Hey Gang, Need a Little Input ....

[SimonDoom]

That's an urban legend. There's no way to prove that you didn't mail yourself an empty envelope and insert it later.

That's not entirely true. If the envelope bore a stamp from when you mailed it and you testified about how you created it and mailed it and received it, it probably would be admissible evidence of your creation. The other party would then have the burden of proving, probably through the testimony of a forensic expert, that your evidence was doctored. But if it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be able to prove it. It's not a substitute for registration, but it is a form of evidence.

 

[alohadave]

That's not entirely true. If the envelope bore a stamp from when you mailed it and you testified about how you created it and mailed it and received it, it probably would be admissible evidence of your creation. The other party would then have the burden of proving, probably through the testimony of a forensic expert, that your evidence was doctored. But if it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be able to prove it. It's not a substitute for registration, but it is a form of evidence.

This is a widely known urban legend and you'd be laughed out of court if you tried it. If your lawyer doesn't tell you that it won't work, get a different lawyer, because they should know better.

 

[KeithD]

But as has also been posted, you are not the only one posting in this conversation.

Yes, but some, like you, were posting false information (#10), which required others of us to correct it (yet again) so as to keep other users from going down false roads.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

That's an urban legend. There's no way to prove that you didn't mail yourself an empty envelope and insert it later.

See my later post where I debunked myself.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Yes, but some, like you, were posting false information (#10), which required others of us to correct it (yet again) so as to keep other users from going down false roads.

Ah, I get it now. My response had to be directed at you. There was no way it could have been me correcting myself. Of course, Keith, as always it’s about you.

 

[KeithD]

That's not entirely true. If the envelope bore a stamp from when you mailed it and you testified about how you created it and mailed it and received it, it probably would be admissible evidence of your creation. The other party would then have the burden of proving, probably through the testimony of a forensic expert, that your evidence was doctored. But if it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be able to prove it. It's not a substitute for registration, but it is a form of evidence.

Well, no. When this has come up in U.S. court, it's been ruled as evidence where the envelope has been, not the contents. In terms of the United States, this has been directly addressed from the Copyright Office itself in post #20. I don't know why you're running off into the clouds on it again. It's held valid in Britain the last time I heard about it, although I've never heard of an instance where it has applied.

BUT, let's just stop this "I am protected" crap--at least as it applies in the States. Good and fine if you can bluff your way to get a thief to stop using your stories, but the reality is that anyone who posts a story to literotica has valued it at zero value, and even if you had filed a formal copyright and then even if you could track down the thief and get them to respond and even if you got to court, you would get zero, zilch, nada, nothing from the effort because you valued it at zero by posting it for free use on the open Internet.

Let's just stop this "it's protected" nonsense. Bluff others not yourself.

 

[KeithD]

Ah, I get it now. My response had to be directed at you. There was no way it could have been me correcting myself. Of course, Keith, as always it’s about you.

This hurt puppy response is all you. You posted false information. I called you on it. You posted the correct information, quoting the source, but with no reference that you were correcting your #10 post. I pinned that down. Then you went all hurt puppy. The original issue of false posting is yours to own. You can wallow in that all by yourself. This Pied Piper scene comes up here all too often with folks who don't know what the hell they're talking about leading other users down false paths.

This is one of those issues that writers need to be clear about. I can say that all of my posts to the thread were posted to serve this end. You can't.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That's not entirely true. If the envelope bore a stamp from when you mailed it and you testified about how you created it and mailed it and received it, it probably would be admissible evidence of your creation. The other party would then have the burden of proving, probably through the testimony of a forensic expert, that your evidence was doctored. But if it wasn't, they probably wouldn't be able to prove it. It's not a substitute for registration, but it is a form of evidence.

Agree, that's why it's called the poor man''s copyright. Stanley Kubrick apparently did it with early scripts, as well as using the same lawyer for his whole career. And between them, they knew a thing or two about protecting creative rights.

 

[KeithD]

Agree, that's why it's called the poor man''s copyright. Stanley Kubrick apparently did it with early scripts, as well as using the same lawyer for his whole career. And between them, they knew a thing or two about protecting creative rights.

Why is this false drum (for the United States) still being beaten? Read the quote of the Copyright Office guidelines posted in #20 above, which SPECIFICALLY knocks down the applicability of the poor man's copyright.

If you want to discuss this in relationship to British law, please specify that rather than leading American writers down a false path.

 

[XerXesXu]

Imagine you publish a story on Lit, for free, which some enterprising person rips off, registers copyright with the US Copyright Office and sells commercially making lots of money. You could still go after an account of profits made by the infringer. The first step would be to challenge the infringer's copyright through the procedures of the Copyright Office. Poor Man's Copyright is an evidential device and I know of no reason why it would be inadmissible, even if not conclusive, in Copyright Office proceedings. When you obtain registered copyright, you can the sue the infringer for an account of their profits, notwithstanding that you'd previously published your work as a free read on Lit. You'd have to sacrifice your anonymity.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Why is this false drum (for the United States) still being beaten? Read the quote of the Copyright Office guidelines posted in #20 above, which SPECIFICALLY knocks down the applicability of the poor man's copyright.

If you want to discuss this in relationship to British law, please specify that rather than leading American writers down a false path.

Because it's not completely false.

Sure, my initial post implied far more power than it has, but while it "it is not a substitute for registration." It does have value.
As you stated, and my post from USCO confirmed, a copyright is created when a work is in a work is created. You just have to be able to prove you hold it. What happens after is rather complicated. Word like prima facie and stuff like that.

My original post is from personal experience. Circa 1983, I wrote a small collection of songs,. One of which a singer I knew(friend of a friend kind of thing) included on a demo tape, giving himself credit.
May lawyer suggested two things, submit the songs for copyright immediately, and in the interim, mail it to myself as supporting documentation that I had in fact written the songs.
I still hold the copyrights and still have the unopened envelope around here somewhere.

As it was, the songs weren't that good.( I had a guy with two Grammys take a look. He said , "Keep your day job.")
Add to that, the guy that tried to steal the song was worse, so no harm no foul.

Point is, while "not a substitute for registration.". a mailed copy of a work does have value as evidence, not proof, of authorship. In my case, it served a purpose while the proper copyright went through, and yes, that was a pain in the ass.

 

[KeithD]

The poor man's copyright has absolutely no standing in the United States as proof, evidence, or anything else.

Your example is both confusing and isn't a demonstration of the poor man's copyright being successfully used for anything.

IT HAS NO STANDING IN U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW.

 

[XerXesXu]

The poor man's copyright has absolutely no standing in the United States as proof, evidence, or anything else.

Your example is both confusing and isn't a demonstration of the poor man's copyright being successfully used for anything.

IT HAS NO STANDING IN U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW.

Think proof and the Law of Evidence. Does anyone know of any rule in the US Law of Evidence which prevents the admission of otherwise admissible evidence in US Copyright Office Contested Copyright Proceedings.

'I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.'

The natural meaning of the above words is that Poor Man's Copyright is not a substitute for Registration in US Copyright Law, it doesn't say anything about the admissibility of evidence in contested registration proceedings in the Copyright Office.

 

[SimonDoom]

Why is this false drum (for the United States) still being beaten? Read the quote of the Copyright Office guidelines posted in #20 above, which SPECIFICALLY knocks down the applicability of the poor man's copyright.

If you want to discuss this in relationship to British law, please specify that rather than leading American writers down a false path.

Keith, you are so determined to pound the drum of your narrative that you are not listening to what we are saying. I know EXACTLY what I am talking about on this subject. You are clearly wrong as a matter of law.

Validly registering the copyright in your work is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for infringement of that work. A "poor man's copyright" does not qualify as registration for that purpose. We all agree on that, I think. The authority is section 411 of Title 17 of the US Code.

But providing proof of registration by admitting a copyright certificate in court does not conclusively determine ownership or the date of authorship. It's prima facie evidence, which means it can be overcome by other evidence that a party introduces at trial.

If the date or fact of authorship are contested issues in the case, parties have a broad range of options to try to prove that they actually authored the work and when. One way is to introduce what you claim was your original draft, or a contemporaneous copy of it. You can try to prove when you created it by a broad range of means under the Federal Rules of Evidence. You can testify about it, and you can introduce documents to support your testimony. One piece of evidence you could introduce into evidence, provided you could lay a sufficient foundation as to its authenticity and chain of custody, would be a stamped envelope that contains the work and that you mailed to yourself. So long as you provided sufficient foundation (such as by testifying that you personally took it to the post office and witnessed it being stamped by the Postal Worker) there is no court in the US that would NOT accept a duly-issued stamp as evidence of the date on which you mailed it to yourself. If you sent it by certified mail you also could introduce as evidence the receipt you signed when you received it as evidence of the date that you got it back. Of course, these issues could be contested: the other party could argue that you faked the evidence. But these are issues as to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Federal courts admit Post Office stamps and documents such as return receipts all the time as evidence of when things were mailed. The evidence would be admissible, and if other side were not able to rebut it with their own evidence, then this evidence could be used to prove your authorship and its timing. So, to that extent, the so-called "poor man's copyright" has evidentiary value, even if it does not, admittedly, satisfy the requirement of 17 USC sec. 411.

If you walked into federal court with a sealed envelope that you mailed to yourself years earlier, and you could lay the appropriate foundation that you wrote a manuscript, sealed it in the envelope, took it to the Post Office, watched it get stamped, and that you received it back in your home and kept it in safe keeping in your custody continuously until the trial, then yes, absolutely, every federal court in America would admit that evidence, and you could use it to prove THAT you authored the manuscript and WHEN you did so. It would satisfy the standards of admissibility under the Federal Rules of Evidence (this is a matter of evidence law, not copyright law).

This isn't a question of registration, which is what the copyright circular relates to. It's a matter of evidence relating to the fact and time of authorship. You're getting the two legal issues mixed up.

 

[SimonDoom]

Think proof and the Law of Evidence. Does anyone know of any rule in the US Law of Evidence which prevents the admission of otherwise admissible evidence in US Copyright Office Contested Copyright Proceedings.

'I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.'

The natural meaning of the above words is that Poor Man's Copyright is not a substitute for Registration in US Copyright Law, it doesn't say anything about the admissibility of evidence in contested registration proceedings in the Copyright Office.

This is all correct. Keith is confusing the issues of a) the registration requirement, which is a matter of copyright law, and b) the scope of proof that can be admitted to prove who authored a manuscript and when they authored it, which is a matter of evidence law governed in copyright cases by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

 

[KeithD]

'I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.'

The first statement on the issue is quite clear. Why some of you are intent on being stupid about this is beyond me. Good luck in making any real use of your false stubbornness. It's a fool's effort. You're heard the truth. Be the fool going there, if you wish.

 

[XerXesXu]

This is all correct. Keith is confusing the issues of a) the registration requirement, which is a matter of copyright law, and b) the scope of proof that can be admitted to prove who authored a manuscript and when they authored it, which is a matter of evidence law governed in copyright cases by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Correct.

 

[lustychimera]

Just save an initial copy to the cloud. That proves when you wrote it. Nobody's tampering with Microsoft or Google servers to steal some dude's story off the internet.

 

[onehitwanda]

 

[Bamagan]

Just someone?

 

[onehitwanda]

Just someone?

I'm too nice to say everyone but me

 

[KeithD]

It comes down to try it if you won't believe what has been posted to the Copyright website if you want and experience the result for yourself.

 

[lustychimera]

well this site is a great source of data for training LLMs, so I'm pretty sure a lot of people are doing that.

Given the robots' training, Roku's Basilisk is just gonna be BDSM Skynet sims. I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WWW4 will be fought with cold steel robot cocks.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Agree, that's why it's called the poor man''s copyright. Stanley Kubrick apparently did it with early scripts, as well as using the same lawyer for his whole career. And between them, they knew a thing or two about protecting creative rights.

OTOH, Kubrick's first movie fell into the public domain because he failed to renew the copyright (back when that was part of the process). He was embarrassed by it and tried to destroy prints, but some survived and when a movie house screened it in the 1990s, all he could do was issue a statement discouraging people from seeing it. Since then it's been released on DVD and presumably his estate wouldn't be seeing a cent for those sales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Desire

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sad to say I have the URL for that one memorised.