copyrighting music

[thestubbyone]

I have a question for all you song writers out there. Do you publish your songs on venues such as you tube and do you do any additional protection for your songs should someone else try to claim them as theirs?

[SongwriterFan]

Technically, your song is copyrighted as soon as you've recorded it (even if it's just you playing and singing it into an iPhone.

I used to record a YouTube video of me doing my first work tape . . and then I started putting them on SoundCloud, instead. Both of those formats put a time stamp on your music, which (supposedly) can hold up in court if you ever need to prove when you wrote the song.

But getting any money for copyright infringement can prove difficult, and won't often pay much . . . UNTIL you've REGISTERED the copyright.

I wait to register my copyrights until after I've recorded an album. That way it's only $85 to register all the songs on the CD . . and another $85 to register that performance of the songs. This only works, though, if you have the same ownership on all the songs on the CD (mine are all 100% owned by me).

This explains the (current) process involved:

https://www.copyright.gov/gram/

[kurth]

SWF...."this explains" ...but like every govt page...not very well. Why do you need to register the performance ....if the music is registered? and what form does registering the music take? ...if not a recording ? Seems like money given away to nameless gov agencies. But if u have the time, I'm in need of hearing that argument. Obviously they've changed the playing field. Some things for the good, but more complicated. Now up to 20 songs can be copyrighted in group, for example. oops...and now I see it says 10 songs ....on 'musical works' pdf. Like all stuff from the beast....unfathomable. They design all this so you need a lawyer to interpret...cause it was written by lawyers to be obtuse...just so you'd need a lawyer.
....so as I'm reading....it does say 20 songs. gives the 2 options of 'musical works' and 'sound recording' but it also says you submit the recording for the 'musical works' . then I assume if it's an album(what an antiquated term) the 'sound recording' submission would be the same recording. Seems like needless replication....ie money thrown down the drain. For example...why would I need nor want to register the musical performance. I can do 20 of those a day...everyone a little different.

[rllink]

You can pay and have your copyright registered, but it is still up to you to enforce it. If someone steals your song the government isn't going after them for you. All the copyright is going to be is evidence that you filed a copyright when you sue them in court for it, and that doesn't come without cost either.

[kurth]

Originally Posted by rllink

You can pay and have your copyright registered, but it is still up to you to enforce it. If someone steals your song the government isn't going after them for you. All the copyright is going to be is evidence that you filed a copyright when you sue them in court for it, and that doesn't come without cost either.

Of course....it only works if there's big money involved...like someone famous steals your song and it's a hit. Otherwise...lawyers don't work pro bono for starving songwriters. It's all a scam in the end for the artist.

[KevWind]

This subject has been discussed at length in multiple threads here so a search can yield some in depth threads. Unfortunately here as elsewhere there are reasonable offerings as well as some myths and misunderstanding, ambiguous use of terminology and a conflation of "how I think it should be" vs. what are the actual legal statutes and presidents

So agin in brief outline this is my understanding

#1 A copyright is technically created (comes into existence) as soon as an original work is "affixed to any tangible medium".. i.e. = written on paper, recorded to tape, CD,,, or a written or sound recording digital file , etc....

#2 It appears that Publishing to a streaming service (i.e SoundCloud or YouTube etc. ) the modern version of the " The poor mans copyright" of mailing a copy to yourself. Only establishes a time stamp/or reference of when you published it or mailed it . It does not establish a legal claim of ownership. and will be of very limited if any,,, use in a legal proceeding for infringement

#3 Registering with the US Copyright Office establishes a legally recognized claim of ownership and a date for such claim ... And such registration has been a fundamental component of , and president for, most successful infringement recovery

That said what I do personally on my YouTube videos for any of my originals,(registered or not) is to have a title at the start, that states the song is "by" (my name) ,, and I type "All rights reserved" followed by (C) as the keyboard representation of the copyright icon

[kurth]

well Kev, if I'm reading you right...you don't copyright your cover stuff. Perhaps you have original songs but most of your cover stuff wouldn't need copyrighting. I guess someone could copy your copy to use in another form, but wouldn't that be a case of ' stealing is the most flattering compliment' kinda of deal. and the real copyright violation would be for using the authors music, not your cover. . A one off kinda of thing. What I'd like to know is.....

If you write a song, and you choose to not give the govt your money because for a number of reasons of which could include you don't live there and most likely could never mount a litigation even if there was the case....you post it online, and someone blatantly steals your song and says they wrote it, even if they copyrighted it themselves fraudulently, couldn't the true author be victorious in litigation for damages if it was fraud, if they had all the proof necessary to show the song was pilfered by nefarious methods? I mean to write a song actually leaves alot of documented evidence behind. It's not like it just appears on a piece of paper. So the question would be encompassing to include something like....has an independent songwriter ever had their music stolen because their song wasn't registered in the US copyright office? I mean I don't want to be the one who dreams up the idea that the govt would do something like scam a million songwriters when they really didn't need to pay, but.....I also realize a sizable portion of the population are into nefarious activity as well. But to me...that would be less probable than the govt just wanting my money for nothing. I realize this is difficult to discuss...but questioning the unquestionable is a thing with me. Also it all needs to be weighed against the small probability that Dua Lipa would want to try to copy someone elses ideas w/o compensation. I mean ...if a songwriter gets that far along, where bigbuck popstars are pilfering their music off the internet, wouldn't the negative press dissuade them of doing such. So ...it would really be about an individual copying your songs like identity theft. Has that ever happened in the history of the world , ever ? So...its really about 'the small time song swindler' stealing his credits.....oops ...think I got an idea for a new title jajaja

[Cecil6243]

Originally Posted by rllink

You can pay and have your copyright registered, but it is still up to you to enforce it. If someone steals your song the government isn't going after them for you. All the copyright is going to be is evidence that you filed a copyright when you sue them in court for it, and that doesn't come without cost either.

Yeah going to court isn't cheap and many times he who has the most money to pay for a lawyer(s) can wait you out until you're broke. Corporations do it all the time with their army of lawyers on retainer.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by kurth

you post it online, and someone blatantly steals your song and says they wrote it, even if they copyrighted it themselves fraudulently, couldn't the true author be victorious in litigation for damages if it was fraud, if they had all the proof necessary to show the song was pilfered by nefarious methods?

You are correct, except for the "for damages" part. If you haven't registered your copyright, the best you could do is "cease and desist", essentially. The paid copyright registration is what allows you to collect money for damages.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

well Kev, if I'm reading you right...you don't copyright your cover stuff. Perhaps you have original songs but most of your cover stuff wouldn't need copyrighting. I guess someone could copy your copy to use in another form, but wouldn't that be a case of ' stealing is the most flattering compliment' kinda of deal. and the real copyright violation would be for using the authors music, not your cover. . A one off kinda of thing. What I'd like to know is.....

Perhaps some conflation of terminology or misunderstanding ?

you don't copyright your cover stuff

If you read my prior post--- in outline point #1 you will see that the copyright is created as soon as I record the audio and video of the cover (SO in point of fact my "cover stuff" has a copyright . However in the case of a cover song ---the only copyright I am creating (for me) is for the actual sound recording and video footage I created..
I am not creating nor can I register any kind of copyright for the underlying work of the cover song itself, because someone else already holds that copyright.... But yes Correct I do not (register a copyright for the video I created when it's a cover song )

I could register a copyright for the actual video footage and the sound recording itself... But again Correct I do not bother, because as you note for me ,,, if some one used it ,,,,it would just be flattery to me AND also because I do not make any income from my YouTube channel.

And let's face the economic reality here , any say Movie, Television, or Add agency (that is big time enough to have a chance of generating enough copyright royalties to even worry about ) is going to have ZERO incentive to bother trying to rip off my video. ( in the unlikely event they decided they could use it, or part of it) When they could easily afford to simply offer me a one time payment of say maybe $500 to $1000 for the rights.

If you write a song, and you choose to not give the govt your money because for a number of reasons of which could include you don't live there and most likely could never mount a litigation even if there was the case....you post it online, and someone blatantly steals your song and says they wrote it, even if they copyrighted it themselves fraudulently, couldn't the true author be victorious in litigation for damages if it was fraud, if they had all the proof necessary to show the song was pilfered by nefarious methods?

Your are asking so many question it's hard for me to follow ..

And Makes me wonder if your are even asking the right questions ?? So if by "choose not to give the govt you money" you mean not register your claim of copyright, with the US Copyright Office ? Then seems to me the better question to be asking is =If you are assuming that you songs are good enough that someone would bother to commit outright infringement to use them---Then why wouldn't you pay the nominal fee to register them ? Which IMO is the more pertinent question

[CharlieBman]

I used to worry about that stuff and would get the copyright registered for every song I wrote. Now I'm too old to be concerned about it. I still write, produce, and perform my own songs, and post them all to a website. But at this point in my life if someone wanted to steal a song, I'd be more flattered than pissed.

[kurth]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Perhaps some conflation of terminology or misunderstanding ?



If you read my prior post--- in outline point #1 you will see that the copyright is created as soon as I record the audio and video of the cover (SO in point of fact my "cover stuff" has a copyright . However in the case of a cover song ---the only copyright I am creating (for me) is for the actual sound recording and video footage I created..
I am not creating nor can I register any kind of copyright for the underlying work of the cover song itself, because someone else already holds that copyright.... But yes Correct I do not (register a copyright for the video I created when it's a cover song )

I could register a copyright for the actual video footage and the sound recording itself... But again Correct I do not bother, because as you note for me ,,, if some one used it ,,,,it would just be flattery to me AND also because I do not make any income from my YouTube channel.

And let's face the economic reality here , any say Movie, Television, or Add agency (that is big time enough to have a chance of generating enough copyright royalties to even worry about ) is going to have ZERO incentive to bother trying to rip off my video. ( in the unlikely event they decided they could use it, or part of it) When they could easily afford to simply offer me a one time payment of say maybe $500 to $1000 for the rights.






Your are asking so many question it's hard for me to follow ..

And Makes me wonder if your are even asking the right questions ?? So if by "choose not to give the govt you money" you mean not register your claim of copyright, with the US Copyright Office ? Then seems to me the better question to be asking is =If you are assuming that you songs are good enough that someone would bother to commit outright infringement to use them---Then why wouldn't you pay the nominal fee to register them ? Which IMO is the more pertinent question

I'm asking the right question..chipotle answered it . The obvious reason is I don't like wasting a 1000 dollars, and I consider giving money to any govt a waste of good resources, on the outside bet someone would be so nefarious to actually steal the music. Think about how many people give hundreds maybe thousands of dollars to the US copyright office....millions and millions just in one year. Now tell me how many independent songwriters have actually benefited from this act of generosity ? It'd bet it's close to zero. It's one of those deals everybody always says it's best...but....they never have a real reason for saying so. And one thing chipotle didn't address is the rest of the 6 1/2 billion people who don't pay any attention to what the US govt/culture is doing. So in contemplation of chipotle.... "The paid copyright registration is what allows you to collect money for damages' ...I'd assume this only reflects what would happen in a US court. So that japanese folksinger writing in old japanese would see absolutely no benefit from entangling themselves . Now does that japanese folksinger have anything to share with us? Actually if I may stretch the concept....copyright registration kinda of reminds me of a paid protection racket. There..I said it. Will the men in black be paying me a visit ?

And in answer to your last question....it's not just a nominal fee. It would be paid in lieu of using the money for something more substantial. I also believe in using my money for things that serve, not that are a waste. I found this intersting pov....."The idea here is that a federal postmark on a sealed envelope with your creation inside validates the date of creation. This is a fine idea. However, you will eventually need to register your work if ever you have to sue for damages." So...the registered copyright from the US govt only serves me if I have to sue someone else...in a US court of law. Exactly what chipotle said. What does international law say about copyrights obtained in other countries? In mexico there is so much music being made I can't imagine all these artists are copyrighting their music in case they have to sue someone in a US court. I'll follow up on that, as I've got a source to ask what mexican artist do. Never the less...my original question still stands....out of the thousands/millions of independent songwriters donating their hard earn cash to who knows where it goes after it disappears beneath the govt's skirt....has even one independent songwriter benefited from formally registering their copyright with the US govt ?? Just one ? ...anybody?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

I'm asking the right question..chipotle answered it . The obvious reason is I don't like wasting a 1000 dollars, and I consider giving money to any govt a waste of good resources, on the outside bet someone would be so nefarious to actually steal the music. Think about how many people give hundreds maybe thousands of dollars to the US copyright office....millions and millions just in one year. Now tell me how many independent songwriters have actually benefited from this act of generosity ? It'd bet it's close to zero. It's one of those deals everybody always says it's best...but....they never have a real reason for saying so. And one thing chipotle didn't address is the rest of the 6 1/2 billion people who don't pay any attention to what the US govt/culture is doing. So in contemplation of chipotle.... "The paid copyright registration is what allows you to collect money for damages' ...I'd assume this only reflects what would happen in a US court. So that japanese folksinger writing in old japanese would see absolutely no benefit from entangling themselves . Now does that japanese folksinger have anything to share with us? Actually if I may stretch the concept....copyright registration kinda of reminds me of a paid protection racket. There..I said it. Will the men in black be paying me a visit ?

And in answer to your last question....it's not just a nominal fee. It would be paid in lieu of using the money for something more substantial. I also believe in using my money for things that serve, not that are a waste. I found this intersting pov....."The idea here is that a federal postmark on a sealed envelope with your creation inside validates the date of creation. This is a fine idea. However, you will eventually need to register your work if ever you have to sue for damages." So...the registered copyright from the US govt only serves me if I have to sue someone else...in a US court of law. Exactly what chipotle said. What does international law say about copyrights obtained in other countries? In mexico there is so much music being made I can't imagine all these artists are copyrighting their music in case they have to sue someone in a US court. I'll follow up on that, as I've got a source to ask what mexican artist do. Never the less...my original question still stands....out of the thousands/millions of independent songwriters donating their hard earn cash to who knows where it goes after it disappears beneath the govt's skirt....has even one independent songwriter benefited from formally registering their copyright with the US govt ?? Just one ? ...anybody?

Well I guess "nominal' is subjective ...I believe you can register a group of up to 20 songs for $85 so in that perspective I think, $4.25 per song is pretty nominal . Which BTW would be 235 songs for your "$1000 dollars" figure

Yes we were basically talking the US Copyright Registration and how it applies to US jurisdiction ... Other countries do in fact have various versions of copyright protections and laws And there are cooperative international Conventions and Treaties for an attempt at some consistency and cross boarder copyright issues

Sorry but I believe in US law (other countries may be different),, "The idea here is that a federal postmark on a sealed envelope with your creation inside validates the date of creation is a mistaken POV . As I said I believe from the US legal view, it does not validate the date of creation it only establishes the date that you physically mailed the enclosed item to yourself.

I believe (but do not know) Mexico has it's own protections and registration and I think it is signatory to one or more treaties. But yes check that if you have a source .

The rest ? Not really interested in engaging in your theories or angst over your concept of what is wasteful or a racket, in terms of "the govt". Not to mention that subject is so potentially politically charged it is likely big AGF no no...

And I think your original question is off point ... IMO If an independent songwriter has availed themself of recouping infringement damages has no relationship to the advisability of registering your claim, so that if the situation ever arrises you have the highest level of legal precedent going for you. Looks to me more like padding your bet or insurance ,, than having succumb to a racket --- and yes if you reside in another country, then US statute may or may not do you much practical good .

But I believe the OP was asking what we actually do,,, not a debate on the relevance of the action.

[Chipotle]

Nobody is forcing a (song)writer to copyright their work. If you don't care if someone else uses your stuff, that's totally fine. Many on this forum wouldn't care, particularly amateur songwriters who may not even post their songs to the public.

However, professionals who ply their trade and make their livelihood writing have a real reason to protect their intellectual property. And even amateurs who put their original stuff out there, where many will hear it, prefer see copyright registration as "insurance" (not a racket), on the chance somebody else tries to make money off of their work. As Kev said, there are also international treaties, so there is some protection if someone in another country steals your work as well.

[kurth]

Kev....actually I believe the advice was to pay the 85 twice....and going thru the motion, I just rounded it off at 200 for 20 , which is 10bucks a song. So if one had 50 songs to copyright, that's a grand.
...and
"IMO If an independent songwriter has availed themself of recouping infringement damages has no relationship to the advisability of registering your claim, so that if the situation ever arrises you have the highest level of legal precedent going for you."
I'd say just the opposite. If no independent songwriter has ever had to avail themselves of the need to sue someone over authorship claims and won their case due to them having registered their music with the UScopyright office...then what's the point of taking the medicine? If no one got cured taking a med, few would continue using it. I agree it's kinda of like insurance, 'cept insurance is better.