What If the Copyright Act of 1909 Was Still Law?

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Problem with that is it is only good for the copyright owner to prove they are the owner. Doesn't help others find out who the owner is.

For the period during which the owner is most vulnerable to loss, it makes sense that the burden of discovery should fall on the person seeking to acquire it.

The thing is, most things do get registered once they are in a position to be released to the public. In other words, most of the things people would be looking for. Music publishing companies, in my experience, don't really want to look at anything unless it's been registered. Screenplays are generally required to be registered before submission, whether for a contest, agent or a studio (though it can be through SWG in lieu of USCO in some cases, if I'm remembering correctly). Anyone who does anything through an agent or publisher is likely going to get their work registered at some point prior to release. All of these registrations and subsequent renewals are public record.

The problem we're dealing with now is the inconsistencies in works which are now considered "old". With the variety of copyright law changes (registration, no registration, clear copyright notices required, and so on) there are even films made mid-century that "escaped" into PD because of non-compliance with notice requirements, and other oddities. We also did not have the greatest system in place for all things related to registration. Now, it's all pretty simple.

We have the tools in place now to make things a lot easier in the future when these issues arise, but I'm concerned we'll never get the chance to use them when it comes to public domain.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

The thing is, most things do get registered once they are in a position to be released to the public.

No, most things that the creator intends to exploit commercially are registered before that release. Youtube vids of high-school garage bands practicing their original songs are not registered. Blog posts are not registered. Character descriptions for roleplaying games are not registered. Tweets.... I'm waiting for the first lawsuit trying to prosecute someone for reposting twitter posts without the author's permission. (Posting grants the site permission to copy the post; they need that to copy it to other servers. It doesn't grant third parties the right to copy it onto other websites, or into a book.)

Is each twitter post a separate copyrighted work? (Why not; a single haiku can be a copyrighted work.)

Works created with commercial use in mind are often registered; works created for other reasons generally are not. This has always been true... professional photographers often registered a collection of works, but "pictures of 1972 high school graduation" generally weren't. If later it's discovered that a celebrity was in that class, the photographer may be untraceable.

Anyone who does anything through an agent or publisher is likely going to get their work registered at some point prior to release. All of these registrations and subsequent renewals are public record.

US copyright registration, standard version (not the extra-$500-expedited version) has an 18+ month backlog, and it's growing; they don't have enough resources to deal with the submissions faster than they're coming in.