copyrighting songs

I believe we have opened up a delicious can of worms . . . plenty to know about on this very techinical topic.  The "mail it to yourself" strategy as mentioned by wave22 is one way of establishing tangible form for a creation - this idea is discussed in the Wikipedia article (see, Copyright).   It is a long article full of juicy info. Here is a part of it:

Obtaining and enforcing copyright

Typically, a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some 'skill, originality and work' which has gone into it. However, even fairly trivial amounts of these qualities are sufficient for determining whether a particular act of copying constitutes an infringement of the author's original expression. In Australia, it has been held that a single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work.

In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while a copyright need not be officially registered for the copyright owner to begin exercising his exclusive rights, registration of works (where the laws of that jurisdiction provide for registration) does have benefits; it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees (whereas in the USA, for instance, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits). The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the actual author rather than the author himself if the work is a "work for hire". Again, this principle is widespread; in English law the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that where a work in which copyright subsists is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically assigned to the employer.

Copyrights are generally enforced by the holder in a civil law court, but there are also criminal infringement statutes. Criminal sanctions are generally aimed at serious counterfeiting activity, but are now becoming more commonplace as copyright collectives such as the RIAA are, more and more, targeting the file sharing home Internet user. Thus far however, these cases have usually been settled outside of court, with demands of payment of several thousand dollars accompanied by nothing more than a threat to sue the file sharer, which will be ruinous to many defendants in practice, thus such cases rarely make their way to civil law courts.

It is important to understand that absence of the copyright symbol does not mean that the work is not covered by copyright. The work once created from originality through 'mental labor' is instantaneously considered copyrighted to that person.

If you re-read the sentance, I believe it means that in Australia it is not possible to copyright a single word . . . . For instance, I create a word, "Slurballeckity".  That word alone is not copyrightable - however, it could probably be used as a registered trademark (but that is a different can of worms).

As with most legal matters, it is useful to have a historical perspective on a topic in order to make sense of the current state of affairs.  Although it is long, the Wikipedia article contains lots of info beyond what I cited previously.  Here is the link:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright</a>

What really matters to me is quite simple:  How can I easily establish a legal "dibs" on a song that I have created?

In the United States, copyright is implicit upon authorship.  That is, once you put it in a tangible form (record it, write it down, etc) it is copyrigted, and you don't have to do anything else.

You can register that copyright with the government, but that isn't necessary.  What that does is aid you in your civil litigation should someone else try to use your work without gaining your permission first.

Wave22 is correct. But the only thing I would do differently is this. You know if the song being stolen is yours. You should go to a lawyer and get his advice. You can probably open it in front of him because he is an officer of the court but he will most likely tell you to wait until you go to trial to open it. Also if you send it to anyone to review it send it return recipt requested this way you have some proof that you sent it to them.

This process is reffered to as a poor mans patten.

Eddie

Or...you could run it through a postage meter as a postage meter will automatically date the material and the newer machines print a perfectly legible mark pretty much every time.

Heck, you might even want to run the original piece of paper that the song was written on through the meter as well.

I think it's important to remember that copyright laws vary a great deal from country to country.  It's because of the potential for allegations of copyright infringement that a person needs an agent to submit work to a publisher, or so I've been told anyway!

The registered mail thing I heard about from Jack Richardson at a music industry conference in Montreal in 1980 or '81.  He advised against paying a fee to any government agency as he opined that it was "a voluntary tax" to do so.  (he was the producer who mortgaged his home to bankroll the Guess Who's recording sessions before they became HUGE).

In Canada it's SOCAN that is the arbiter of who's entitled to royalties for what material - actually I think there are two agencies now that I think about it but it's the middle of the night and I'm having a "menopause moment".

Here's the bottom line boys and girls - nobody sings "Happy Birthday" in restaurants anymore because that song is not YET in the public domain and the restaurant chains are unwilling to pay royalties.    <img src="images/smiley_icons/icon_confused.gif" border=0 alt="Confused">

Cheers Buxomdiva and Ken (I think there was a Barbie Doll set a few years back named "Buxamdiva & Ken") - anyone can spontaneously sing 'Happy Birthday' wherever and whenever they may feel the need.  Since such a spontaneous performance is not part of an on-going commercial enterprise, there is no infringement.  (In fact, I believe that is how Broadway musicals got their start - complete strangers spontaneously motivated to start singing and dancing together in the street.)

However, at a restaurant where part of the established service routine is to celebrate a patron's birthday by bringing out a cake and having the serving crew gather 'round to merrily warble a song - - - that would be a public performance of a song within an ongoing for-profit enterprise.  Consequently, somebody (probably an attorney) could argue that the restaurant should pay licensing fees to the music's publisher.

Personally, I sing the lyric of 'Happy Birthday' to the tune of 'The Star Spangled Banner' - it is great fun and makes for much mirth.  I'm certain the words could also be adopted to 'Oh Canada' and 'Scotland the Brave' (or any other national anthem for that matter".

BuxomDiva, I am not an expert at anything in particular, I'm just another curious guy trying to make sense of it all . . . I write songs for fun but I have no illusions that there is a market for them beyond my own circle of friends and family.  However, if by some fluke, a song I wrote became a source of money for somebody - well then I would want my fair share of the funds.

As far as copyrights and other inellectual property issues go, it all boils down to 'fair use' of someone's creation.  The copyright heavies are probably not going to bother with a street performer or basically amatuer performers who play other people's music.  However, if someone were to use somebody else's creation to make real money - then it becomes an issue, and the original creator probably deserves some cut of the proceeds.

Night clubs and other performance venues usually pay licensing fees to ASCAP (or some other music-industry entity) for the right to publicly play copyrighted music that is recorded, or to provide a performance space for live musicians who perform covers of non-original music.  Again, this is a matter of 'fair use' and who is making money using what resources - if you are in a business where using music (recorded or live) is part of what you do to make money, then you should pay for the 'fair use' of the music.

If you want to sing a song for fun for your friends and family - go for it . . . but if you were to make a hit recording of the same song, then the creator of the music (or more likely their publisher) would have a realistic expectation of enjoying some of the commericial success.

And yes, you are correct - - - some people do have no imagination . . . these are the folks who are the non-musicians in the music industry.  They are the ones who (depending on your perspective) either; 1. Make it possible for artists to actually make a living on their creative talents.  Or, 2.  They are the ones who inhibit the creativity of others by making it a crime to use somebody else's creation to make money for yourself.

So the bottom line for this is simply this - - - do what you want to do, but if you use somebody else's creation unfairly then you might be in trouble.  So just do what you want to do - - - and it is usually easier to seek forgiveness than recieve permission.