|
|
Post by scumbum on Aug 11, 2013 11:08:14 GMT -6
When I finish a song , before I post it online I copyright it . But I only finish one song or maybe two at a time , so I end up paying , what is it $35 , to copyright a song . I was thinking to save money , instead of waiting until I completely finish a song (record/mix/Master)..........I could quickly record a bunch of my songs , just rhythm guitar and lead vocal , kinda like a very basic demo and then send them all in at one time , so I pay the $35 but then have a bunch of songs copyrighted at once .
But then I was thinking , as in the case of Vanilla Ice , he stole the Bass line from that Qween song .
When do you guys copyright your songs , when completely done (Mastered) , or do you send in a basic Demo ? Like just an acoustic rhythm guitar and vocal .
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Aug 12, 2013 8:12:36 GMT -6
Once you print a mix to your computer it's copyrighted. Your file will show the time and date it was printed and that's all you'd need for it to stand up in court.
In the old days, we would have to mail an envelope with the lyric sheet and cassette tape to ourselves on an envelope. Upon receiving it, we left it unopened. This was considered a poor mans copyright.
Today, we can simply use the file because of the time stamp.
Copyright law stated that as soon a you write a song, you own it. I never spend a penny on copyright because I already have it on my stuff.
I post it up on the net and pray that someone steals it. I have all the proof I need to cash if they do. So I hope they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Aug 12, 2013 12:51:30 GMT -6
Once you print a mix to your computer it's copyrighted. Your file will show the time and date it was printed and that's all you'd need for it to stand up in court. In the old days, we would have to mail an envelope with the lyric sheet and cassette tape to ourselves on an envelope. Upon receiving it, we left it unopened. This was considered a poor mans copyright. Today, we can simply use the file because of the time stamp. Copyright law stated that as soon a you write a song, you own it. I never spend a penny on copyright because I already have it on my stuff. I post it up on the net and pray that someone steals it. I have all the proof I need to cash if they do. So I hope they do. I've done the mail in an envelope method in the past , but after research on the internet , I've found people say that it doesn't really hold up in court . Heres an article about it . www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_publishing_copyright.html""different ways of establishing proof of copyright. Some of you may have heard of the "poor man's copyright," which I used once myself when I first started writing songs. It used to be the most popular method of establishing proof of ownership of a song among starting-out songwriters, probably because it doesn't cost much. The poor man's copyright is when you record a song (or songs) on a tape, seal it in an envelope, and mail it to yourself via registered mail. Because it's registered mail it gets an official post office seal on it, complete with the date. The theory is that as long as the seal with the date on it is never broken (i.e., as long as you never open the envelope), then obviously the song inside the envelope was written before the date on the post office seal. I DO NOT recommend this method of establishing proof of copyright ownership. Over the years since people first started doing it, it has been put to the test in court and hasn't held up that well. "" I would think too that the "date of file created" on a WAV file mix down of a song , could be altered easily by a computer hacker . I would think theres an easy way to change the date of the file created . I'll have to look around online to see if I can do it myself . If you need to prove that you wrote it first , I'm thinking maybe YouTube might be a good way to copyright a song . If you upload a song to Youtube it says the date it was uploaded . You can't change that date . You'd have to hack YouTube , which would not be easy . So in court , I think if you show the song on youtube with the date it was uploaded , that I would think , would hold up in court that you wrote it first ?? Another thing brought out in that article I linked above , is that witnesses are important , playing the song for other people , then as witnesses they can testify in court that " Yes , so and so played me this song a few years back " ..... So if you upload a song to youtube , with the "upload date" stamped on your youtube video and send the link for others to hear it , that would be all the evidence that you need to prove you wrote the song on that date , the date it was uploaded to youtube . |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Aug 12, 2013 13:12:38 GMT -6
Makes sense. SC would probably work as well. We effectively publish our own music these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Aug 12, 2013 17:05:42 GMT -6
@johnkenn
Whats the norm down in the ville? I assume your publisher files the copyright if your writing for a house, but how do folks do it who owns their publishing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 13, 2013 9:00:42 GMT -6
Good question...Really, copyright is kind of a silly thing. If someone wants to steal an idea (which is done every day) all they have to do is change the music. You can't copyright a title. And the whole idea of suing someone would take so much money - and bad press (even if you're the one who got ripped off) - it's not worth it. But I would imagine just registering the song with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC would cover you for date of creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 13, 2013 9:11:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Aug 13, 2013 9:13:03 GMT -6
Good question...Really, copyright is kind of a silly thing. If someone wants to steal an idea (which is done every day) all they have to do is change the music. You can't copyright a title. And the whole idea of suing someone would take so much money - and bad press (even if you're the one who got ripped off) - it's not worth it. But I would imagine just registering the song with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC would cover you for date of creation. So you don't bother copyrighting any of your songs ? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 13, 2013 9:15:12 GMT -6
My publisher has always done it for me. But, I wouldn't sweat it too much. I would maybe register them with your PRO every couple of months.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 12, 2013 14:26:40 GMT -6
A song or a recording? A song is lyrics and a melody. On rare occasion, people have documented and proven a music riff to be crucial to the song and original enough to also be covered, but you get into much shakier ground there.
A recording is just that. Someone can redo your record note for note and get around that-lots of artists are doing that with their own material now because the labels own the recordings, but they own the song copyright.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Oct 12, 2013 14:27:50 GMT -6
All that said...you hear Katy Perry's latest chart topping rip off of Sara Bareilles? Yeah...it really doesn't take a lot to get around copyright.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Oct 13, 2013 14:46:59 GMT -6
There was a Keith Urban song a while back that was totally on top of "Wind Beneath My Wings" for about 8 bars...I mean, it was absolutely to the point where Urban should have been embarrassed. I know Larry Henley who wrote WBMW and I believe he pursued it and wasn't able to get anything done. And THAT was an open and shut instance of infringement if you ask me.
Unfortunately, in Nashville, it's almost not worth pursuing a case. You would only make yourself a pariah...it's unfortunate. The songwriter gets screwed on the front end, sideways and on the backend up the butt...
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 12, 2013 17:10:51 GMT -6
Tonight I wanna cry. Didn't they get a CMA for it? That would actually be a hard case to make. It's not the same for 8 bars. It's exactly the same for like one--you notice it because it's "the hook", and unlike the original, he repeats it and a variation over and over, where it's just the one line in the original (and IMO better) song. I'm not sure the fine points of the law, like how many notes or time it has to be...I think they'd have to make the case that THOSE notes were the hook of Wind...and the hook of his... Otherwise, honestly, 90% of Nashville songs are variations on a much less unique melodic theme. I'm sure it was unintentional...but, someone had to realize at some point...it was bad taste to let it go and even make it a single. They could've changed a couple notes of that line and it would've never been a thing. Btw...I'm now confident SaraB is in on the Perry tune. She just didn't want her name on it, is my guess. Wanted to post...since I got some info since my initial post. No harm no foul, Ms Mayer.  |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 17, 2013 9:12:23 GMT -6
I guess one good reason for copyrighting is to own and self publish. If someone finds your song somehow, they have to deal with you to use it, (hopefully). I have friends with songs placed on TV shows who don't have publishing deals, so I guess they're doing it themselves. I imagine a publishing company might offer better negotiating skills for use payments.
I'd love to see a breakdown of royalties for hit songwriters, and for incidental placement too, like background music on tv or film. I'd like to know how much money actually reached their pockets.
|
|
