light" I believe -- came close to hitting
the trash bin. He was very surprised by its popularity -- again IIRC.

--Nick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:49:06 -0400, mcp6453 <mcp6453@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Nick wrote:
>>
>> My understanding is that such theft is extremely rare.
>>
>> $20 per song is a lot of money if you write a lot of songs and most decent
>> songwriters do. One option is to jumble a bunch of tunes together, give it
>> a name, and copyright the whole lot as a single work. It's still just $20.
>>
>> Another option is don't worry about it too much. If you're that good, it's
>> far more likely you'll get screwed in perfectly legal ways.
>
>Actually, the filing fee for a copyright application has been increased
>to $30.

I agree.

I had written some poems and then decided to add music to them and
instead of copyrighting each poem/song I made them one piece and
copyrighted the whole thing as one.


Rose
http/members.aol.com/Roseb441702/consult.htm
"Can you make money on the Internet?-YES!"