NEWS: Poor Man To Remain Poor

Dr_Frank said:
Anyone who has ever read books or googled around for advice about songwriting will have come across what is known as "the poor man's copyright." That's where you put a tape, lyrics, lead sheet, or what have you in a sealed envelope and mail it to yourself, the postmark supposedly proving the date of composition.

Would that really stand up in an actual lawsuit? I can't recall ever reading of a case where a "poor man's copyright" case ever won in court, but here, at any rate, appears to be one case where it didn't work.

Liante said:
A super-brief sketch of copyright law: In the U.S., copyright protection attaches at the moment that you finish an original work fixed in some "tangible medium of expression" (which basically means anything other than a purely transient performance, ex. delivering an improv comedy routine that nobody records and which ceases to exist at the moment you get off the stage). You do not need to attach notice of copyright. You do not need to file it anywhere. Mailing it to yourself is a weird little ritual that serves no real function beyond, arguably, showing the date that your work was completed.

To prove copyright infringement, which is what this guy tried and failed to do, you need to prove:

1. That you had a copyrighted work;
2. That the person copied it;
3. That the copying was "improper appropriation" (i.e., not fair use or another recognized exception from infringement).

#2 is probably where this guy lost. Assuming Britney didn't admit that she copied it (sometimes people do, usually because they have some other and better defense), he would have had to prove this by circumstantial evidence. He would have had to show that she a) had access to his original work; b) subsequently came out with something substantially similar to his work. My guess is that he probably couldn't prove that she had access to his original and his case fell apart right there.

[Edited on Nov 10, 2005 by Liante]

Liante said:
A super-brief sketch of copyright law: In the U.S., copyright protection attaches at the moment that you finish an original work fixed in some "tangible medium of expression" (which basically means anything other than a purely transient performance, ex. delivering an improv comedy routine that nobody records and which ceases to exist at the moment you get off the stage). You do not need to attach notice of copyright. You do not need to file it anywhere. Mailing it to yourself is a weird little ritual that serves no real function beyond, arguably, showing the date that your work was completed.

To prove copyright infringement, which is what this guy tried and failed to do, you need to prove:

1. That you had a copyrighted work;
2. That the person copied it;
3. That the copying was "improper appropriation" (i.e., not fair use or another recognized exception from infringement).

#2 is probably where this guy lost. Assuming Britney didn't admit that she copied it (sometimes people do, usually because they have some other and better defense), he would have had to prove this by circumstantial evidence. He would have had to show that she a) had access to his original work; b) subsequently came out with something substantially similar to his work. My guess is that he probably couldn't prove that she had access to his original and his case fell apart right there.

[Edited on Nov 10, 2005 by Liante]

dholokhov said:
As I understand it, a few decades ago in the U.S. you actually did have to officially claim copyright for it to exist, which is where a lot of hoopla and misunderstanding come from.