Copyright forms...confused....

Re: Copyright forms...confused....

On the "Poor Man's Copyright" issue, I read that in a book that was written for songwriters, musicians and composers when I researched some things few years back. I believe the book is called "Songwriters Market", it actually gives all kinds of information. Including publishing companies, record labels, etc. I was just suggesting that Poor Man's Copyright was a temporary option, not the definitive one. I strongly suggested that he copyright it. However, a forensic test could prove how long something had been sealed if it came down to that.

However, you can register the entire CD of music as an unpublished work. Check to see if you would need to include the sheet music as well.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

I'm with bodaphoto... it can never hurt to do the poor man's copyright as a backup to a real copyright...
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Well, I guess it can't hurt, except for the cost of the envelope and the stamp.

But it won't help either.  It'll afford you no legal protection whatsoever.  So, if you want to do it for fun, I guess you could, but if you're doing it for legal protection, you're wasting the cost of a stamp -- which would be better put to use mailing a copyright form into copyright.gov.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

If you're going to spend the money to send it to copyright.gov though why not spend the extra stamp... it'll help show in court how much you cared to maintain this copyright... judges are people too and they'll be that much more likely to rule in your favour the more effort you've put into protecting yourself...
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Also, lets not forget that your copyright clock begins ticking as soon as you put that date on your work. Do you remember hearing about recent case with the online flash movie where animated presidential candidates sing "This Land is Your Land"?

Well that was all dragged into court because this Ludlow Music claimed to own copyright of the original Woody Guthrie Song and they were seeking damages from JibJab for using the song. Well, the whole case disolved because someone discovered that Woody Guthrie had written the song down and published it in a book of lyrics BEFORE he recorded it. Thus when Ludlow Music renewed their copyright of the RECORDING, it had already in fact gone into the public domain because of the existing earlier copyright implied by the printed lyrics.

I would say that for the small indie filmmakers, especially those making shorts, there is little benefit in spending the money to register your copyright. As long as there's a paper trail behind your project, you're legally protected in the event of IP theft, but the chances of someone pilfering your film is quite slim and usually not worth the expense of a registered copyright.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

No, that’s wrong. Registering your copyright confers added benefits that you want to have. Period. For $30, there’s absolutely no reason whatever not to do it. You don’t need it to protect your ownership rights, but you’re in much better shape if you do. If you think the $30 is steep, you’ll positively choke on the expense of protecting your rights later without the registration.

As for the JibJab flash, I don’t know the details of the case, but it seems to this simple caveman lawyer it falls pretty squarely within the parody exception, the section of code which keeps Weird Al in business.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

The jibjab flash had no appreciable coverage under the parody exception, as the song was not the subject of any form of parody, regardless it was found that the song was entirely in the public domain due to an earlier existing copyright.

As far as your claim of added benefits, I really see no practical benefits that the average small-time filmmaker can claim. The legal costs of pursuing a copyright claim are outrageous whether you've registered it or not, that's just a fact.

It's all a risk assessment someone has to make for themselves. What are the chances of someone ever seeing your work? What are the chances of them copying some aspect of your video? What are the chances that they will make money or be able to enter the market with their copyright infringement? What are the chances that you'll ever become aware of this infringement? What are the chances that you'll have the financial resources to begin a legal case against this person? What are the chances that you'll be able to prove the similarity? What are the chances that you'll be able to prove that the defendant had access to your material? What are the chances that you'll get a favorable judgment?

For the majority of people out there, there's a low risk of having their work stolen. The industry is painfully aware of liability issues these days, especially after the "Coming to America" suit, and they bend over backwards to insure that they present a minimal risk of litigation on all that they produce.

Even if something enters the market that presents a questionable similarity to something you've produced, you MUST prove that the producers had access to your material in order to justify a copyright infringement judgment. Unless your film is something publicly released, that's incredibly difficult to do.

Putting your copyright on your material is generally enough for most of us. There may be some beneficial rights associated with registering a copyrighted work, but for the vast majority of people using this forum, it's an unnecessary cost.

Now I’m sure there are people who get a certain smug feeling in having their work in the library of congress, and then it’s certainly worth the $30 to have that satisfaction.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=MesPhotos;num=1095743070;start=15#26 date=09/30/04 at 08:40:55]The jibjab flash had no appreciable coverage under the parody exception, as the song was not the subject of any form of parody, regardless it was found that the song was entirely in the public domain due to an earlier existing copyright.[/quote]

What are you talking about? The entire thing was a parody of "This Land is Your Land." Unless Guthrie had “and it’s true that I kick ass!” and “yes, I won it thrice” somewhere in his lyrics that I’m unaware of . . .

As far as your claim of added benefits, I really see no practical benefits that the average small-time filmmaker can claim.
Click to expand...

How about triple damages? How about a presumption of creation? How about a panoply of other rights which become available at registration? Look, J -- let's get something clear. You’ve stepped out of the realm of just chatting on a message board and you’ve consistently given detailed legal advice to specific people. If you don’t know what you’re talking about – I’m sorry, I think you’re smart guy, but you’ve been grossly mistaken on the law -- people can get hurt. That’s why lawyers are licensed. That’s why practicing law without a license is a crime.


It's all a risk assessment someone has to make for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but the cost is SO LOW, especially compared to the cost of making a film, that it's a no-brainer decision. $30 is nothing. Chump change. Nil. Not even on the radar. If you can't afford $30, then you shouldn't be making a film at all, 'coz you got other more important priorities you're neglecting.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=MesPhotos;num=1095743070;start=15#27 date=09/30/04 at 10:58:45]

What are you talking about? The entire thing was a parody of "This Land is Your Land." Unless Guthrie had “and it’s true that I kick ass!” and “yes, I won it thrice” somewhere in his lyrics that I’m unaware of . . . [/quote]

Well the parody was openly lampooning two politicians, and not the song. What I mean is that the law is not clear in this instance…the fact is that it’s not clear in instances of parody, and these things always have to be litigated.

In that particular case it was still going to be litigated regardless of any parody claims, and that was avoided only because of the discovery of a previously unknown earlier copyright date. My point…as stated in my post, was to say that your copyright countdown begins at the first dating of your work.

I don’t see the point in arguing about that?

How about triple damages? How about a presumption of creation? How about a panoply of other rights which become available at registration? Look, J -- let's get something clear. You’ve stepped out of the realm of just chatting on a message board and you’ve consistently given detailed legal advice to specific people. If you don’t know what you’re talking about – I’m sorry, I think you’re smart guy, but you’ve been grossly mistaken on the law -- people can get hurt. That’s why lawyers are licensed. That’s why practicing law without a license is a crime.
Click to expand...

Woah, woah woah guy…slow down there. If you’ve got a personal beef, that’s fine, but let’s not read things into posts that isn’t implicit or explicit. I said that I don’t think that paying to register a copyright is a necessary step for all people. I’ve also stated the reasons why I feel this to be so…perhaps instead of trying to pick a fight, you could discuss why you feel that I am wrong on any of these reasons. I submit that they are my opinions, so feel free to disagree publicly with me.

I don’t argue that there are benefits to registration, but I’m also saying that the primary importance in this case is the statement of copyright, the statement of creation itself. You say that someone would be an idiot in not spending the $30 to register their copyright, and I’m simply arguing that a person with eleven short films might not need to go the extra step of paying $330 to register them all when there might not be a significant risk of an infringement.

The law is clear that you must prove that the accused party had access to your work to justify an infringement. For people who have made short films, shown them at one festival and now have them sitting in the back of a shelf, a copyright registration is likely to be an unnecessary expense because there’s a very limited access to their work. Again, I’m not arguing that there aren’t advantages to registration, I’m saying that there are a lot of people whose work isn’t out there to be infringed upon!

Also, there is no stipulation that I can find that allows for the “triple damages” you claim. If you’d like to point them out, please feel free.

To make your research a little easier, here’s section 504 from the United States Copyright Code, copied verbatim:
§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits4
(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —
(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).
(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
(c) Statutory Damages. —
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(d) Additional Damages in Certain Cases. — In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

OK, I’m not getting into a pissing contest. I’ll say my piece here and then it’s over for me.

This isn’t anything personal, nor is it because I don’t like you. It’s not even because I disagree with your opinion; it’s because you’re repeatedly giving objectively wrong legal advice.


[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=MesPhotos;num=1095743070;start=15#28 date=09/30/04 at 12:05:42]
For people who have made short films, shown them at one festival and now have them sitting in the back of a shelf, a copyright registration is likely to be an unnecessary expense because there’s a very limited access to their work.  Again, I’m not arguing that there aren’t advantages to registration, I’m saying that there are a lot of people whose work isn’t out there to be infringed upon![/quote]

That's all fine, but that wasn't the context of the thread, nor do most of the members of this board who are looking for infomration intend to make films just to have them sit on a shelf.


Also, there is no stipulation that I can find that allows for the “triple damages” you claim.  If you’d like to point them out, please feel free.  
Click to expand...

You didn't read it very well.

. . . the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.
Click to expand...

The term of art, by the way, is "treble" damages; I used "triple" because it makes more sense.

And posting Section 504 outside of the context of relevant caselaw – to say nothing of the rest of Title 17 – is exactly my point. You may have posted it verbatim, but how does it relate to Sections 411 and 412 (extremely important, as they restrict bringing infringement suit and 504 damages only to registered works)? 502? How has it been applied in caselaw? More to the point, how has it been interpreted and applied in the Circuit in which you reside? How about in the Circuit in which people reading this reside? Did you Shepardize those cases? Should you? What are the requirements for filing suit? For notice? Which venue? Which choice of laws are open to you? Are they commonlaw or civil law? Would you consider forum shopping? What are the applicable choses in action, if any?

If you don’t know the answers to these questions – or which of them even apply, because some of them don’t – then you need to be giving your opinions less in the form of definitive answers and specific advice (“As far as your claim of added benefits, I really see no practical benefits that the average small-time filmmaker can claim” or “As long as there's a paper trail behind your project, you're legally protected in the event of IP theft” or the whopper from another thread, “I don't see that there could be a successful argument in either of those cases based on your scenario”) and more in the form of “my understanding is X, and you might want to check it out.” There’s a lot more to the law than just the raw code. If you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re going to get hopelessly lost.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Ah, you reference both 411 and 412, but obviously you must also cite subsections 1 and 2 of section 411 which states that if a person serves notice upon the infringer in due time, he then has three months after the first instance of the infringement to institute a registration of copyright. While it’s true that section 411 requires registration before action can begin on an infringement, subsection 2 clearly states that a copyright holder has a term of three months after the first date of infringement to register the copyright in question when satisfying subsection 1. So while it is true that section 411 restricts bringing suit by setting forth the requirement of registration, section 411 also allows for a post-infringement registration…Thus, still allowing for a suit without registering your copyright. (My original point) Furthermore, section 412 is restricted to legal fees and statutory damages beyond actual damages and profits already awarded under 504, again not a prerequisite of registration per se.

If you want me to Shepardize this theoretical case, I’ll need firm specifics, a lexis-nexus account and a steaming pot of coffee.

Listen, right or wrong, I do think you do want to turn this into a pissing contest. (as always, I reserve the right to be wrong and stupid both where applicable and where not in my personal dealings)

I’ve set forth some reasons why I think a copyright registration is unnecessary for a subsection of creators, and you’ve done nothing to argue those points. I don’t know how many times I need to state that there are benefits to registration, perhaps if you’ve missed it in my other posts in this thread, I’d do well to state it again to you personally…

Dearest David, I understand that there are benefits to registering a copyright and I’ve never refuted that. I’ve simply set forth a set of reasons why I believe that it’s overkill for a subsection of content creators.

The fact is that the law is not applicable without access to the material, so for a large portion of independent filmmakers, a copyright registration is overkill as (sadly) no one has access to their material. In an infringement case, the plaintiff must convince the court that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work, and thus an opportunity to copy has to exist. If you cannot prove that the alleged infringer had a chance to see/hear/witness the work, they you will find it difficult to prove infringement. The smaller the circulation of the work, the harder it is to prove access, the larger the circulation of the work, the easier it is to prove access.

Understanding that a copyright owner may file for registration at ANY time within the term of the copyright, can you honestly say that it would be beneficial for a person to register a work that no one is seeing?

Okay, let us take that a step further and assume that there might be a sudden market opening for your material and you can put it into public circulation. You can register the copyright then and still gain all of the benefits granted under that registration provided your term of copyright has not expired.

Do you still intend to argue that a person who doesn’t spend $30 on a copyright registration shouldn’t be making films?
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

I think part of the problem here Barnes has nothing to do with what you're saying but more so the way you're saying it.

For example, would you openly advise someone on how to tie into a household circuit for lighting purposes without adding the disclaimer of hiring a licensed electrician to perform the task?

I think all he's looking for is a disclaimer at the bottom saying:

"This is only my opinion on the facts I know at hand. I am not licensed to practice law and my advice is simply to be taken as suggestions and not as set law. To understand whether or not it is really worth it, hire a licensed lawyer"

People will still listen to you, but it will seem less like fact and holds you less liable...
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Yes liability is a concern in general, but the fact is that liability is a concern for all of us at any time. The problem with our legal system (in this case I mean the US, as I have no understanding of the Canadian legal system) is that you don't need to be right to bring a suit, you don't need to have a viable case in order to initiate the proceedings. You're still required to pay someone to defend or support you in someone else’s legal actions.

And, as you pointed out the personal example, I chose to not actually provide the full information regarding the tie-in. I could certainly give someone a step-by-step tutorial about how to perform a tie-in in a residential breaker box, but I can’t guarantee that they’ll follow the steps accurately, so I omitted it completely. If I posted it fully with an attached disclaimer, it still doesn’t stop someone from suing me when things go awry.

I absolutely understand what you’re saying, as I think I also understand the spirit of David’s posts. Where I don’t agree is in the notion that there isn’t a distinct difference between the general commiseration and discourse of a message board and the considered solicited opinion of any professional.

Someone might be able to assume I am a lawyer and go wreak havoc on the legal system based on a single post of mine, but someone might also assume that I’m a PAR can based on my picture. In either case, I’m required to accept my own liability.

Anyone can bring suit based on what anyone of us says in these forums. The people building home-made car rigs and posting them online are just as theoretically liable for any risk of damage in their use. The entire “hitting someone with a car effect” thread is filled with potentially dangerous advice. You can even stretch the limits of applicable liability and say that you yourself would be at risk in even mentioning an effect where a guy smashes through a drywall setpiece.

What I mean to say is that I understand the spirit of what you’re trying to say, but if we’re going to start publicly pointing out issues of possible liability and take steps to prevent them, we really need to just shut down this entire forum.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Also, allow me to state publicly, before this gets further out of hand…I am indeed an ass.  I prefer to make jokes and entertain rather then argue, but sometimes I get caught up in discourse and defense.

I fear that in the process of defending my posts, unwitting members of this forum might get the impression that I believe myself to be a reputable source of anything.  I don’t assert that claim, and instead I suggest that no one on this forum is a truly reputable source of anything.

I don’t personally believe that David has said anything to refute my original statements.  Perhaps I could have done more to clarify what I was intending to say, but we have ended up embarking upon this pointless exercise of assuming a considered opinion on an ambiguous hypothetical.  

I don’t mean to say that David is wrong about anything, and I do value and respect his opinion, but I also assert that I may not be wrong as he states so forcefully.

Regardless, it is my feisty nature that turns defense into something that people could perceive as aggression.  I don’t mean to give this impression to anyone, and I apologize if I’ve directly offended anyone by not clarifying statements I’ve made.  I claim to offer nothing more then my opinions, be they ill considered or wise, and as such I reserve the right to defend those opinions when publicly questioned.  I also reserve the right to reconsider my opinions in the face of debate or conflicting information.

Anyone who takes issue with my point of view will have to deal with my kung-fu grip.
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

I agree there's always that liablility issue with posts on this board. You must admit yourself though that there are some pieces of information shared on this board that are considerably more damaging than others.

Something that involves tying-in with electrical equipment can kill someone. Informing someone not to submit a copyright could potentially cause them to lose a great deal of resources when someone steals their intellectual property. This is especially the case when it comes to advice. Simply mentioning something and advising someone are two completely different issues. I can mention that I saw a show where people ate hissing cockroaches... will I put a disclaimer telling people not to eat hissing cockroaches? no... if I put a thread on saying how in order to get the impression that someone is falling by tying a string to their camera and dropping it off of a bridge I am definitely going to put a disclaimer. It's all about just being courteous and not just covering your own ass, but making sure people know it's simply your opinion and not a true fact.

You may understand that everything anyone says is simply their opinion, but there are a great deal of people who aren't quite as enlightened as that and will sometimes take what someone who seems to know what they're saying as a proven fact. It's like catching a toddler when you're teaching them how to walk. You've got to assume nobody knows what they're doing unless they've proven to you they do...

This is just something I've learned that helps make the world a much happier and easier place. It would be nice if you could say what you like without having to hear about crap like this, but the world doesn't work that way and neither do the majority of people. I know this post sounds quite conceded, i don't mean for it to come across that way... i've just been in a similar position before and had it kind of bite me in the ass...
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

You mean like that time we advised everyone to go streaking through the glass makers shop?
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

I have wondered about these for years, does anyone know the answer to these examples?

Example 1
I make a short film just for fun, not to sell, I use some copyrighted songs in it. Somone thinks its really great, they beg me for a copy. Now if I were to give someone a copy of the movie for free, would I be breaking any laws?

Example 2
I make a short film to sell, with no copyright infringement, but in the background of some random shot in a film there is a 7up can, if the right people happed to see it, does the suing began?
 
Re: Copyright forms...confused....

Techincally yes it is copyrright infringement. To reproduce or use any material that is created ie., a song, without permission is a violation.

It doesn't just apply to music. I work at Wal-Mart in the Photo Lab part time, and our biggest problem is with the Kodak Picture Maker. People will bring in school pictures, family portraits and other kinds of pictures taken by professional photographers. Most do not realize that the photographer owns the copyright to those images and they are not allowed to make copies unless they have a copyright release form from the photographer or studio. Photographers, artist, musicians, authors are all protected.

Also, people are not allowed to make copies of newspaper articles, magazines, painitngs, we are not even allowed to print photographs of artwork unless the person can prove they are the artist. All of this is copyrighted material and permission must be given before it can be used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top