# Copyrighting your music before exposing...



## RyBen (Aug 15, 2011)

Specifically before you expose it to the web or a music library or hand away demo reels, do you go online and register the track(s)? 35 bucks per track is kind of allot for a nooby like me but I guess it's better than the amount you'd spend on a lawyer and all that jazz trying to reclaim a stolen piece. (confirm please)

Also, if you copyright the piece and make a slightly altered version (let's say you EQ it), but you don't copyright the altered version, will that one still be covered? Does the copyright cover the exact frequency data of the audio file or the musical idea/aspect of it?

Edit: I found the answer to my second question on the copyright site:
"How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative, something more than just editorial changes or minor changes."


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 15, 2011)

Copyright on your music occurs the moment you create it, whether or not it is registered. Registration with the copyright office is the proof. 

Yes, you will want to register ALL of your work before making it public. There is a way to get around the $35 per track, but I am not making that public. A detailed search might reveal how to do that.

God - imagine you had to re-register everytime you mad some eq changes....:lol:


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 15, 2011)

u can also send an album compilation with a list of all the songs on a group of cds. so u only pay 35 bucks. 

at the same time. as stated above. your music is already copyrighten once u put in tangible form. 
and if u are not a famous artist or have reason to belive soneone will steal it then its not a big deal .
maybe do the poor mans copyright which is not 100% guarantee but its viable. 
send yourself via usps a copy of the songs and do not open the envelope until you are in front of a judge. the stamp will have the date.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

gsilbers @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> maybe do the poor mans copyright which is not 100% guarantee but its viable.
> send yourself via usps a copy of the songs and do not open the envelope until you are in front of a judge. the stamp will have the date.



NO NO NO NO NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!!!!!!

If you do this you will NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER get in front of a judge. Copyrights are governed by federal law. To file suit for copyright infringement you MUST have a registered copyright. If you do not then your case will be dismissed, if it even gets that far, for lack of standing. The "poor mans copyright" is a useless myth that MIGHT only serve as a defense if someone sues YOU. 

@Riff is correct. Your music is copy-written at the moment of creation. BUT...it is not registered. And registration is what you MUST have in order to get into court.

Yes...you can register a "collection." But that gets complicated when different publishers want different parts of the collection, because there's only one registration number. At that point you would need to re-register the individual tracks according to each publisher. Check with your own attorney on how to do this properly.

Michael


----------



## midphase (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm going to take a possibly controversial stance on this topic and say that nowadays registering a musical work with the copyright office is in most cases completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

Let me explain:

We live in a world where music has highly saturated demand. The only thing that values music nowadays is perception of value and not actual value. For instance, why is music created by someone the likes of TJ valued at (for the sake of argument) several thousands while the music of James Newton Howard is valued at several hundred thousands if not millions? It's the perception of value! 

Why do composers seek to emulate the style of Hans Zimmer, but not the style of Ned Bouhalassa? Once again...perception of value.

The reason why I'm explaining all this is because generally speaking, the drive to do something that would constitute a copyright infringement on a composer with a low perception of value is also very low if not non-existing. In essence, if you're not a big name, nobody wants to rip you off because they don't feel that doing so would have any value.

There are some exceptions of course, for instance if your compositional style is so unique and so intrinsically personal to you and only you (think Philip Glass) and you fear that others will want to steal your ideas, copyright can provide a very limited protection, but keep this in mind:

Copyright will not protect your style.

Copyright will not protect your chord progressions.

Copyright will not protect any special techniques that you might have used to produce your unique product.

Copyright will not prevent anyone from emulating your composition (as long as it differs just enough).

Copyright will not give you the power to stop anyone from utilizing your music, it is only an arrow in the quiver of a copyright attorney that you will need to hire on your own dime to defend your rights and possibly claim and damages.


Very recently there was a thread about someone on YouTube ripping the music of one of our members to use it on their own video without permission. Although YouTube does have a fairly comprehensive way for users to signal when copyright infringement has occurred, it is limited to removal of a video and does not prevent someone from posting it somewhere else. In addition, it required that the copyright holder finds out about it in the first place...not an easy task with thousands of new videos being added each day.


In closing, my advice is to save yourself the $35 for a rainy day (or a good meal). Unless you have an insanely unique and very appetizing style of compositions (or you're one of the big boys disguised as a newby), nobody is going to want to steal your tracks...and if they do you will only have a very limited added protection from that $35. Copyright or not, there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent someone from listening to your track and creating a soundalike (provided it's not a dead-on duplicate).

On the plus side...if the tracks that you write are part of a score used on a film or other, the production will have copyrighted the work as a whole and you can count on that layer or protection as proof that a composition was created by you at a certain date. For instance, most of the tracks on my own web site are owned by Warner Bros, Lion's Gate and other studios and if someone wants to rip them off to use in their own production, they will have to contend with their legal departments!


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

Hey Kays,

I'm not going to dispute 99and 44/100% of what you said. In fact I'll add some fuel to the fire.

1) You need to allege at least 75K worth of damages (last time I checked) to file suit in federal court. 

2) A good copyright (litigation) attorney is going to cost you hundreds of dollars per hour. Not so bad if you win. Not so good if you lose. 

My response was simply to refute the "poor-man's copyright" myth. 

One note though, PRO agreements may contain a clause requiring writers to register their copyrights. No doubt it is often ignored.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 15, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> gsilbers @ Mon Aug 15 said:
> 
> 
> > maybe do the poor mans copyright . . . send yourself via usps a copy of the songs and do not open the envelope until you are in front of a judge. the stamp will have the date.
> ...


I don't even think it would carry any weight then, because it's so easily faked. After all, the post office will still deliver a letter even if it's unsealed. So who's to say that rather than sending a CD to yourself of songs you wrote, you actually sent an _empty_ envelope to yourself, ready to go for any time later when you want to falsify an earlier writing date.

As far as worrying about copyrighting your stuff goes, you should know that most people don't register copyrights for every (or even most) songs they write. First, as you know, it's expensive, especially if this isn't how you make your living.

Second, you have to be realistic about people really wanting to rip off your music. Music Libraries or production companies where you're pitching your reel are not going to take on the HUGE risk of stealing your songs. That's a risk that could put them out of business. And for what purpose? If they loved your work so much that they would steal it, why not just hire you or license a particular track instead? I assume you're not charging John Williams rates, so there's no benefit to them hiring someone else, then paying that other composer to steal from you.

Third, if someone does rip you off, you can always register afterwards and then you're still allowed to take them to court. You do, however, lose the added benefit of possibly winning Compulsory damages if you should ever sue. But realistically, copyright cases are so expensive to take to court that the $150,000 compulsory damages limit is likely a drop in the bucket for what you'd really need to win in order for suing them to be profitable.

Fourth, even if you do get ripped off and have a valid copyright registration, you still won't be able to do much with it. Like I mention in Point 3, copyright cases are extremely expensive to take to court. So unless the person who steals your song has REALLY deep pockets, and the case is slam dunk, then you're not going to be able to do anything about it. (Other than a cease and desist letter.)

Fifth, if you do get ripped off (highly, highly, highly unlikely,) then it will be some borderline case where having a registered copyright still wouldn't do you any good. They'll change enough notes so that *you* might think it's still your song, but no lawyer will take the case. (Kays makes this point much better than I did.)

IMHO, don't worry about it. People send demo reels all the time where most, if not all, songs are not registered.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Third, if someone does rip you off, you can always register afterwards and then you're still allowed to take them to court. You do, however, lose the added benefit of possibly winning Compulsory damages if you should ever sue. But realistically, copyright cases are so expensive to take to court that the $150,000 compulsory damages limit is likely a drop in the bucket for what you'd really need to win in order for suing them to be profitable.
> .




Mike..you've either been down this road before, know someone who has, or you're another "recovering attorney." The expense perhaps explains why we are yet to see the predicted flood of retitling litigation....

Nonetheless...very very expensive.

Michael

PS. Mike, I'm enjoying your "Acoustic Drums." Let's hope no one accuses me of being a shill for for Sampleholics.


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2011)

Has there ever been a music copyright infringement case where official registration made a difference?

I think of it this way: most of my music winds up in a library or attached to some film with a verifiable date of creation. So if someone steals one of my tracks, I can refer back to the ASCAP registration or release date of the film. Seems to me that proves that I created it first.

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 15, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Aug 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Third, if someone does rip you off, you can always register afterwards and then you're still allowed to take them to court. You do, however, lose the added benefit of possibly winning Compulsory damages if you should ever sue. But realistically, copyright cases are so expensive to take to court that the $150,000 compulsory damages limit is likely a drop in the bucket for what you'd really need to win in order for suing them to be profitable.
> ...


"Acoustic Kits?" You mean the amazing sounding acoustic drums sounds available exclusively at the Sampleholics website? http://sampleholics.com/page1.html
Where, for a limited time, VI-Control members can type in coupon code "vicontrol" to get $20 off? Is that the one you mean? The one with five different kicks, dozens of snares, tons of cymbals, all done from four different mic positions, from "Close mic" to "Room" to "Rock" to "Caveman," which sounds huge? Is that the one you mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shill, I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.

:mrgreen: 

Indeed I have been down this road once. I had a song (my recording, no less) get used without my permission in a national network airing spot for one of the cell phone companies. I learned a lot about copyright law and litigation with that one and ultimately decided to drop it, not just for monetary costs, but stress costs as well.

I often regret that decision. It probably wouldn't have been especially profitable for me to pursue, but I would have gotten huge satisfaction putting the sleazeball who ripped me off out of business.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> "Acoustic Kits?" You mean the amazing sounding acoustic drums sounds available exclusively at the Sampleholics website? http://sampleholics.com/page1.html
> Where, for a limited time, VI-Control members can type in coupon code "vicontrol" to get $20 off? Is that the one you mean? The one with five different kicks, dozens of snares, tons of cymbals, all done from four different mic positions, from "Close mic" to "Room" to "Rock" to "Caveman," which sounds huge? Is that the one you mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shill, I just want to be sure we're talking about the same thing.
> 
> :mrgreen: .



Yeah...that would be them. Oh now we're really in trouble. But I don't think you're on the designated most hated developer list. :lol: 

What you learned was the sad truth that litigation often costs more than it's worth -- in dollars, emotions and stress. 

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## RyBen (Aug 15, 2011)

Haha wow. It seems like a copyright doesn't do a thing for you. Thanks for the info guys. I'm relieved in a sense to know that everyone's pretty much equally vulnerable, as cynical as it may sound.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Has there ever been a music copyright infringement case where official registration made a difference?
> 
> I think of it this way: most of my music winds up in a library or attached to some film with a verifiable date of creation. So if someone steals one of my tracks, I can refer back to the ASCAP registration or release date of the film. Seems to me that proves that I created it first.
> 
> rgames



Hi Richard,

Establishing a date of creation is not the issue. Having a registration is a minimum threshold requirement in oder to file a suit in federal court. State courts do not have jurisdiction over federal law. A copyright infringement case must be brought in federal court. As they said in law school, the registration is your "ticket" into court. 

So, yes, it made a difference to everyone who had not registered their copyright and were blocked from filing suit as a result. 

Of course, as Mike G. pointed out, you can always register and then file suit. But, so can the person that you are suing, and then it becomes really becomes interesting.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

RyBen @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Haha wow. It seems like a copyright doesn't do a thing for you. Thanks for the info guys. I'm relieved in a sense to know that everyone's pretty much equally vulnerable, as cynical as it may sound.



I wouldn't go that far. It depends on how high the stakes are. Infringement damages on a hit song can run into the millions. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Establishing a date of creation is not the issue. Having a registration is a minimum threshold requirement in oder to file a suit in federal court. State courts do not have jurisdiction over federal law. A copyright infringement case must be brought in federal court. As they said in law school, the registration is your "ticket" into court.
> 
> So, yes, it made a difference to everyone who had not registered their copyright and were blocked from filing suit as a result.
> 
> ...



Right - like you said, my thinking is that if you get into a situation where you want to claim infringement, you then register the track and you can prove it's yours because you have other info to back up your claim that you created it first.

The law clearly says the work is copyrighted when it's created, right? So if someone else registers your track, it seems the law would defer to some proof of that creation if it stands in conflict with the registration, so that should prevent someone from stealing your music by registering it first.

That must be the case because things like improvised live performances are copyrighted, right? If the registration were the only thing that mattered, then some dude in the audience could make a recording and go register it while the musician is doing the next set. Clearly the law would defer to proof of creation in that instance, right? And if it holds in that instance, then it seems proof of creation would always be the deciding factor even if the registration was held by someone else.

So, again, registering only when you decide to bring a suit against someone seems like it would be just fine, even if that person registered it, himself. Claiming ownership seems to be more a function of proving when it was created - the registration is just a formality. So I think that as long as you can prove when the track was created then you should be OK.

Also, do you know how common these types of suits are in the music world? I hear them talked about frequently but only ever in the hypothetical. I can only think of a couple and can't quite remember the details...

rgames


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 15, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> [
> The law clearly says the work is copyrighted when it's created, right? So if someone else registers your track, it seems the law would defer to some proof of that creation if it stands in conflict with the registration, so that should prevent someone from stealing your music by registering it first.
> 
> That must be the case because things like improvised live performances are copyrighted, right? If the registration were the only thing that mattered, then some dude in the audience could make a recording and go register it while the musician is doing the next set. Clearly the law would defer to proof of creation in that instance, right?



I'm going to give you a typical lawyers answer -- it depends. Yes a copyright vests to the creator at the moment of creation. But you can get into all kinds of wacky defenses like simultaneous independent creation etc -- too much to discuss.

But with respect to your example, here's my "law exam" answer. Two copyrights were created in your example. The improvisor may or may not own a copyright because the work needs to be fixed in a tangible medium. The "dude" in the audience however has created a sound recording which is a fixed and tangible medium. He arguably is the author and owner of the sound recording, even though he didn't create the underlying work!

Don't you love the law! HA!

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## rgames (Aug 15, 2011)

Yeah, I guess I'm confusing what makes sense with what would actually happen 

rgames


----------



## RyBen (Aug 15, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Yeah, I guess I'm confusing what makes sense with what would actually happen
> 
> rgames



LMAO

Music and law REALLY don't get along.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 16, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Aug 15 said:


> Yeah, I guess I'm confusing what makes sense with what would actually happen
> 
> rgames



Take it from a "recovering attorney," 
don't ever expect the law to make sense. Statutes, like budget deals, are created by legislators with differing interests and values. :lol: 

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## nikolas (Aug 16, 2011)

I can't be 100% sure with the following, but I am 99% sure  : You don't have to register your track in order to win a case, but you have to have a very clear indication of a date of when the track was created and 'given to you'. So if you, for example, were to publish a track, a score, or something, then there is quite clear and tangible proof that this track was credited to you from that time onwards. Same goes for when a track is used commercially and credited to you. Does any composer want to battle with ASCAP or BMI? Or a university? I have very clear evidence of around 20 works of concert halll music that were credited to me, written by me, marked by university professors, etc and everything indicated that were written by me. I doubt I really need to register anything unless someone wants to go against the university of London!

Or not?


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 16, 2011)

Hi Nikolas. 

Kalimera!

In Europe copyrights fall under the Berne Convention. I think that the EU is working on a registration system. http://www.wikihow.com/Copyright-a-Song

To my knowledge, however, registration is uniquely American at the moment. 
As I said above, if you want to sue someone for infringement in the US, you must register your copyright in order to even get into court. Thus, you cannot "win your case" in an American court if you have not registered you copyright. 

Best,

Michael


----------



## Markus S (Aug 30, 2011)

I think the risk is far greater that no one is actually caring about your music than people ripping you off. You should worry more about getting your music heard than the potential loss of an original idea.


----------

