# For those who copyright...



## bill5 (Jul 7, 2021)

How do you do it? I mean do you wait until you have an "album" and then do it, or do it more piecemeal? Or does it vary? Do you normally get a performance copyright along with the composition one? How do you submit (soft copies, CDs)? etc. Just curious.


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 7, 2021)

I had about 30 songs I'd written, so I just recorded them all with basic guitar and vocal, put them on 1 or 2 compact discs, then sent it in for registration as a "Works of" compilation. I don't remember if I included written lyrics (but I doubt it, the record was the audio)... it was over 15 years ago! Nobody ever tried to steal any of my "hits" but I guess it's still there for posterity haha.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 7, 2021)

Yeah at first I was thinking it would make sense to copyright an album at a time as I suspect most "big" artists do...but now I'm thinking more free form, to copyright those I feel are realistically "done" and I won't want to change. Then I can decide which I use or not for any given album. However possibly complicating that is that I have a lot more lyrics than I do music, so maybe copyright the lyrics first and later copyright the music for them.


----------



## Kent (Jul 7, 2021)

Copyright in General (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office


Copyright in General




www.copyright.gov





Copyright (in the US) exists from the moment of creation and fixed in a tangible/perceivable form.

Are you talking about Copyright _registration_, as with the Copyright office? This does have some added legal benefits, but may not be worth it even if you have reason and legal standing to pursue legal action with those additional benefits.


Basically, get an entertainment lawyer for advice here … but in short, you already legally own the copyright on anything you’ve created and not signed away.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 7, 2021)

kmaster said:


> Copyright (in the US) exists from the moment of creation and fixed in a tangible/perceivable form.


You realize that's a technicality and a joke, right? Good luck w/that in a court of law. "But your honor, look, I created it; here it is in a tangible form!"




> Are you talking about Copyright _registration_, as with the Copyright office? This does have some added legal benefits, but may not be worth it even if you have reason and legal standing to pursue legal action with those additional benefits.


Yes, I meant copyrighting as in www.copyright.gov copyrighting. How worth it that is one can debate all day long but wasn't my intent or interest here.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 7, 2021)

bill5 said:


> "But your honor, look, I created it; here it is in a tangible form!"


Well, there's a little more to it than just that. I do not register my original material with the Copyright Office, but the histories of my singles and albums are well documented in tangible form. I register my songs with BMI, SoundExchange, and Nielsen SoundScan, and the UPCs and ISRCs for those songs are tied to the audio recordings that were digitally distributed and/or released on CD. Even though this alone can't prove in court that I wrote my own music, it gives me substantial copyright defense against anyone who attempts to steal my music after I've released it. This documentation plus a C&D letter were enough to get Universal Music to withdraw a claim on one of my songs a couple years ago.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

bill5 said:


> You realize that's a technicality and a joke, right? Good luck w/that in a court of law. "But your honor, look, I created it; here it is in a tangible form!"


Well, I hate to say it but sending tunes to the copyright office is a bit of a ‘joke’ to some/many/most. 









Every Possible Melody Has Been Copyrighted, Stored On A Single Hard Drive - Hypebot


In a unique effort to combat the high volume of dubious lawsuits flying back and forth in the music industry today, a team of musicians has recorded every possible melody. Continue reading



www.hypebot.com


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

I don't think the article backs that up, but as to your general point of the copyright process being a SNAFU and no guarantee, I hear you...but it's far more weighty than just writing it down somewhere (even though IMO it shouldn't be). If nothing else having a copyright should better deter some loser from trying to steal it.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 8, 2021)

From what I remember when I did it, there's a fee associated with it, but it doesn't matter how many you sent in, the fee is the same. So the more, the better, if you want to save money on it. I think it was $30 or $35 when I did it. 

The bit of law that I understand is that, if you ever go to court, the copyright registration is one of the best legal ways to prove you made the piece of music because they actually have a copy of the music, whether in sheet or performance. 

Of course, going to court is only worth it if the person who stole it made a ton of money on it.


----------



## ceemusic (Jul 8, 2021)

For U.S. copyright I've been using the online/ electronic eC0 service. I both write & record my own material so I file an SR which covers both SR & PA.

The fees were $25.00 when I first started for claiming an unlimited number of songs. The fee is now up to $85.00 & one can only register up to 10 unpublished works. (a 10 song album)

You can also no longer use the standard application to register a collection of unpublished works.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> From what I remember when I did it, there's a fee associated with it, but it doesn't matter how many you sent in, the fee is the same. So the more, the better, if you want to save money on it. I think it was $30 or $35 when I did it.


It's $35 per submission, and yeah that can be one song or a hundred.




> The bit of law that I understand is that, if you ever go to court, the copyright registration is one of the best legal ways to prove you made the piece of music


Pretty sure it's the only way. Which IMO is stupid, but hey, we're talking the U.S. legal system here...they love stupid.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

Yeah I pretty much dismissed the article. I very seriously doubt any of it would hold up.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 8, 2021)

ceemusic said:


> For U.S. copyright I've been using the online/ electronic eC0 service. I both write & record my own material so I file an SR which covers both SR & PA.
> 
> The fees were $25.00 when I first started for claiming an unlimited number of songs. The fee is now up to $85.00 & one can only register up to 10 unpublished works. (a 10 song album)
> 
> You can also no longer use the standard application to register a collection of unpublished works.


Costs have gone up since I last did it, I guess. There are probably a lot more people copyrighting music in the wake of all these big initial payouts for court cases recently. They only see "Lady Gaga has to pay $$$$millions to person in copyright dispute!!!!" and not the "Lost on appeal, owes a lot of money to attorneys now, filed bankruptcy" that follows a few years later. I'm sure the copyright office had to hire more people to deal with it.


----------



## PeterN (Jul 8, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> Costs have gone up since I last did it, I guess. There are probably a lot more people copyrighting music in the wake of all these big initial payouts for court cases recently. They only see "Lady Gaga has to pay $$$$millions to person in copyright dispute!!!!" and not the "Lost on appeal, owes a lot of money to attorneys now, filed bankruptcy" that follows a few years later. I'm sure the copyright office had to hire more people to deal with it.



Has anyone used the US Copyright for a copyright claim? Recently, they have contacted me on very specific issues, in order to have stuff correctly copyrighted. This is bcs Ive done remixes. I suppose its great they are so specific, but at the same time it bugs me, if the stuff has to be 100% same now, in order to have a valid copyright claim. It smells its going in that direction. So every remix needs a new registry - I assume - even if you change one word in lyrics. Havent digged into the specifics, but this is the impression of dealing with them recently.


----------



## ceemusic (Jul 8, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> Costs have gone up since I last did it, I guess. There are probably a lot more people copyrighting music in the wake of all these big initial payouts for court cases recently. They only see "Lady Gaga has to pay $$$$millions to person in copyright dispute!!!!" and not the "Lost on appeal, owes a lot of money to attorneys now, filed bankruptcy" that follows a few years later. I'm sure the copyright office had to hire more people to deal with it.


I think it was because all the beat makers were claiming tons of material under the previous unlimited rule. They changed that rule, raised the prices & are making $$.
Images too, the social media age...


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 8, 2021)

kmaster said:


> Copyright (in the US) exists from the moment of creation and fixed in a tangible/perceivable form.


Form a legal standpoint, you are correct.



kmaster said:


> Are you talking about Copyright _registration_, as with the Copyright office? This does have some added legal benefits, but may not be worth it even if you have reason and legal standing to pursue legal action with those additional benefits.



Here is where you are wrong.

You can not file suit in a court of law (at least in the USA, and AFIAK, most countries who have signed the Berne treaty) without a copyright registration form that has been filed with the copyright office.

And it may be impossible to successfully defend yourself in a suit without a copyright registration form.


----------



## d.healey (Jul 8, 2021)

RonOrchComp said:


> most countries who have signed the Berne treaty


Not the UK, we don't have a copyright register.


----------



## Kent (Jul 8, 2021)

RonOrchComp said:


> Form a legal standpoint, you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And where is the wrong part?


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

3DC said:


> The way I see this, there is a slight problem with this "hard disk" copyright.
> 
> Its not creative work done by living person but generated with help of machine. I think that in a court of law the guy that owns the disk with all melodies has to prove he made the melody I made with his own "brain and hand" - which is the definition and essence of "creative work". This is what copyright law actually protects.
> 
> I would therefore breach his copyright only if I would made the same disk with the same melodies.


Maybe you did not read the full article, but they “put the melodies into the public domain. In fact anyone can download the works and the program the two used in order to take the process further at allthemusic.info.

“By doing this the duo hope to actually put an end to what many consider frivolous copyright lawsuits like the Katy Perry “Dark Horse” or Robin Thicke “Blurred Lines” cases.”

So it’s not that they wanted to copyright all melodies for themselves. It was a slightly cynical way to make a bit of fun of the lawsuits that were happening. And show that the laws need reforming.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 8, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Maybe you did not read the full article, but they “put the melodies into the public domain. In fact anyone can download the works and the program the two used in order to take the process further at allthemusic.info.
> 
> “By doing this the duo hope to actually put an end to what many consider frivolous copyright lawsuits like the Katy Perry “Dark Horse” or Robin Thicke “Blurred Lines” cases.”
> 
> So it’s not that they wanted to copyright all melodies for themselves. It was a slightly cynical way to make a bit of fun of the lawsuits that were happening. And show that the laws need reforming.


I'm actually kind of for that. Full pieces of music should not be copied, but there is rarely anything out there of which parts have not been done years/decades/centuries ago. I mean maybe a hook, but Katy Perry's song was very questionable to me.

Edit: I can't type....


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

bill5 said:


> Yeah I pretty much dismissed the article. I very seriously doubt any of it would hold up.


It’s not meant to “hold up”. It’s meant to dismantle, as I understand it.

Anyway, I’ll try not to distract from your thread too much.

If you think you’ll be in court someday and want your stuff in the copyright office; more power to you.

(Personally, I’ve yet to see the benefit. Teams of lawyers from a big label would destroy me even if their artist copied my work. Anyone else I worry about would not be worth the money I’d need to spend to pursue. Or they’d reside in a country where I have no legal recourse.)


----------



## d.healey (Jul 8, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> And show that the laws need reforming.


The original purpose of copyright was to provide a time limited monopoly for "artists" and to protect them against unauthorised publishers. Now it's used more by publishers in the name of the artists to generate additional revenue and the time limit is a joke.

The US constitution doesn't include a copyright clause but provides a provision for a copyright law to be enacted on the condition that it is done so to promote progress. Currently it is used mostly to limit progress...


----------



## Piano Pete (Jul 8, 2021)

kmaster said:


> And where is the wrong part?


There was actually an adjustment to this issue a year or so ago? It was one of the last things Ruth Beta Ginsburg did, I believe. It was an attempt to clear up the courts because there are a ton of back-logged infringement cases: a lot of them, frivolous.

To my understanding, and someone may feel free to correct me, as @RonOrchComp stated, you cannot sue for damages anymore unless you have filed for a _formal copyright_ or you have been _denied_ a formal copyright and have submitted grievance to the effect that someone else had coppy-written something that you have_ evidence_ to show you created. You have within 30 days of discovery of said infringement (with formal copyright) or denial of copyright application. 

Otherwise, you lose the right to go after someone for financial damages. So, if you put a piece on sound cloud to later discover someone yoinked it, you could then apply for a copyright and go through said legal process. Most people stealing others' work wont formally apply anyways. 

It is usually easiest to dispute things on youtube and other digital platforms if you have a formal copyright. Most complaints regarding content id and such stem from the creator from not actually having registered their work.

The nice thing, albeit grey zone, is that you can release a piece of music out into the wild and then formally copyright it later. Unlike patents, this is allowed—as prior art does not apply to copyright due to the fact we technically receive it upon creation. This new stipulation was an attempt to weed out false claims. 

Registering a work with BMI, ASCAP, or Content ID is not a copyright in the eyes of the court. They do not care, unless there is a lot of money involved with big named players.

This is why if you ever work on a formal project with a studio, they are usually OCD about making sure they have everything in order before CD releases etc. At least the ones I have worked with have been... If only they were that way with cue sheets.

-----

If you are working on a legit gig and are about to release the music out into the wild, apply for the formal copyright. It's not a lot of money.

If you are just releasing music for fun, and are not really generating income from it, you can potentially forgo it with the understanding someone could grab it. They can still grab it with the formal copyright. 

You could then either:

a) Never get a formal copyright, ever.

b) Release stuff over the year and potentially copyright in chunks either quarterly or yearly... whatever you feel comfortable with.

c) Compose a bunch of stuff, copyright them, and then release into the world. 

-----

I'll be the first to say that I still do not fully grasp some of the changes, as a lot of them seem to play on semantics or case by case factors. Hell, even if you have a copyright and someone steals it, good luck finding an attorney unless it has enough zeros after it. 

I'm by no means an attorney or legal expert, so if there is someone with better information or clarification, feel free to chime in.


----------



## Kent (Jul 8, 2021)

Piano Pete said:


> There was actually an adjustment to this issue a year or so ago? It was one of the last things Ruth Beta Ginsburg did, I believe. It was an attempt to clear up the courts because there are a ton of back-logged infringement cases: a lot of them, frivolous.
> 
> To my understanding, and someone may feel free to correct me, as @RonOrchComp stated, you cannot sue for damages anymore unless you have filed for a _formal copyright_ or you have been _denied_ a formal copyright and have submitted grievance to the effect that someone else had coppy-written something that you have_ evidence_ to show you created. You have within 30 days of discovery of said infringement (with formal copyright) or denial of copyright application.
> 
> ...


So where is the wrong part though


----------



## Kent (Jul 8, 2021)

I feel like people are furiously agreeing with me haha


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

This is all interesting conversation but back to the actual topic  Apparently nobody here has ever copyrighted anything? Or for reasons I can't imagine doesn't want to say how they did it?


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> If you think you’ll be in court someday and want your stuff in the copyright office; more power to you.


The odds are remote in the extreme, but on the off chance someone is crazy enough to try and rip me off, the *only* hope I have is if I have it copyrighted; otherwise the courts would dismiss it out of hand. Which is stupid, but again, that's what our legal system is about far too often. And yeah even then the odds would probably be against me even if the stealing is obvious. 

If I do, I assumed I would or should do it album by album, but as I mentioned earlier, I think I was looking at it too narrowly. Now I think I will just copyright a "chunk" that I feel confident I am finally done tweaking and some may go on an album, some may not, but it's copyrighted if I do.

Really for me it's personal. I have no delusions that someone will make big money off of one of my songs...but I'll be damned if that asshole is going to get off easy pretending he wrote it.


----------



## Piano Pete (Jul 8, 2021)

kmaster said:


> So where is the wrong part though


I was not trying to illustrate where you were wrong. I just happened to click quote on your post to further add clarification to why one may want to pursue a formal process. Not everyone is trying to pick a fight. I was just linking it back to yours and Ron's posts should someone backtrack through the thread—as I often do.



bill5 said:


> This is all interesting conversation but back to the actual topic  Apparently nobody here has ever copyrighted anything? Or for reasons I can't imagine doesn't want to say how they did it?


I think you can do this through legal zoom or something else, but I have either submitted copyrights via the copyright office's website (they have directions which arent too complicated but are a bit tedious the first time), via a lawyer on my behalf, or a studio has filed it on my/studio's behalf.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 8, 2021)

dzilizzi said:


> From what I remember when I did it, there's a fee associated with it, but it doesn't matter how many you sent in, the fee is the same. So the more, the better, if you want to save money on it. I think it was $30 or $35 when I did it.
> 
> The bit of law that I understand is that, if you ever go to court, the copyright registration is one of the best legal ways to prove you made the piece of music because they actually have a copy of the music, whether in sheet or performance.
> 
> Of course, going to court is only worth it if the person who stole it made a ton of money on it.



I think the last point gets a little burried on all these forums chats. From what ive read, if someone does steal your work then it would have to be for enough money to warrant the lawyers and court fees. Something a long the lines of hundred of thouands of dollars to even start this. 
I mean, if you did the song happy, which is used in so many commercials, movies etc then that wouldbe good to pursue. but if someone stole a daniel james track/song and used it to do new epic track used in several youtube playlist then its completly pointless to pursue. 
So it might depend if you think your track might somehow be so great it could be use in so many ways that it would gain at least 200,000 minumun in several outlets. 

Anyways, in terms of this thread. the answer is compilation albums. just enter a compilation album with an mp3 cd with hundreds of tracks for like 30 bucks. its not like they check every track or anything.


----------



## rgames (Jul 8, 2021)

I've never registered for copyright on anything. But I claim it on everything I write. 

As stated above, you own the copyright the instant you create it. If you decide to go to court, it needs to be registered. 

So..... if you get to a point where you need to take someone to court, register it. Otherwise it's not necessary. 

rgames


----------



## SteveC (Jul 8, 2021)

In germany, you don't have to register anything. 
And when I publish something I have a release number and date.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

Piano Pete said:


> If only they were that way with cue sheets.


Funniest thing I’ve read all day!


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

bill5 said:


> This is all interesting conversation but back to the actual topic  Apparently nobody here has ever copyrighted anything? Or for reasons I can't imagine doesn't want to say how they did it?


I got the impression that people have told you how they registered their music with the copyright office, but it was years ago and maybe prices and restrictions have changed since then. I subscribed to learn if anyone was still doing this AND had actually made use of their copyright. I support the effort …in theory.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

gsilbers said:


> Anyways, in terms of this thread. the answer is compilation albums. just enter a compilation album with an mp3 cd with hundreds of tracks for like 30 bucks. its not like they check every track or anything.


Track one: 1970-1979 Track two: 1980-1989 Track three: 1990-1999 Track four: 2000-2009. Track five: 2010-2019…


----------



## Piano Pete (Jul 8, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Track one: 1970-1979 Track two: 1980-1989 Track three: 1990-1999 Track four: 2000-2009. Track five: 2010-2019…


More or less, but if I remember correctly, they changed this back in march 2021 capping it to 20 sound recordings/compositions for a single creator and 10 for multi-creator albums per filing. I think the fees are now like $85 for an album/collection filing or something. That lines up with what I usually pay when I'm taking care of solo stuff, but I have not had a reason to do it recently.



https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ50.pdf






__





Group Registration of Works on an Album of Music | U.S. Copyright Office


Group Registration of Works on an Album of Music




www.copyright.gov





Regarding fees, they have it up on the website, but this varies depending on who/how you filed and what the filing ends up being all said and done.

In most cases, for people on VI control, it'll probably end up being a SR since you will have made and owned the sound recording and the music. Otherwise, you have the PA version which is just publishing, if I recall.

But Rgames and Gsilbers pretty much nailed it. This is really something to deal with once it becomes a problem and only if it is worth the money and time of an attorney. If it becomes that, and you have composed the next "Happy," someone somewhere will be willing to take that fight regardless if you had filed prior or else.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 8, 2021)

bill5 said:


> This is all interesting conversation but back to the actual topic  Apparently nobody here has ever copyrighted anything? Or for reasons I can't imagine doesn't want to say how they did it?


I did. Just a long time ago. Well, 2006. Not technically that long ago. But before the new pricing structure. I downloaded the form, filled it out, enclosed a CD of the songs listed and a check, and mailed it in. I got something back from them maybe a month or so later? I'm assuming it can be done online now?


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

Piano Pete said:


> But Rgames and Gsilbers pretty much nailed it. This is really something to deal with once it becomes a problem


Absolutely not - it is something to deal with_ before_ it becomes a problem. 



rgames said:


> As stated above, you own the copyright the instant you create it. If you decide to go to court, it needs to be registered.
> 
> So..... if you get to a point where you need to take someone to court, register it. Otherwise it's not necessary.


I believe you need to register it within a certain time of it being published or you lose any claims to it...again my point being if anyone wants to protect their work, you don't register it AFTER someone has tried to rip it off. That is a recipe for failure.




Piano Pete said:


> I think you can do this through legal zoom or something else, but I have either submitted copyrights via the copyright office's website (they have directions which arent too complicated but are a bit tedious the first time), via a lawyer on my behalf, or a studio has filed it on my/studio's behalf.


Thanks but that isn't what I meant (and my bad, wasn't clear), I don't mean "did you do it online" or what are the steps you took...I'm familiar with that. I mean in terms of_ what _you submitted and why you chose that portion of material.


----------



## proxima (Jul 8, 2021)

bill5 said:


> I believe you need to register it within a certain time of it being published or you lose any claims to it...


U.S. law: "Registration can be made at any time within the life of the copyright. If you register before publication, you do not have to re-register when the work is published, although you can register the published edition, if desired."

[edited because I copied the wrong sentences.]


----------



## bill5 (Jul 8, 2021)

Thanks but that doesn't make any sense to me. Which figures, as we are talking about govt.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 8, 2021)

3DC said:


> you can't claim copyright on artificially created work


Creators of AI music composition assistants (software developers) expect to be able to claim copyright on “artificially” created work, as I understand. 

Example of a service that either retains copyright and grants you (the human composer) a limited license, or, transfers copyright — based on how much you’ve paid for the artificially created music. 





__





AIVA


Compose emotional soundtrack music with AIVA. Use the power of AI-generated music to create uniquely personalized music instantly.




www.aiva.ai







3DC said:


> oversimplification of any law especially copyright law is very dangerous





3DC said:


> dangerous for other professional artists.




Thank you for warning others.

I sometimes forget that not everyone has read as many contracts as I have read (and written). And not everyone has had so many frustrating and exhausting legal experiences, meetings and conversations with entertainment lawyers, or had music signed away and resold without permission or proper credit (often in other countries) for myself and my collaborators, and ultimately found little to no recourse. Registering the music with the US copyright office would likely have avoided precisely zero of these difficulties I’ve experienced. But maybe it could help someone else someday with some other struggle I’ve not experienced.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 8, 2021)

I'm glad to live in Germany! You wrote something? You own it!


----------



## bill5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> Example of a service that either retains copyright and grants you (the human composer) a limited license, or, transfers copyright — based on how much you’ve paid for the artificially created music.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate things like this. "Can't write? Can't play? Here, we'll auto generate a song for you and you can sign your name to it and pretend you wrote it and performed it." How repulsive. Tech has been good in some ways, but ultimately this and other such crutches just enable the wannabes to pretend they're legit and so harm the truly talented out there, who then have that much less of a chance of even being noticed. 

/rant


----------



## becolossal (Jul 9, 2021)

bill5 said:


> I hate things like this. "Can't write? Can't play? Here, we'll auto generate a song for you and you can sign your name to it and pretend you wrote it and performed it." How repulsive. Tech has been good in some ways, but ultimately this and other such crutches just enable the wannabes to pretend they're legit and so harm the truly talented out there, who then have that much less of a chance of even being noticed.
> 
> /rant


I'm generally a pretty cynical guy and would be right there shaking my fist at the clouds with you, but the reality is this just isn't true for too many reasons to list – the most obvious being just listen to the stuff those things create. Tools are tools. Craft and taste are what make you unique.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 9, 2021)

Except things like that link above aren't tools. They are doing the creating for you. And I think it is quite possible for those things to auto-create a song which is not bad, even good (blind squirrel and all that). Have you checked that AIVA site? It literally just creates a song which can be download and someone can sign their name to it as if they actually had anything to do with it. There is zero "craft" involved. If you approve of such things, whatever, we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 9, 2021)

bill5 said:


> Except things like that link above aren't tools. They are doing the creating for you.


It depends on how one uses it. There will be wannabe composers out there using it to create complete works on which they can stamp their name, and that's unfortunate. But I can also see AI being used by composers, especially those who are crunched for time, to spark ideas.

We all use idea sparkers. They're called _other people's songs. _


----------



## becolossal (Jul 9, 2021)

bill5 said:


> Except things like that link above aren't tools. They are doing the creating for you. And I think it is quite possible for those things to auto-create a song which is not bad, even good (blind squirrel and all that). Have you checked that AIVA site? It literally just creates a song which can be download and someone can sign their name to it as if they actually had anything to do with it. There is zero "craft" involved. If you approve of such things, whatever, we'll agree to disagree.


Still a tool, imo. I have checked out the AIVA site. If someone does indeed do what you're suggesting they would (download a track, pop their name on, try to get gigs), I'll take that competition any day of the week.

@Polkasound has it right, imo. AIVA, Scaler, Splice song-starters, Arcade, etc – they're all thought-starters that spark ideas. And hey, if someone manages to take any of those right out of the box and score a gig or a smash hit, more power to 'em.


----------



## rgames (Jul 9, 2021)

bill5 said:


> I believe you need to register it within a certain time of it being published or you lose any claims to it...again my point being if anyone wants to protect their work, you don't register it AFTER someone has tried to rip it off. That is a recipe for failure.


Ok. I'm gonna go register everything that's unregistered. 

Then I OWN IT ALL.

Of course not . Registering it doesn't provide any kind of proof that it's yours.

In fact, if I did register it and claim ownership then I'm certain that the rightful owners could sue me even though I have the registration. 

Registration is a formality. Not proof of ownership. 

rgames


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 9, 2021)

Here's an interesting article from *cdbaby *that I just read out of curiosity. Most interesting is the part about potential payout per "theft" (assuming this is actually a statute and not just dependent on how good your lawyer is):





Of course the (US Copyright) laws have recently been updated as well so some of this wasn't the case when I copyrighted back around 2003. Article:
https://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-rights/copyright-for-musicians/


----------



## bill5 (Jul 9, 2021)

rgames said:


> Registering it doesn't provide any kind of proof that it's yours.


The U.S. courts/govt disagree, and pretty sure they have the final say.  



> In fact, if I did register it and claim ownership then I'm certain that the rightful owners could sue me even though I have the registration.


? If you register it, by law you are the "rightful owner." 



> Registration is a formality. Not proof of ownership.


Again, the law disagrees...


----------



## rgames (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> ? If you register it, by law you are the "rightful owner


Check out this website:

www.spotify.com

It turns out there are MILLIONS of unregistered tracks on there. You can write some simple code that cross references the database on that website with copyright registrations and then register them all for yourself!

You'll be rich!

Or.... maybe not?


----------



## Ivan M. (Jul 10, 2021)

So, does it boil down to having power: money, lawyers, name?


----------



## bill5 (Jul 10, 2021)

rgames said:


> Check out this website:
> 
> www.spotify.com
> 
> ...


I suspect you know as well as I do the silliness of that reply, so I won't bother further. If you want to ignore the realities of the law and the situation - which I'm not wild about myself btw - have at it!


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 10, 2021)

3DC said:


> Formality of what?
> 
> -----------------------------------
> 
> ...


Genuine question: Can you point to actual examples where registering with the US copyright office actually benefited a small time US composer in a legal dispute? I did some Googling and found lots of cases but none of them seemed to revolve around or rely upon registering with the copyright office.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 10, 2021)

becolossal said:


> Still a tool, imo. I have checked out the AIVA site. If someone does indeed do what you're suggesting they would (download a track, pop their name on, try to get gigs), I'll take that competition any day of the week.
> 
> @Polkasound has it right, imo. AIVA, Scaler, Splice song-starters, Arcade, etc – they're all thought-starters that spark ideas. And hey, if someone manages to take any of those right out of the box and score a gig or a smash hit, more power to 'em.





Polkasound said:


> It depends on how one uses it. There will be wannabe composers out there using it to create complete works on which they can stamp their name, and that's unfortunate. But I can also see AI being used by composers, especially those who are crunched for time, to spark ideas.
> 
> We all use idea sparkers. They're called _other people's songs. _


I’m also on the ‘tools are tools’ side of things. You can listen to a bunch of references, or, you can listen to an AI that has listened to even more references (presumably thousands) and cranks out a few examples of some of the ‘rules’ of that style — e.g. a sea shanty — and take some inspiration, changing however you want to make things your own.

There are plenty of riff generators, arpeggiator tools, chord tools and so on being sold right now. Even some melody tools like Captain Melody (from Mixed in Key) … AIVA and similar AI / machine learning tools are advancements of the same. You might hate it all, including phrase libraries, looped samples, maybe even “Evo” style recordings, but where do you draw the line? Are drum rhythms okay but melodies off limits? What if you’re writing a samba? Do you need to study Latin percussion? (Of course you should but how much is enough?)

Rather than discussing if the compositional tools available today are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ I find them interesting in the context of the legal conversation about copyright. Because the law will likely need to address artificially composed works in the next ten years. And composers will need to learn how to adapt to the changing reality of AI in the music marketplace. Many “Muzak” genre pieces may begin to emerge that are AI generated. So the onus will be on us to write what the machines cannot. 

The way to do this is to have a small enough catalog of pieces in a unique style. The machine learning needs lots and lots and lots of examples to get “good enough” at writing in a style. If you have a unique style and a smaller set of works to feed the algorithm the computers cannot copy you nearly as well.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 10, 2021)

3DC said:


> I am new to the music world but it took me like 5 seconds to find what you couldn't.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_plagiarism
> 
> I strongly suggest you go trough all cases mentioned in the article. Interesting reading about naivety and ignorance against well organised production system - regardless how big or small the artist is.
> ...


Hmm… I did not get the same impression. Or at least I think we may be reading many of the same words and having a different “takeaway”. 

Maybe you seem to be oversimplifying, now?

If there was naïveté it seemed to be on the part of those who got sued and lost, not those who were plagiarized and won. 

Which specific cases did you see that showed


Soundbed said:


> registering with the US copyright office actually benefited a small time US composer in a legal dispute


? I saw many plagiarism cases involving famous composers, publishers, other countries… I’m looking for US cases where an unknown US composer registered with the copyright office and this led to them successfully winning a case case in court. 

The case with ZZ Top (‘The song "Thunderbird" was originally written and performed by the Nightcaps’) is the best example of what I was seeking (although they lost). They did not register and lost their case. Very sad. But it seemed a (tiny) minority in the list. 

Most cases are settled out of court. I do agree that if your work was registered AND you can show access and intent then you have the best chance to settle. 

But as others have mentioned there are many ways -today- to show access and intent that don’t involve copyright registration. (i.e., my humble tune was published by CD Baby on June 17, 2014 and was later included on a genre specific Spotify playlist that had 20,000 listens when the artist’s song was recorded, and the defendant artist and album producer both have a Spotify account, so the artist had access and enough incentive to copy…etc.)

I find many people online discuss going to court as the norm when there’s a dispute. It’s not. Setting out of court with the ability to prove access and intent seem to be the norm. In today’s digital world, if you make your music public, you can more easily show that your music was easily accessible. 

Thanks for the friendly discussion. 

I’m not into drama or heated debate. 

I can see the benefits of registering with the copyright office. But I’ve not found it much practical help to date with the majority of disputes.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> I suspect you know as well as I do the silliness of that reply,


But he made a very good point with it. There's this false notion floating around this thread that being the registered copyright owner of a song may make you impervious to losing a lawsuit. So what would stop a shyster musician from registering copyrights on unregistered songs owned by other musicians? The answer is that proving ownership of a song goes way beyond whether or not you registered a copyright. The registration gives weight and is required to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't replace burden of proof for either side in a legitimately contested case.



3DC said:


> I am new to the music world but it took me like 5 seconds to find what you couldn't.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_plagiarism


I think you missed his point. All of the cases required copyright registration for the plaintiff to file the lawsuit, but the question is in which of these cases did a copyright registration supersede burden of proof?

If someone falsely registered one of my original songs with the Copyright Office, they'd be in for an expensive loss in court, because I'd have enough evidence of ownership to blow their false copyright registration clear out of the water.

--

These are my thoughts on copyright registration [and it's important to note here that I am a musician, not a lawyer.]

A copyright registration cannot prove who wrote a song, but it provides clear evidence of when ownership of a song was claimed, and by whom. Unless a copyright registration can be proven erroneous, it usually stands as fact. If someone stole one of your unreleased songs and claimed they wrote it, but your registered copyright for that song is twenty years old and predates any material evidence they can provide in regard to their association with the song, it's probably going to be an open and shut case.

If you make a living as a songwriter, or if you're simply an enviable songwriter who has a lot of unreleased songs in the vault to which other musician may be privy, registering the copyrights is a good idea because evidence of your ownership of those songs will predate anyone else's copyright claims. You'll want it in case you are sued, and you'll need it to sue.

But for the millions of independent artists out there like me who write and self-release songs which are well-documented and registered with PROs, digital distributors, and other services, no one is going to steal your songs, register the copyrights to them, and be able to fabricate enough material to prove you didn't write them. Their copyright registration wouldn't hold water.

For indie artists, most copyright disputes that arise – if any at all – are going to be inconsequential and handled through online complaint forms. Registering with the Copyright Office is great if you have the time and extra money, but for most, it would be a waste of money.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 10, 2021)

Polkasound said:


> But he made a very good point with it.


No he didn't. He presented some silly idea about creating some code to "steal millions of songs to get rich," which was obviously not workable from a variety of angles.



> There's this false notion floating around this thread that being the registered copyright owner of a song may make you impervious to losing a lawsuit. So what would stop a shyster musician from registering copyrights on unregistered songs owned by other musicians? The answer is that proving ownership of a song goes way beyond whether or not you registered a copyright. The registration gives weight and is required to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't replace burden of proof for either side in a legitimately contested case.


That's not the impression I get at all, but like you I'm not a lawyer. 



> If someone falsely registered one of my original songs with the Copyright Office, they'd be in for an expensive loss in court, because I'd have enough evidence of ownership to blow their false copyright registration clear out of the water.


Maybe. But I doubt it. If you're counting on that IMO you're making a huge mistake. 




> A copyright registration cannot prove who wrote a song


I think you and he still miss the point. In the eyes of the law, most if not nearly all the time, it DOES prove who wrote a song. It doesn't matter if that reflects reality or not. They don't care if you emailed it to yourself 3 years prior or have a video of you singing that song then (etc). Is that fair or logical? No. But again: U.S. legal system.



> If you make a living as a songwriter, or if you're simply an enviable songwriter who has a lot of unreleased songs in the vault to which other musician may be privy, registering the copyrights is a good idea because evidence of your ownership of those songs will predate anyone else's copyright claims. You'll want it in case you are sued, and you'll need it to sue.


That we agree on.  



> But for the millions of independent artists out there like me who write and self-release songs which are well-documented and registered with PROs, digital distributors, and other services, no one is going to steal your songs, register the copyrights to them, and be able to fabricate enough material to prove you didn't write them. Their copyright registration wouldn't hold water.


I think you're dreaming. Nice dream, but a still a dream. PRO vs copyright = copyright wins at least 99 times out of 100.


----------



## ceemusic (Jul 10, 2021)

Registering a copyright = registering the 'rights' to 'claim'.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> He presented some silly idea about creating some code to "steal millions of songs to get rich,"


Wait who are we talking about? If me, I never said that and I don’t know who you’re saying said that…?


bill5 said:


> I think you and he still miss the point.


Who is “he”? …Me? If we disagree it’s not because we miss the point but it might be worth a dialog, for education sake. 


bill5 said:


> PRO vs copyright = copyright wins at least 99 times out of 100.


what is this dichotomy? A PRO was only part of the equation. I read that post as saying “self-release songs which are well-documented and registered with PROs, digital distributors, and other services” … are you saying these are documented in the courts as NOT evidence of copyright ownership in actual cases (non-theoretical)?


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> No he didn't. He presented some silly idea about creating some code to "steal millions of songs to get rich," which was obviously not workable from a variety of angles.


Yes, of course it's a silly idea if taken literally. You're missing the point of WHY he said it. He said it to point out the folly that simply registering a copyright on someone else's unregistered song will make you the indisputable owner gauranteed to win a copyright dispute lawsuit.



bill5 said:


> Maybe. But I doubt it. If you're counting on that IMO you're making a huge mistake.


I respect your opinion, but yes, I absolutely am counting on that. The burden of proof would be on the false copyright registrant to prove that his latent copyright registration supersedes all of the material evidence I have that refutes his registration.



bill5 said:


> I think you and he still miss the point. In the eyes of the law, most if not nearly all the time, it DOES prove who wrote a song.


No, it does not prove who wrote the song. Let's say you falsely register a copyright on a song that isn't yours. The composer of the song then registers a copyright on it so he can sue you.

You now have two copyrights in dispute.

The owner brings his copyright to court plus a mountain of additional documented evidence predating your copyright, such as released albums and singles, registrations with Nielsen SoundScan, BMI, and SoundExchange, uploads to a digital distributor with UPC and ISRCs associated to the song in dispute, receipts from the CD manufacturing house, etc.

All you have is a copyright, and any material evidence you'll have will be dated later than his.

Good luck with that.



bill5 said:


> I think you're dreaming. Nice dream, but a still a dream. PRO vs copyright = copyright wins at least 99 times out of 100.


You're taking parts of my posts out of context here. It's not about PRO registration vs. a copyright registration. If you keep my posts in context, then you'll see that I was referring to a PRO registration _that predates a false copyright registration_ as _one_ element of evidence that, _when combined with others_, can defeat an errant copyright registration in court.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 10, 2021)

Polkasound said:


> I respect your opinion, but yes, I absolutely am counting on that. The burden of proof would be on the false copyright registrant to prove that his latent copyright registration supersedes all of the material evidence I have that refutes his registration.


No it wouldn't. He has legal proof of ownership. If you take him to court, the burden of proof is all on you, and with him having a copyright and you not, your odds are poor. But don't take my word for it, ask a lawyer. You could probably get a consultation pretty inexpensively...worth it IMO if you value your music highly, but it's your music...




> No, it does not prove who wrote the song. Let's say you falsely register a copyright on a song that isn't yours. The composer of the song then registers a copyright on it so he can sue you.


And of course the courts will see his was made earlier. You lose. Again I see what you're saying about other evidence, and that's how it SHOULD work, but the more I read, the less that seems to be the law's take on it. A copyright carries a LOT more weight than any PRO or other alleged evidence (most if not all of which I doubt would carry much if any weight because it's easy to fake such things).



> Good luck with that.


I was just thinking the same thing.  



> You're taking parts of my posts out of context here. It's not about PRO registration vs. a copyright registration.


No I'm not, and yes it is. Again a copyright carries way (way) more weight. But again it's your music, roll the dice if you want.


----------



## bill5 (Jul 10, 2021)

Soundbed said:


> are you saying these are documented in the courts as NOT evidence of copyright ownership in actual cases (non-theoretical)?


YES. The ONLY evidence of copyright ownership _is the copyright. _

I'm out; I think this is starting to beat a dead horse.  Again, people are free to dismiss copyrights as unnecessary if they want and think other things can trump it. IMO the odds of the courts agreeing are really small. But really, all this is unlikely to come up anyway, which to me is the most compelling reason not to get a copyright...still, I prefer to err on the side of caution.


----------



## Soundbed (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> YES. The ONLY evidence of copyright ownership _is the copyright. _
> 
> I'm out; I think this is starting to beat a dead horse.  Again, people are free to dismiss copyrights as unnecessary if they want and think other things can trump it. IMO the odds of the courts agreeing are really small. But really, all this is unlikely to come up anyway, which to me is the most compelling reason not to get a copyright...still, I prefer to err on the side of caution.


Sorry. I didn’t want this thread to go this way.

As I said these things usually don’t go to court.

Possibly try: the Facebook group called Business Skills for Composers. It’s my best online “forum style” reference for questions like this.

And there are entertainment lawyers in the group. Some of them are my personal (real life) acquaintances / friends and will potentially disagree with me and give you great advice!

Cheers!


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 10, 2021)

bill5 said:


> because it's easy to fake such things


Really? I'm going to create fake documents from BMI, Nielsen, SoundExchange, CD Baby, ISRC, etc. and create false, notarized affidavits from radio personalities, bring them into court as evidence of my affiliation with my song, and cross my fingers that the other side's lawyer won't, you know, subpoena those organizations for those same documents? Reaaalllly?

Bill, I think it's great that you advocate registering copyrights. In some situations, I do too, and I certainly wouldn't talk anyone out of registering a copyright. The only thing I don't like is the scare tactic of coming into a music forum and declaring that the first person to register a copyright on a song automatically gets to keep the song regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary because courts are incapable of taking into consideration that a copyright registration could be erroneous or malicious.

If Joe Schmoe registered one of my songs with the Copyright Office and claimed it as his own, and I had to take him to court to challenge it...

Judge: _"Mr. Schmoe, the documentation subpoenaed from BMI, SoundExchange, SoundScan, CD Baby, and ISRC clearly indicate that Polkasound's affiliation with the song predates your copyright registration. Furthermore, these 100+ notarized affidavits from radio producers, DJs, and music retailers all confirm having received Polkasound's album, which include the song in dispute as cross-referenced by the ISRC and UPC code, prior to your copyright registration. How do you respond to that?"_

Joe Schmoe: _"I registered the copyright before he did."_

Judge: _"Yes, but the copyright is what's in dispute here. What evidence do you have to support your claim to the copyright?"_

[Insert crickets sound effect]


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 11, 2021)

3DC said:


> unless someone comes forward to contest it *and prove otherwise*. As the owner of copyright its not your job to prove it to be TRUE - you are protected *until proven otherwise*.


[Emphasis in bold is mine]

"Proven otherwise" was my entire point. If there's enough evidence that shows someone erroneously or maliciously registered a copyright claim on a song that wasn't theirs to copyright, then a copyright registration alone is not bullet proof. If someone steals your song and registers it as their own, it's only theirs until you can provide enough evidence to make it obvious that it isn't, and that doesn't require you to have registered the song copyright with the Copyright Office before they did.

Would it help? Absolutely. And for that reason I advocate good songwriters and composers who write marketable, theft-worthy material to copyright their works. But for the dime-a-dozen, under-the-radar indie musician whose well-documented, propagated music releases earn a few bucks a year in royalties, registering their songs with the Copyright Office may be as financially sound as a Vermont B&B buying tornado insurance. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying to look at the pros and cons and decide what's best for you and your situation. In the slim odds you'd have to sue someone to get their copyright of your song revoked, it would cost you thousands of dollars in attorneys fees either way.

I've disputed and won copyright claims on YouTube, SoundExchange, and other services, and never needed proof of registration from the Copyright Office. This is the extent to which most indie musicians will ever need to go. If I started writing songs that took off and made significant money, I would register my songs with the Copyright Office just to give me more leverage in court, since my songs would become more of a target for thieves and my chances of ending up in litigation would be greater. Then I'd be a Kansas farmstead buying tornado insurance, and that ain't a bad idea.


----------



## PeterN (Jul 11, 2021)

Polkasound said:


> [Emphasis in bold is mine]
> 
> "Proven otherwise" was my entire point. If there's enough evidence that shows someone erroneously or maliciously registered a copyright claim on a song that wasn't theirs to copyright, then a copyright registration alone is not bullet proof. If someone steals your song and registers it as their own, it's only theirs until you can provide enough evidence to make it obvious that it isn't, and that doesn't require you to have registered the song copyright with the Copyright Office before they did.
> 
> ...



Mind asking, how is in practice, when you dig out a song from Copyright Office, in order to prove its yours (in a dispute).

I mean, are you simply requesting to get your MP3 from there with an official date, and stamp from office, or how is it done? They post a letter yes, with a reference, when you register, but that letter wont be enough.

Would a court or even youtube etc, get access to your registration? Have people digged into details here?

In conclusion, does anyone have experience in using the Copyright Office for a song claim? If so, how did that work out in practice?


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 11, 2021)

3DC said:


> Its always better to defend your copyrighted work then attack with your money to prove you hold the documentation for copyright.


I agree with this 100%. But the point of my posts is that when you commercially release music through distributors, retailers, and radio stations, you generate a large body of copyright and P-line information as well as documentation that time-stamps your affiliation with the work. Who would willingly want to challenge that in court?

If someone steals your song, chances are they're playing the odds that they won't get found out, as in the recent case with Daniel James as well as my own personal experiences. If they do get caught, a quick dispute/challenge online will usually settle it. It's not likely someone will outright steal a song belonging to someone else and be so obstinate as to spend thousands of dollars taking it all the way to court despite all the evidence against him.

Regarding such odds, back in the day before the internet was widely used, 95% of polka bands never licensed the standards and country covers they recorded. That's because the odds of getting caught were nil. When a band recording at my studio asked about licensing, I was frank with them. I told them licensing their cover songs was the safe and proper thing to do, but I also told them the odds of getting caught and left the choice up to them... save a few hundred dollars and roll the dice (and sign my indemnification clause, LOL) or spend the money licensing the covers.

If you want your house in Vermont to be 100% protected instead of 99.99% protected, no one is going to stop you from buying tornado insurance. If a dime-a-dozen indie musician wants to spend $50 to give added protection to his $5 song in the rare event a copyright dispute escalates to litigation, I have nothing against that. Each musician must decide what's best for himself.

If I were to retroactively register my original music with the Copyright office, it would cost me over $500. Could I afford to do that? Absolutely. But I don't because the odds of that investment paying any kind of a return are 10,000,000 to 1. If my music ever gets so good that shyster musicians and their greedy lawyers may want to steal it and go to court because they're confident they'll win and make lots of money with it, then I'll make that investment.




3DC said:


> Sure they will help to settle some minor cases, but in big cases, rest assured both works get banned until the dispute is settled in court of law. People should understand that the data from this platforms can be used as evidence but in court of law its not the PROOF of ownership.


That's what I'm saying. A copyright goes into dispute and royalties go into holding while two people claim ownership of the song. One has a mountain of earlier dated evidence supporting his claim including subpoenaed documents of song registration information and affidavits from industry professionals, and the other has nothing except to say that he called dibs at the Copyright Office. Say what you want about copyright law, but I would put my faith in any judge or jury to see the obvious and rule in favor of the spirit of the law.


----------

