Copyright registration: 18+ months

[Elfwreck]

Washington Post article: © 2009? Wishful Thinking, Perhaps, as Backlog Mounts

The problem has tripled the processing time for a copyright from six to 18 months, and delays are expected to get worse in coming months. The library's inspector general has warned that the backlog threatens the integrity of the U.S. copyright system.

The irony is that the slowdown stems from a new $52 million electronic process that is supposed to speed the way writers and others register their literary, musical or visual work.

The delays do not appear to be hampering the business of the major publishing houses or those willing to spend $685 for a "special handling fee" that expedites registration. But the slowdown is frustrating hundreds of thousands of little-known people with big dreams. They paid $45 for the right to claim legal ownership of poems, fabric designs, plays, jingles, even computer manuals.

Not directly ebook-related, I know. But it does connect to self-publishing, and has implications of additional problems in trying to track down what's lapsed--it sounds like the copyright office has no resources to spare to help sort out what's still covered and what's not.

[whitearrow]

The thing with copyright registration is that it's not even strictly required. An eligible work has copyright protection the minute it's fixed in tangible form (written, recorded, whatever).

Registration provides proof of dating and is necessary to file a lawsuit, but you don't need copyright registration before, for example, you publish a book, in order to assert protection later.

There are other ways to establish dating of a work for later protection as well. For example, the songwriter in this article could make a videotape of herself performing the songs after identifying, say, that day's newspaper to the camera and then keeping it within the frame. I think any court would accept that later on as evidence of when she wrote/performed the songs.

[sirbruce]

If your copyright is not registered, you can only sue for actual damages, not punitive damages. So really it is pretty much a requirement to get something registered before you start selling it commercially or you can expect to be screwed.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

The thing with copyright registration is that it's not even strictly required. An eligible work has copyright protection the minute it's fixed in tangible form (written, recorded, whatever).

This may sound like nitpicking but I'm actually just trying to verify it. In addition to having the material in a fixed form as stated you also have to display a copyright notice. Otherwise the material is considered public domain by default. The notice (Bumblechumps Witty Banter Copyright 2009 by mjh215) serves as the initial step in the copyright process. Or am I mistaken?

-MJ

[Elfwreck]

You are mistaken; a notice of copyright is no longer required. Things are automatically copyrighted when they are placed in a "fixed format." This has led to 30+ years of auto-copyrighted material with no identifiable copyright owner.

However, registration is required for full legal protection. Without registration, the ability to sue someone for misuse of your copyright is very limited.

[sirbruce]

Elfwreck is correct.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

However, registration is required for full legal protection. Without registration, the ability to sue someone for misuse of your copyright is very limited.

Only true in the United States. Most countries do not have any concept of "registering" a copyright. It's simply something that the creator of a work automatically "acquires".

[K-Thom]

Germany e.g. distinguishes very clear between creator's rights and the legal right of use.

Creator's rights are valid as soon as a work exists in fixed form. The creator then may license a legal right of use to one or more publishers (okay, usually one, but this is not imperative). The publisher himself never may own or buy or acquire the creator's rights.

It's only necessary in Germany to register for a trade mark. Or to secure the title of a book. And this is usually done by the publisher to secure his legal claim.

[sirbruce]

We're naturally talking about the US here; this is a US Copyright Office story.

[khalleron]

The copyright notice (c) commonly seen only asserts that the copyright holder is aware of his/her rights under law. Elfwreck is correct that no notice is required - all original material is legally copyrighted when put in a fixed form.

I'm not so sure that the ability to sue for punitive damages against copyright is a good thing, anyway. It's not like medical or legal malpractice where lives or health are at stake. If someone illegally profits from your work, then yes, getting your own money back is a good thing, but I don't see how Society benefits from excessivley punishing a recoverable economic loss.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by khalleron

I'm not so sure that the ability to sue for punitive damages against copyright is a good thing, anyway. It's not like medical or legal malpractice where lives or health are at stake. If someone illegally profits from your work, then yes, getting your own money back is a good thing, but I don't see how Society benefits from excessivley punishing a recoverable economic loss.

It's a way of punishing corporations that take advantage of individuals. A company that, for example, grabs lyrics without crediting them and sells songbooks/allows songs to be recorded from them, can be sued for the money they made. But if the song didn't sell well, that might be a miniscule amount... not enough to discourage further attempts in the future, especially given how many copyright owners can't afford to file suit even if they know they could win. (Especially given how many companies can practice deliberate delaying tactics.)

It's also a way of punishing deliberately unethical behavior that isn't strictly illegal. Most of us acknowledge a difference between a mistake--perhaps thinking a set of lyrics were in the public domain, or believing a contract had been signed that handed over full rights for an initial fee--and outright scams--soliciting teens & college students to send in lyrics for "review and evaluation," and grabbing the ones that look good and hoping the authors won't be able to do anything about it later, when they find their song on MTV.

Punitive damages allows us to say, "some legal actions are more reprehensible than others, when tied into a crime." They also allow us to say, "some crimes are more harmful than the specific dollar amount that went to the wrong person."

Copyright violations can erode the trust in publishers, which authors need to sign contracts. Without that trust, authors might not publish, or choose more limited venues. Since the purpose of copyright (in the US) is to "promote progress in the sciences and useful arts," actions that impede that progress should be punished more than technical violations that only cost someone income.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If your copyright is not registered, you can only sue for actual damages, not punitive damages. So really it is pretty much a requirement to get something registered before you start selling it commercially or you can expect to be screwed.

Only getting "actual damages" means you get screwed? That's an interesting viewpoint.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's a way of punishing corporations that take advantage of individuals.

Are we talking about civil copyright infringement where the copyright owner is suing for punitive damages, or are we talking about criminal infringement where the government is prosecuting for punitive damages? It sounds like your examples would be criminal infringement.

My interpretation of what khalleron said is that he didn't think punitive damages in a civil case were necessarily a good thing.

Does not registering the copyright also limit the government's prosecution during a criminal case? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know for sure.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Only getting "actual damages" means you get screwed? That's an interesting viewpoint.

In many cases an amount for actual damages would be hard to prove/show.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

In many cases an amount for actual damages would be hard to prove/show.

Punitive damages are not meant to be used by the owner to "cash in" if they can't even prove that there was any damage.