I'm Sick Of Copyright Fear

[brandondrury]

It's 2012. 18 people made money with their songwriting/publishing last year. Okay, maybe it's 18,000. Whatever.
I'm imagining I have written/recorded a song I believe is great.

1) The odds are strong that 99% of my friends won't give a shit and 99.9% of my non-friends really won't care.
2) Even if I had a GREAT song/recording that's capable of making really money in a modern pop climate that I don't understand, I have no real, forced outlet for it. I'd rely on passive methods like Youtube and such. (There are better additional ways, but that's not my gig these days.)
3) Even if I was playing shows, working hard, and had a large following online or in real life the odds of me making any real cash on that song are slim.
4) The odds of a person with the means, know how, and interest bothering to steal my masterpiece are tiny. It's as if that person who has the means and know how isn't talented enough to get there in the first place. Imagine him/her saying, "Really my hits with Rascal Flats were a fluke. I think I'll steal Brandon The Unknown's song so no one will find out."
5) The odds of that person having connections in the music industry, obtaining a budget, finding a start artist to put a face to it, spending the $1,000,000 it takes to have a pending hit on the radio, people actually responding to that radio play, and the song actually becoming profitable are about like my odds of being a lesbian porn star. It's about like the odds of a bolt of lighting winning the lottery.
6) The notion of intellectual property hasn't been this deprecated since the time of vikings.

How many hit song writers get writer's block and say, "Oh shit, my deadline is fast approaching. I'll try to find something on Myspace!!!"???? Bullcrap! Those guys write 10 songs a day. It's fun for them.

So why do artists turn down legitimate benefits (however small) on the grounds of they don't have their music copyrighted yet? (Not using Bash This Recording, not using their song in a mixing contest, etc)

Brandon

[shackman]

Yeah. Well I'm a singer songwriter who had to chase National UK radio to pay up for using one of my tracks as the theme to a Radio prgramme that went out to millions. Not a lot of cash but a lot to ME!

[Jeronimo Mora]

It's pretty annoying. One of my friends is a total backseat EVERYTHING. He used to bombard me and my band with "You guys need to copyright your music etc etc etc." If anyone has the balls to steal or use our stuff without our consent, I have all the demos to prove it's mine. No need for all the bullshit.

[redworks]

if i come up with a song that people want to steal then cool. i am on the right track. lets groove man and write some more. in other words i am with you brandon. the need to copyright your music is really dependent on where you are in your music career and what you hope to get out of the music you write. i write music because it moves me and if it moves others than what a great experience. if i could make enough money so that i can afford to make more music than awesome. i don't feel the need to copyright at this time and don't know that i ever will. but i have a much better chance of ever needing to copyright if i am willing to put my music out there now without and grow as a songwriter.

[DLChuckles]

This will be nothing but splitting hairs for the people who aren't doing much with copyrights, but it becomes important once you start doing a lot with copyright law so I'll be a know-it-all anyway, on the off chance it benefits someone.

1) You don't get things copyrighted, you register your ownership of the the rights to copy. According to copyright law, you own the copyright the instant you make the thing. Registering it is just that, officially documenting the ownership you already have. It's semantics, but it's useful to understand the difference.

2) Having demos of the songs wont help much in a court case. The whole reason anyone gets the copyright registration is to be able to prove in court that they made the product. If you want to feel secure in your ability to prove ownership, get the registration. Otherwise, you'll have to have some real investigating done to get any evidence that will stand up in court. However, if you don't care enough to actually go to court over a song, it's not worth paying the registration fee.

FWIW I just took a class focusing on this subject, this past semester.

[Dahla]

If you create something, aren't you automatically owner of said piece of art? Getting music copyrighted sounds alot like getting a patent for an invention or something... Wich I guess it's great if you make music with chords and melody that no-one ever has heard or thought of before (chyyyyyeah, that sounds mainstream). It seems a little silly if your song uses the same C and G as every one else. Most likely you have been "inspired" by your heroes too so who cares?

The care bears obviously, but other than that? Only the copyrighted.

[Dahla]

1) You don't get things copyrighted, you register your ownership of the the rights to copy. According to copyright law, you own the copyright the instant you make the thing. Registering it is just that, officially documenting the ownership you already have. It's semantics, but it's useful to understand the difference.

Ah, I missed your post. That's what I thought.

[Stan_Halen]

Right, it mainly helps if you have to take somebody to court. If you don't plan on doing that then it does seem to be going out of fashion. You can always do the "Poor Man's copyright" and mail yourself an envelope with your lyrics/recording in it ... the postal meter date-stamp is your proof of ownership on that date. To register copyrights is a bit administrative, but I think it only costs $30-60 for a whole album/CD of material. It's just the red tape that sucks. For one song, obviously not worth it unless you have a gold-mine Top 40 hit on your hands.

[bozmillar]

Since I put little to no effort into marketing my songs, it would take an incredibly amazing song to make it through the sea of crap and become worthy of being pirated. There is pretty much a 0% chance of that happening though. If it does happen, then cool. I'll be more well known and it will be easier to sell the next song I make. Starting at that point, I'd probably start thinking about registering my ownership of the rights to copy. But for now, being that I make about 2 cents a month in revenue off my music, I think I'm pretty low risk.

It is odd to me that so many people will shoot themselves in the foot in order to prevent the dreaded p word happening to their music. In order to actually make money off of music, you have to have a pretty solid stream of people wanting to buy your stuff. Protecting your music when nobody knows who you are seems like a perfect way to hold that stream back.

[Dahla]

I'd like my music pirated please. If my music is so great it's worthy pirating and spreading through torrent sites I say "YAY".

Alot of people would hear my music then. Wich is the point in the first place (not the money! Money is third or fourth on the list for me).

[shackman]

It's just the red tape that sucks. For one song, obviously not worth it unless you have a gold-mine Top 40 hit on your hands.

If you create something, aren't you automatically owner of said piece of art?

Wow. There's a lot of niaive generalisations being hurled around masquerading as wisdom here.

Brandon: It DOESN'T cost - even hypothetically - $1,000,000 to get a top ten hit. That's stupid talk.

Dahla: Yup, you're aboslutely right about a piece of work being YOUR property in law the moment you create it - that appears (and I'm willing to be corrected) to be almost Universal. But PROVE it. If your song suddenly appears as the next big thing, and you knew nothing about artist x doing it, and he becomes super rich through that song, when you ask a judge to ghive you your "share" the judge will smile and say "prove it" son. The artist, being wise, will have carefully paid the dolars to "copyright the song" and will hand THAT proof to the judge. And YOU are screwed.

ANd STan: You say it's all the red tape. Well here in the UK, I can get my music registered as soon as it's recorded for a £10 membership fee to two officially recognised boduies (PPL and PRS).

If someone screws with my music and I tell them, they will pursue my claim on my behalf. And as for red tape - online registration forms at each body sees my work copyrighted.

So, by all means, leave it lie. But DON'T spread the word that it's not needed. THAT is urban myth.

[Stan_Halen]

ANd STan: You say it's all the red tape. Well here in the UK, I can get my music registered as soon as it's recorded for a £10 membership fee to two officially recognised boduies (PPL and PRS).

If someone screws with my music and I tell them, they will pursue my claim on my behalf. And as for red tape - online registration forms at each body sees my work copyrighted.

So, by all means, leave it lie. But DON'T spread the word that it's not needed. THAT is urban myth.

Shack - I believe I was pointing out that registering your Copyright is not all that hard to do, but some may choose not to because "It's just the red tape that sucks." To register with the U.S. Copyright Office, you can do this online at their website (create a login/User ID, all that) and the cost is quite reasonable. The last I knew you may have to also mail them a CD of your work, unless they've changed that and now take MP3 uploads. So, I'm not suggesting that it's not needed ... but that is up to the person creating the work whether they want the option of pursuing legal matters. If you don't plan to take someone to court, even if they steal your work (some comments above say they'd be flattered to have someone pirate it), then why would you go through the effort to create login credentials, pay the fee, mail a CD, and follow up filing the paperwork in your office? I even gave the "poor man's" option as an easy fix!

Per the OP, changes in the music industry cause one to question the usefulness of traditional practices. As with the digital music revolution, we could do with a shake-up of the industry and let people manage their own registrations easier and faster ... if they choose to.

[garageband]

. You can always do the "Poor Man's copyright" and mail yourself an envelope with your lyrics/recording in it ... the postal meter date-stamp is your proof of ownership on that date.

This not a legally useful strategy to defend your copyright and assert authorship. Kids, don't try this at home.

I'm a singer songwriter who had to chase National UK radio to pay up

This imagery made me laugh.

[shackman]

This not a legally useful strategy to defend your copyright and assert authorship. Kids, don't try this at home.
This imagery made me laugh.

Okaaaay! Ho Ho!

[Dahla]

Shack - I believe I was pointing out that registering your Copyright is not all that hard to do, but some may choose not to because "It's just the red tape that sucks." To register with the U.S. Copyright Office, you can do this online at their website (create a login/User ID, all that) and the cost is quite reasonable. The last I knew you may have to also mail them a CD of your work, unless they've changed that and now take MP3 uploads. So, I'm not suggesting that it's not needed ... but that is up to the person creating the work whether they want the option of pursuing legal matters. If you don't plan to take someone to court, even if they steal your work (some comments above say they'd be flattered to have someone pirate it), then why would you go through the effort to create login credentials, pay the fee, mail a CD, and follow up filing the paperwork in your office? I even gave the "poor man's" option as an easy fix!

Per the OP, changes in the music industry cause one to question the usefulness of traditional practices. As with the digital music revolution, we could do with a shake-up of the industry and let people manage their own registrations easier and faster ... if they choose to.

Yeah, I said I wanted my music pirated. If I have to choose between $2 and someone spreading it on the interweb, I choose the latter.

But pirating and stealing a song and making money off of it is two different things I guess... If someone stole a melody from one of my songs and has the connections and economy to make it a huuuuge hit... I don't know. It seems a little far fetched but I guess Shack has right when he says I'm in a deep ...err, place proving it's mine if it happens...

[wankerone]

Sometimes I get pissed at my stuff being pirated sometimes I am happy that it is being spread around. On my last demo we did a few thousand in sales not bad i think, but as far as whether or not it was copy righted does not stop the ripping (over 3000 downloads of our single from one website before I sent a takedown notice).

If a big star or producer or commercial wants to take my stuff, I would definately be pissed, I would definately chase them down. I would get some one else to kick in their teeth or steal their car or my relative the big shot chicago lawyer. I couldn't see some advertiser taking it cause they are too careful with legal it seems like. I figure as soon as anyone wants to make money selling music you may as well copyright it, it's cheap. At least you could put a whole album up on tunecore for $50.00 with barcode, release date, distribution dates on different sites, might stand up in court. But why not copyright, just one more step.

Honestly I don't care if some kid wants to use our stuff in a youtube video as long as they don't have adsense on it. I always try and ask permission if I use someone elses music for background stuff in a video. I figure it is just the right thing to do. I am probably guilty of copyright violation from drum covers and other stuff.

There is lots of good stuff on RR posted around. Tunecore has good info also.

[garageband]

I am probably guilty of copyright violation from drum covers and other stuff.

This kind of thing strikes me as something easily construed as Fair Use.

[wankerone]

It's 2012.
So why do artists turn down legitimate benefits (however small) on the grounds of they don't have their music copyrighted yet? (Not using Bash This Recording, not using their song in a mixing contest, etc)

Brandon

Sounds like a lame excuse.

[Danny Danzi]

Wow. There's a lot of niaive generalisations being hurled around masquerading as wisdom here.

Brandon: It DOESN'T cost - even hypothetically - $1,000,000 to get a top ten hit. That's stupid talk.

Actually Shack, it's really not stupid talk at all. Especially if you live in the USA. What Brandon was getting at was, it costs insane money to chart here. For example, we need to hire a radio marketer. To get into the top 100 it's going to cost about 15k. If you don't have 15k to invest in your material, that's realistically the same as saying a million bucks. LOL!

If you want the top 50, it's 25-30k. Top 10....dear Lord, I don't even know as I've never looked into that. See, the key is not even having a great hit song. It's who works it and how you go about it. Prime time radio without a label....10k or more non-negotiable for one play of your song. It's $3500 just to get your stuff played on a major radio station at midnight where they put you in the "try or die category."

If you have label support, they're going to use several radio marketers....so that could be 200k or more just in radio for the possibility of a top ten. Not to mention, you owe this money back if it's fronted and they take a HUGE portion of your publishing (about 88-90% since they did all the work and investing.) and at the end of the day, it could very well be a 1 million dollar investment over time. So it's really not too far-fetched to be at 7 figures. Payola still exists whether you go through a radio marketer or you pay the radio station directly. And, it's a good rule of thumb in business to try your hand at any type of endeavor like this 3-5 times or you don't even go here at all. If top ten hits were easy, everyone would have one. LOL!

For 30k, anyone can have their music played 3 times on prime time radio in the US. The problem is, that's a pretty huge investment for an artist to shell out on his/her own and lose it all if it tanks.

As for copyrights, everyone should do them. They are simple enough and cheap enough for that peace you get from having things secure. The poor mans copyright will not hold up in court. The simple way of doing this to cover your butt is to copyright as a "Suite" like the classical guys used to do. This allows you to do an entire group of songs for the price of one song...like an album and still be covered. In the event one of the songs goes big, you could always remove it from the Suite and make it an entity to make things easier.

For those of you who hope to be pirated....it's a nice feeling when you're not making a dime from your music. But when you are, it's a horrible feeling. When you're a big star, it's a catch 22. Most times you can absorb the hit, other times, if you're a big enough star, it can REALLY take a toll on you. Me being a small guy in a huge pond, every sale I lose kills me. Indy deals have a quota per country. Fall below 2500 sales in a country, they will not license you for your next album. Lose enough countries and your label will cut your advance for your next album down drastically. Lose more countries due to pirating and for your next album, you may not have a deal. Trust me, it's pretty flattering at first to see you've made a name for yourself when you see your material come up on a torrent or some search engine of a file sharing program...but when you rely on this as a main source of income, it's demoralizing. Just an example....

https://www.google.com/search?q=dann...ddress&ie=&oe=

Pretty sickening, isn't it? What's worse, people reading this will probably click on that and I'll lose more sales. Look how many pages there are....I'll be working at Burger King in no time.

[Stan_Halen]

You can always do the "Poor Man's copyright" and mail yourself an envelope with your lyrics/recording in it ... the postal meter date-stamp is your proof of ownership on that date.

This not a legally useful strategy to defend your copyright and assert authorship. Kids, don't try this at home.

But it's probably better than no strategy at all ...
Sure if you want to do it the right way then do it the right way - and you should. I was just suggesting that not everybody stays behind the line when they throw their horseshoes. Copyright is probably 99% about "peace of mind" and 1% (or less) about taking someone to court.

So here's some resources kids, if you care to investigate further (you could already have that CD of 12 songs properly registered by the time you finish this by the way ...)

"Poor mans copyright is a method of using registered dating by the postal service, a notary public or other highly trusted source to date intellectual property, thereby helping to establish that the material has been in one's possession since a particular time. The concept is based on the notion that, in the event that such intellectual property were to be misused by a third party, the poor-man's copyright would at least establish a legally recognized date of possession before any proof which a third party may possess."

"The PMC was originally used by authors who sent copies of their own work to themselves through the mail without opening the envelopes in the hope that it would grant them legal protection by establishing a date at which the work was created. Use of this method may not hold up in a court as it is simple for individuals to pre-send envelopes which can then be used later by placing the materials inside."

Western Europe

In countries with no central copyright registration authority, it can be difficult for an author to prove when their work was created. The Dutch government's copyright website notes that one can help demonstrate ownership of copyright by "send[ing] yourself a copy of the work (or, for example, a photo thereof) in a sealed envelope, and keep it sealed upon receipt. Be sure that there is a date stamped on the envelope." One can also deposit a copy with the taxation bureau or a notary for the same purpose.

The United Kingdom Patent Office says this:

... a copy could be deposited with a bank or solicitor. Alternatively, a creator could send himself or herself a copy by special delivery post (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return. A number of private companies operate unofficial registers, but it would be sensible to check carefully what you will be paying for before choosing this route. It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you..."

Flaws in the US

There is no provision in US 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.

OK, so in the U.S. a Poor Man's copyright is not provided for in the law - I think we already knew that. It's not a "substitute" for registration - already knew that. Section 408 "registration ... is not a prerequisite for copyright protection" was mentioned in posts above also - copyright protection is inherent, but proving it is the difficult part.

Info above is from here:
Poor man's copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may find some further interesting reading here:
Poor Man's Copyright

[Danny Danzi]

Stan, for what it's worth brother....my buddy had a poor mans copyright issue. He actually got ripped off and lost the case. The guy wrote the song and this other guy beat him to the punch. The judge said the PMC can't stand up because:

1. It's easy to send an empty envelope in the mail or several so that they get post-marked.

2. Once received back from the PO, they can be steamed open and material can easily be placed inside and then re-sealed at ANY time.

His rebuttle was "but look, the cassette tape I used is so old....check out when it was manufactured..I've had this sealed for 10 years!"

The judge said "I have memorex tapes from 1984 that I have never opened or used. It would be too easy for me to put something on them and consider it "old and something I've had for years".

His next rebuttle on the next song that was jacked was "I have it on CD...check out the date the CD was manufactured AND, the date the CD was recorded came from the pc that burned it."

The judge said "like old cassette tapes that haven't been used yet, I also have old CD's that have never been burned. Not to mention, anyone can just set the date back on a pc and have it burn in that date. This person submitted properly copyritten documentation, you Sir, have not submitted anything concrete even though there IS a chance that everything you're saying here is completely true."

With that, my bud lost 3 songs. Trust me....don't even waste any time with that PMC brother....it's too cheap to copyright and be done with worrying for good.

[bozmillar]

I've always heard both sides of the CD in the mail argument, and this is the first time I've actually seen concrete evidence for or against it. Thanks.

[Stan_Halen]

Stan, for what it's worth brother....my buddy had a poor mans copyright issue. He actually got ripped off and lost the case. The guy wrote the song and this other guy beat him to the punch.

With that, my bud lost 3 songs. Trust me....don't even waste any time with that PMC brother....it's too cheap to copyright and be done with worrying for good.

Thanks Danny, excellent "real world" story! I'm glad the issue got tossed about and gave you the platform to present this!

[wankerone]

Danny is dead on when it comes to cost to get played. Satellite is a little cheaper and internet radio is a joke.

Here is a copy of a take down notice we use for internet sites. It works internationally. Feel free to use it. It is not copyright material lol.

Copyright Infringement notificationdated 12/31/2011
Include their Links here
Material: Title “When the Coast isClear” Artist: Picture Perfect in form of song and video.
Video includes image of performanceby Picture Perfect and original music composed and recorded by Picture Perfectof Bridgewater, NJ USA.
Copyright Picture Perfect 2011
Agent for Picture Perfect:
Name_________ (agent for or of __________________ composer andperformer of said material)
Address
Contact: Name
Phone :
To assure proper notification ofinfringement I have included The following elements in the copyright infringementclaim:

• Provide evidence of the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. See above. Work Published: September 7^th 2011 UPC #859706731677 distributed via tunecore.com to the following sites for resale with proper financial consideration to the artist. Itunes: USA, Australia/NZ, Canada, Mexico, UK/European Union, Japan. Amazon MP3. Spotify. Zune and Napster.
• Provide sufficient contact information so that we may contact you. You must also include a valid email address. See above
• You must identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed. See above. Additionally video uploaded to Youtube.com on September 7^th, 2011. Link as follows:

http://youtu.be/Ei4LT_3KiAY

• A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The distribution without reimbursement for usage is only authorized through youtube and facebook for personal use. Any other site offering the rebroadcast or download of this work is in violation of the DMCA. The digital copy of the work is available for purchase through the following sites exclusively no others have been authorized by the owner of copyright Picture Perfect from Bridgewater NJ.
• The information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, I,______ NAME am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right that has been infringed.
• Must be signed by the authorized person to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly being infringed.

Please remove any links providing theredistribution of our copyrighted work. You are in violation of the DMCA. Anyfailure on your part to remove the material or links to the material may resultin civil action on behalf of the copyright owner as well as complaints to theappropriate authorities. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation with thisnotification.
Name: this serves as my digitalsignature

[DLChuckles]

This kind of thing strikes me as something easily construed as Fair Use.

I was told in the aforementioned class that it's very unwise to rely on Fair Use as a defense, unless it's a text book case, but even then it might not hold up. That has a lot to do with how loosely defined the term is in the copyright code. Base on the material we went over, it seemed like the only uses you could feel sure were Fair Use were journalism and straight up parody. You can make cases that whatever you're doing falls under one of those two things, but it's ultimately up to a judge to decide whether your use qualifies.

I'm pretty sure covers don't count as fair use since major venues often pay annual performance license fees for any covers that might be played there by the performers who come and go. Even if you're not making any money from the video, I think it still counts as copyright infringement. That said, There are so few copyright holders in the world who will be upset about some kid covering their song that it's practically a non-issue.