copyright made difficult

[st robert]

in the unfortunate and more unlikely event that a copyright suit came up with my material, would the fact that i uploaded the song here or to my own site constitute ownership, i.e. that i sent, from my computer to a server, a piece of art that was logged by the server, independent of my assertion that i sent it?

would this hold up in a court?

this is, of course, all theoretical, since my material is mostly vile and would not be copied, but still.....?

thanks....

rob

[Goes211]

Let's see...
(just my 2 cents here)
if you upload a Beatles song here it wouldn't make you or the womb owners of the song. As a general rule, don't upload ANY music which isn't yours or for which you haven't had express authorization to post by the owners of said music.

In any event, you should read this which is at the top of the radio submissions

We have a streaming (no downloads) station in operation now and are seeking tracks from our users to put into rotation.

By offering your tracks, you are agreeing to waive any royalties from us, as we are not in any position to pay them. You are not in any way relinquishing control and or ownership of your music...merely allowing us to play your music here at the Womb without financial compensation.

You can have your track removed at any time by pm'ing a request. No questions asked.



in the unfortunate and more unlikely event that a copyright suit came up with my material, would the fact that i uploaded the song here or to my own site constitute ownership, i.e. that i sent, from my computer to a server, a piece of art that was logged by the server, independent of my assertion that i sent it?

would this hold up in a court?

this is, of course, all theoretical, since my material is mostly vile and would not be copied, but still.....?

thanks....

rob

[Mixerman]

in the unfortunate and more unlikely event that a copyright suit came up with my material, would the fact that i uploaded the song here or to my own site constitute ownership, i.e. that i sent, from my computer to a server, a piece of art that was logged by the server, independent of my assertion that i sent it?

would this hold up in a court?

this is, of course, all theoretical, since my material is mostly vile and would not be copied, but still.....?

thanks....

rob

I'm not exactly sure I understand the question, but posting a song up on the internet is not proof that you wrote it.

There are two requirements for an infringement suit.

1. You must have registered your song for copyright. You do not have to register to protect your copyright. If you wrote it, that is automatically protected. But in order to bring SUIT, you need to have the song and/or Sound Recording registered.

2. You must be able to prove access to the song. Access used to be a big stumbling block. Like, 20 years ago, if you wrote a song, and we never met, and you couldn't show a clear path that I could have heard the song, then you didn't have much of a suit. These days, it seems to me this second requirement is almost moot. I mean, if you put it on the internet, then anyone with a computer has access, right?

If you wrote it, you have copyright. Proving it requires documentation with timelines. That's usually pretty easy to establish if you record the song. Make sure you save your earliest recording of the song. And if you're going to post it on the internet, it's always a good idea to Register your songs for copyright. (You can register collections at a time to save time and money.) However, were I to take your song from the internet and register it before you, that doesn't necessarily mean I would win a lawsuit against you. The Registration serves as Prima Facie evidence, but that doesn't mean it can't be cracked.

Mixerman

[MacGregor]

And if you're going to post it on the internet, it's always a good idea to Register your songs for copyright. (You can register collections at a time to save time and money.) However, were I to take your song from the internet and register it before you, that doesn't necessarily mean I would win a lawsuit against you. The Registration serves as Prima Facie evidence, but that doesn't mean it can't be cracked.

Mixerman

...and keep in mind that this only applies to little Georg's country.
A mostly (but not always fully) agreed consens from several
discussions during the last years is that it never hurts to have
an out of the box (means internet, some authority) proof with
a date stamp.
And just in case you wrote a second 'White Christmas' caliber
of song it's a good idea to keep the original tracks.
No one else will be able provide these.

[Kenny Gioia]

I think what he's asking here is if posting your song on this (or any) site similar to mailing a cd of the song to yourself.

I would guess in theory it could be. However…

Mailing a CD to yourself is still not the preferred way of copywriting a song.

and…

How secure is a post on a forum, that an attachment couldn't be changed after the fact without any possible track marks being left behind?

There is a real system in place. Although, I don't really use it either. As a professional songwriter, I probably should, but the law is pretty clear that I own the song after I write it. The burden of proof is on the person who copyrights MY song to prove that I stole it from THEM.

[bunnerabb]

Murphy's mailbox is, all in all, a less viable tool for copyright protection than it once was.

It's also not the sort of thing one would use to protect their defacto authorship of a piece of music that may prove to be commercially viable enough to return royalties to the copyright holder and publisher.

In other words; if it's worth protecting, pay the man the two dollars and fill out the forms.

[dwoz]

I'll chime in here, since I'm really very good at pretending that I'm a very bad lawyer.

First, as mixerman suggests, you own the song the moment it comes out of your pretty little head and BECOMES FIXED IN A TANGIBLE FORM OR PUBLIC PERFORMANCE.

The basic legal reasoning here is, that these two events in the life of a song are the first things that create anything that could be considered "evidence" that the song exists. Documents in a diary, and people in an audience, can testify in court. Not to say you wrote it, but that you had it on a certain date.

Courts have been, in the recent past, reticent about accepting things like computer logs as proof, because of the fact that they're NOT TANGIBLE, and are easily modified. But that is starting to change as computer-based records become more ubiquitous in our society.

So the answer is, yes, the physical(?) presence of your song on a server, from which you can display logs, and probably better, the TESTIMONY of listeners who were able to download your song from the server, can be compelling evidence that a song existed on a certain date. It will be, in some jurisdictions, at the discretion of the judge as to whether there is an adequate chain of control on the evidence (in other words, how likely is it that the record shows what really happened, without tampering), but the legal climate is gradually becoming more accepting to that kind of evidence.

Having said all that, go to the copyright office website and download the form, and send it in.

dwoz

[Bob Olhsson]

All very good advice.

The only thing I can add is that I understand people have lost copyright suits when they tried to claim that something they had mailed to themselves established a date.

Something almost never mentioned is that the classic defense for a copyright lawsuit is to prove that the song was in the public domain and only elegible for a copyright on the arrangement.

[st robert]

thank you all for the replies. i will, of course, send the record in once it's done and get the thing officialy copywritten, but in the interim as everybody here is listening to mixes, i was just curious if the fact that i uploaded a track the server would time-stamp that file and show that i had the thing first in case some bum decides to take my already derivative music and rip me off with it.

i have the source tracks. that part i hadn't thought about...

i feel better.

rob

[Deborah Neville]

Hi-
If I understand what you're asking (which might require more of the evil bean slurree..I drink my coffee like pudding - it stands up to a spoon) you're asking about either:
a)proof that your work is your work (authorship) (i.e. evidenced by a transmission ,,sort of like the old "mail it to yourself" myth in the brick and mortar world); OR
b) what is evidence of copying other work (although that was not my original take on your post....another reply has confused my coffee deficient brain just now)....
Neither of these tacks relate to ownership, really. In the land of copyright: authors are "owners" unless there are act after creation that change ownership (i.e. the author ("you") somehow give away/grant/assign the rights you have by virtue of being "the creator!"/author of your original material (song/lyrics/arrangment/mix, etc). If you create together with one or more co-authors, there are new wrinkles.
So at the risk of being tedious - if you can yell into my hearing aid again - what precisely is your concern: someone taking YOUR stuff, or you using someone else's stuff...
and then I can bore you with more coffee stained dribbles (or is it drivel?) about what blind justice would see.
yours
GildedLily



in the unfortunate and more unlikely event that a copyright suit came up with my material, would the fact that i uploaded the song here or to my own site constitute ownership, i.e. that i sent, from my computer to a server, a piece of art that was logged by the server, independent of my assertion that i sent it?

would this hold up in a court?

this is, of course, all theoretical, since my material is mostly vile and would not be copied, but still.....?

thanks....

rob

[Bob Olhsson]

Digital time stamps are too easily hackable for them to establish a date.

Probably the easiest cheap method would be for two songwriters to become notarys and then notarize lead sheets of each other's songs.

[Deborah Neville]

thank you all for the replies. i will, of course, send the record in once it's done and get the thing officialy copywritten, but in the interim as everybody here is listening to mixes, i was just curious if the fact that i uploaded a track the server would time-stamp that file and show that i had the thing first in case some bum decides to take my already derivative music and rip me off with it.

i have the source tracks. that part i hadn't thought about...

i feel better.

rob
Hi Again,
Posting here feels like peeing your pants in the dark: it gives you a brief warm feeling..or Hindi dancing - you need about 100 arms to handle all the points:
First: (as has been aptly stated already) authorship rights "affix" or arise at the time of creation: true! SO- how can you get your rights in the best position to protect and enrich you: these are the fun questions.
FYI :a true derivative work is eligible for protection to the extent you've added something new- but don't label your own work "derivative" even in jest, those admissions, while amusingly self-effacing, make your legal counselor's job harder than it already is.
Evidence of "creation" varies widely...(hence the discussion about stamps, napkins, notaries, etc. and the old myth about mailing it to yourself - we can debunk that later).
How does filling out the copyright reg form (and sending your 45 clams) assist you? If you do it "promptly" the law provides YOU GET statutory damages and attorney fees if you prove a) someone had access and b) someone copied. As a voice from the dark side: first question any Shylock will ask you: Did you register within 90 days of creation? They like that cuz it gives then the probablility that their bill might get paid if they represent you. And "statutory damages" means a set cash amount calculated according to the number of acts of infringement (counting "acts" is another place where figure don't lie but liars figure) but its good for artists as you need not prove things ike lost sales or lost revenue.
Everything you generate in the course of your work can be admitted as "evidence" of your creative process. The key to being a candidate for good legal remedies is (as has been noted) prompt registration of copyright.
The thing that is more troublesome these days is the concept of "fair use" and the line between "being inspired" by anothers work versus true copying. And in the on-line world, the issue of collaborative (read: shared authorship) versus a sole copyright holder. Let's save these for another time.
The warm feeling is beginning to turn to cold and wet .... time to sign off.

Bye for now


-GildedLily

[MacGregor]

Probably the easiest cheap method would be for two songwriters to become notarys and then notarize lead sheets of each other's songs.

But again, what can some other person do when I'm the only
person on this planet who can provide all of the the original tracks?

[dwoz]

Hi Again,
Posting here feels like peeing your pants in the dark: it gives you a brief warm feeling..or Hindi dancing - you need about 100 arms to handle all the points:
First: (as has been aptly stated already) authorship rights "affix" or arise at the time of creation: true! SO- how can you get your rights in the best position to protect and enrich you: these are the fun questions.
FYI :a true derivative work is eligible for protection to the extent you've added something new- but don't label your own work "derivative" even in jest, those admissions, while amusingly self-effacing, make your legal counselor's job harder than it already is.
Evidence of "creation" varies widely...(hence the discussion about stamps, napkins, notaries, etc. and the old myth about mailing it to yourself - we can debunk that later).
How does filling out the copyright reg form (and sending your 45 clams) assist you? If you do it "promptly" the law provides YOU GET statutory damages and attorney fees if you prove a) someone had access and b) someone copied. As a voice from the dark side: first question any Shylock will ask you: Did you register within 90 days of creation? They like that cuz it gives then the probablility that their bill might get paid if they represent you. And "statutory damages" means a set cash amount calculated according to the number of acts of infringement (counting "acts" is another place where figure don't lie but liars figure) but its good for artists as you need not prove things ike lost sales or lost revenue.
Everything you generate in the course of your work can be admitted as "evidence" of your creative process. The key to being a candidate for good legal remedies is (as has been noted) prompt registration of copyright.
The thing that is more troublesome these days is the concept of "fair use" and the line between "being inspired" by anothers work versus true copying. And in the on-line world, the issue of collaborative (read: shared authorship) versus a sole copyright holder. Let's save these for another time.
The warm feeling is beginning to turn to cold and wet .... time to sign off.

Bye for now


-GildedLily


Ahh...a REAL LAWYER.


Want to know how I can tell? (besides the fact that I actually know who GildedLily is)

...because after reading all that, I find that there was REALLY NO ANSWER :grin:

...except of course, for the implied answer that: "as a matter of civil law, there exists no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'. All that really exist are 'winners' and 'losers', with nothing more than an accidental, orthogonal relationship to right and wrong. Oh, and if no money is at stake, these two don't exist either...all that exists is 'expensive irrelevance'."

dwoz

[Mixerman]

Ahh...a REAL LAWYER.


Want to know how I can tell? (besides the fact that I actually know who GildedLily is)

...because after reading all that, I find that there was REALLY NO ANSWER :grin:


REMINDER: Remove dwoz from welcoming committee :D


Welcome Gilded Lily!

Yours,

Mixerman
Then New Official Womb Welcoming Committee Representative (or TNOWWCR for short.)

[Bob Olhsson]

Indeed welcome!

[dwoz]

REMINDER: Remove dwoz from welcoming committee :D


Welcome Gilded Lily!

Yours,

Mixerman
Then New Official Womb Welcoming Committee Representative (or TNOWWCR for short.)

and in case it wasn't obvious, THRILLED to see you here, my dear. Welcome.

dwoz

[Deborah Neville]

and in case it wasn't obvious, THRILLED to see you here, my dear. Welcome.

dwoz

Wombsters-
First off, being an "expensive irrelevance" is right up there with never being too thin or too rich.
After all, it took more than one lawsuit to change my name to "GildedLily."
I would've replied sooner but some damn penguin ate the breadcrumbs I dropped and I developed a case of snow blindness and did I mention it's freezing here. Brrrrr. Dwoz probably read too much Chas. Dicken's David Copperfield and has never recovered from the travails recounted in the Court of Equity, as some poor waif tries to "get justice." As my friend the judge quips: When I first became a judge, I thought it was my job to figure out which party was lying, plaintiff or defendant; now that I've been a judge for 20 years, I know they're both lying, and it's my job to figure out how much.
Yepp, It's A Wonderful Life :)
Copyright - a bundle of rights in a body of law - often the metaphor used is that of a rope with many fibers. And as the guy says in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: There's two types of people in the world: them with the rope around their neck, and them that cuts the rope.
As a mid-wife for birthing works gestated from creative acts (kinky, eh?) my view is that copyright law (as compared to other law bodies,) is generously promiscuous as to defining what is a "creative act" I mean as Mixerman et al have pointed out- anything anywhere is protectible - including the nasty ditty on the outhouse door, next to the morse code- provided you didn't copy - but wait - there's the whole murky swamp of UNCONSCIOUS COPYING - whoa nellie - for the love of Rico!
I like to see parents(creators) happy, after doing creative acts often - every day, many times a day, with gusto - their little offspring exit the womb and go forth to bring back to their doting folks all good things: fame fortune and a shure fire cure for the hiccups.
So shoot me - I'm just the piano player.
(dictated but not ready)
-GildedLily

[st robert]

Hi Again,
First: (as has been aptly stated already) authorship rights "affix" or arise at the time of creation: true! SO- how can you get your rights in the best position to protect and enrich you: these are the fun questions.
FYI :a true derivative work is eligible for protection to the extent you've added something new- but don't label your own work "derivative" even in jest, those admissions, while amusingly self-effacing, make your legal counselor's job harder than it already is.
Evidence of "creation" varies widely...(hence the discussion about stamps, napkins, notaries, etc. and the old myth about mailing it to yourself - we can debunk that later).
How does filling out the copyright reg form (and sending your 45 clams) assist you? If you do it "promptly" the law provides YOU GET statutory damages and attorney fees if you prove a) someone had access and b) someone copied. As a voice from the dark side: first question any Shylock will ask you: Did you register within 90 days of creation? They like that cuz it gives then the probablility that their bill might get paid if they represent you. And "statutory damages" means a set cash amount calculated according to the number of acts of infringement (counting "acts" is another place where figure don't lie but liars figure) but its good for artists as you need not prove things ike lost sales or lost revenue.
Everything you generate in the course of your work can be admitted as "evidence" of your creative process. The key to being a candidate for good legal remedies is (as has been noted) prompt registration of copyright.
The thing that is more troublesome these days is the concept of "fair use" and the line between "being inspired" by anothers work versus true copying. And in the on-line world, the issue of collaborative (read: shared authorship) versus a sole copyright holder. Let's save these for another time.
The warm feeling is beginning to turn to cold and wet .... time to sign off.

Bye for now


-GildedLily

i thank you for your response and that of everybody else.

it is clear that i am just looking for a way to feel better about being a cheap-ass that didn't copyright his shit and wants to hear that it's okay that he's a cheap-ass.

if that makes any sense.

it will all be done soon enough and i do have all source files which would help in the unlikely event that something goes weird. as far as the work being "derivative", i really hear it more as "inspired-by". really. there are a few links in the critique forum where there are allusions to the derivatives in question, but fuck the silly shit. the works are mine.

why are my pants wet?


rob

[Bryson]

But again, what can some other person do when I'm the only
person on this planet who can provide all of the the original tracks?
Provide their own original tracks.

[Deborah Neville]

i thank you for your response and that of everybody else.

it is clear that i am just looking for a way to feel better about being a cheap-ass that didn't copyright his shit and wants to hear that it's okay that he's a cheap-ass.

if that makes any sense.

it will all be done soon enough and i do have all source files which would help in the unlikely event that something goes weird. as far as the work being "derivative", i really hear it more as "inspired-by". really. there are a few links in the critique forum where there are allusions to the derivatives in question, but fuck the silly shit. the works are mine.

why are my pants wet?


rob

Morning!
Wet pants are far more immediate than reading about offshore software assembly and whether software is a "component" under patent law (US Supreme Court discussing Microsoft v AT&T). Why are your pants wet..let me see..Playing in the snow and then coming inside will wet your pants (..i'm melting...)...somehow I'm not convinced simple thermodynamics is your issue :) For the other cheap asses and attention deficit types...easy way to routinely register your "stuff" - [cuz it is NOT a "race to the copyright office" - you get 90 days] ..and notice I didn't say "copyright", cuz we all know copyright affixes at the moment of "creation"..it'll be on the test so use your highlighter] ..the easy way to REGISTER your copyrights is to "do it" every 3 months (like when you change your longjohns, re-weave your dreads, wash the dog, pay your quarterly taxes (shudder) : 4 x per year and as Mixerman has suggested, go the cheap route and use 1 cover sheet for multiple works... ve haf vays of making you register, you off the -grid -wild -person wis ze vet trouzers.
-GildedLily

[nobby]

I can't think of anything witty to say that isn't patently offensive, so I'll just say welcome aboard, GildedLily!

You can take off your ski pants and leave them on the steam radiator by the window to dry.

You can leave your panties on unless they're wet also :grin:

[Mixerman]

I can't think of anything witty to say that isn't patently offensive, so I'll just say welcome aboard, GildedLily!

You can take off your ski pants and leave them on the steam radiator by the window to dry.

You can leave your panties on unless they're wet also :grin:

Yes. Well. We're certainly going to find out what kind of sense of humor she has from that one!

Mixerman

[MacGregor]

Provide their own original tracks.

Yep, that's the easy part, especially with vocals: just run the
song backwards through the 2bus and it magically splits up
back into the original 40 something tracks.

Can have that as VST plug please?

[st robert]

Yep, that's the easy part, especially with vocals: just run the
song backwards through the 2bus and it magically splits up
back into the original 40 something tracks.

Can have that as VST plug please?
40 tracks of vocals....?
hmmm...
i'll have to try that.

so is it possible that the answer lies in actually copyrighting my material then?

or, more to the point, not being a complete cheap-ass?











crap.









i knew it would come to this.

rob

[MacGregor]

40 tracks of vocals....?
hmmm...
i'll have to try that.

so is it possible that the answer lies in actually copyrighting my material then?


Nope, 40 tracks for the complete song (just 39 for the vocals),
sorry if that wasn't clear.

And I'm not against copyrighting (does this word actually exist at
all?), but I think it's near to impossible that a second person
could provide all of the original tracks.

[Deborah Neville]

Yes. Well. We're certainly going to find out what kind of sense of humor she has from that one!

Mixerman

Ok, ok, read -if you can get that close -the teensy weensy tags - - they typically don't do well on a steam radiator..or a car radiator ...nor should you use the oven to dry such delicates while re-heating pizza, although the energy efficiency appeals. Back to "fixation" of creative work.....prompt registration....and all fun things.

-Gilded Lily

[st robert]

Nope, 40 tracks for the complete song (just 39 for the vocals),
sorry if that wasn't clear.

And I'm not against copyrighting (does this word actually exist at
all?), but I think it's near to impossible that a second person
could provide all of the original tracks.
no, the point was that they would do a complete rerecording of your song, then present it as their own, such that your "original" tracks would seem to be ripoff recuts of their "original" tracks, yes?

that would suck.



a bit.


rob