Are you obeying the "legal deposit" laws?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's exactly why I'm asking if I've understood the document correctly. If you are a lawyer, perhaps you can answer that question?

There's a web page at the US Copyright Office web site.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ma...y_deposit.html

It seems fairly clear that US publishers must deposit two copies, whether or not they register the copyright.

What is a surprise to me is that foreign publishers who distribute in the US are also supposed to send one copy to the Library of Congress.

[Native]

From the electronic copyright office (eCO) FAQ: What works may be registered with electronic deposits?
The following classes of works may be registered in eCO with electronic deposit copies:
1. Unpublished works;
2. Works published only electronically;
3. Published works for which the deposit requirement is ID material (see the Special Deposit Requirements section of Circular 1 for more on ID material);
4. Published works for which there are special agreements requiring the hard copy deposits to be sent separately to the Library of Congress.
All other classes of works may be registered via eCO (application and fee payment) but require hard copies of the work(s) being registered.

It would have been nice if something in there would have mentioned the deposit requirements after publishing. Ah-well. Ignorance was bliss.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It seems fairly clear that US publishers must deposit two copies, whether or not they register the copyright.

As the text says: If the body of work is "under copyright protection." So if the book is not covered under any copyright, you don't have to register or submit it to LoC.

Of course, if you're selling/distributing the work through a publisher, they will want it registered with somebody to protect their investment, so you'll expect them to adibe by this law. But an independent author just wanting to put their book out there can do so without filing for copyright or sending a copy to LoC (and risk having it copywritten by someone else).

[carld]

What happened to the idea that you automatically gain copyright at creation? Isn't that contained in copyright law any longer?

As I understood it, you only needed to register your copyright if you wanted to claim damages against someone. You still retain copyright as the creator. Has that changed?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by carld

What happened to the idea that you automatically gain copyright at creation? Isn't that contained in copyright law any longer?

As I understood it, you only needed to register your copyright if you wanted to claim damages against someone. You still retain copyright as the creator. Has that changed?

Hasn't changed. You have copyright the moment you set a copyright-able work in tangeble form.

The "filing for copyright" people are referring to should be "register a copyright."

And, by the way, here's another blurb from the same US Copyright Office FAQ linked above.
Note the last line (emphasis added):

"What is the difference between mandatory deposit and copyright registration?
Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit requirements. "

ApK

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

And, by the way, here's another blurb from the same US Copyright Office FAQ linked above.
Note the last line (emphasis added):

"What is the difference between mandatory deposit and copyright registration?
Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit requirements. "

In other words:

If you have registered for copyright, you need do nothing more to satisfy mandatory deposit.

If you have not registered for copyright, you do need to send your work for mandatory deposit.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But I'd read it as saying that mandatory deposit is still required even if you have not registered - it's just that if you have registered, you need do nothing more to satisfy mandatory deposit.

That's how I read it too.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

But an independent author just wanting to put their book out there can do so without filing for copyright or sending a copy to LoC (and risk having it copywritten by someone else).

You certainly don't have to 'file for copyright', because you have copyright in your own works without doing so. But I think you do have to send copies to the LoC if you're an independent author in the US. If you don't, and they ask you for copies, you must send them within three months of the request, or be fined.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But I think you do have to send copies to the LoC if you're an independent author in the US.

I don't think so. The text seems to clearly state that the text must be copywritten elsewhere, or that the owner have "exclusive right of distribution." That seems to exclude an author who does not file for copyright, and who releases a book without specifying that only he can redistribute it.

The way it's written leads me to believe that LoC expects any book distributor to want to protect their rights, so they will copyright, and therefore need to send LoC copies of the book for potential legal requirement. With the growth of indie authors on the Internet, however, rights retaining has clearly become an option with some, not a requirement.

But maybe someone should call the LoC and answer the question once and for all.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I don't think so. The text seems to clearly state that the text must be copywritten elsewhere, or that the owner have "exclusive right of distribution." That seems to exclude an author who does not file for copyright, and who releases a book without specifying that only he can redistribute it.

Authors have exclusive right of distribution unless they specifically waive that; it comes with copyright. And registration is not required to have a copywritten text.

The way it's written leads me to believe that LoC expects any book distributor to want to protect their rights, so they will copyright,

It may have been written before automatic copyright, but right now, all written works are copyrighted the moment ink hits page or pixels hit screen. They're "published" if they're distributed to more than about 5 people. The phrase "works protected by copyright" is now almost meaningless; it's pretty much everything other than official gov't documents in the US.

"Published" has never been coherently defined. Eighty years ago, "published" was relatively easy to decide; by fifty years ago there were problems (was a photocopied newsletter distributed to your sewing circle "published?"); now, it's almost meaningless. This particular law has an exemption for electronically-published, so there's no requirement to send in all of one's blog posts, but we still have a lot of paper publishing that never gets registered--newsletters, flyers, zines (OMG fannish zines activist zines other zines), event guidebooks (conference schedules, librettos), information pamphlets & advertisements... plenty of published material never gets formally registered.

But maybe someone should call the LoC and answer the question once and for all.

Planning on doing that this week. (Maybe tomorrow, but I've bank-and-DMV things that have been waiting on the holiday weekend to get over.)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The phrase "works protected by copyright" is now almost meaningless; it's pretty much everything other than official gov't documents in the US.

Don't forget that not every word put to paper or screen is copyright-able. It has to be original, non-derivative, etc, so the distinction is still important.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Planning on doing that this week. (Maybe tomorrow, but I've bank-and-DMV things that have been waiting on the holiday weekend to get over.)

Don't forget to report back!

[rsand27]

I don't think this applies to eBooks yet. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2010/75fr3863.pdf is the newest reference I found on the subject. It appears to be a law currently under consideration - one that they are trying to create specific definitions for. The text contained in the document is an "interim rule" until they sort it out. They also seem to initially be specifically focused on "online serials" meaning scientific/academic journals released periodically, numbered, and sequenced. It specifically says blogs and databases are excluded because their content changes daily. Sounds like newspapers would fall under similar exclusions. There is no mention of electronic books or a completed law.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rsand27

I don't think this applies to eBooks yet. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2010/75fr3863.pdf is the newest reference I found on the subject. It appears to be a law currently under consideration - one that they are trying to create specific definitions for. The text contained in the document is an "interim rule" until they sort it out. They also seem to initially be specifically focused on "online serials" meaning scientific/academic journals released periodically, numbered, and sequenced. It specifically says blogs and databases are excluded because their content changes daily. Sounds like newspapers would fall under similar exclusions. There is no mention of electronic books or a completed law.

Unless you distribute your ebook on CD or other physical media, why wouldn't they be counted under the Feb, 2010 exemption for "Published Electronic Works Available Only Online" cited here?
What is an e-book if not a published electronic work?

[VydorScope]

Crud. I never heard about any of this. I guess I will start looking into what I need to do. My ebooks are available as POD through Lulu. Hrmph.