Herb, 

Thanks for bringing up an important topic. 

In the past year I've been doing a lot of research and have also talked to other writers and all agree that it's wise to register a business name (LLC) -- publisher/label. This will give the writer(s) / band a much more solid foundation, a rock solid start. 

I want to assure to friends that YES you can update information in regards to song registration with BMI or ASCAP.  I know this because I have also spoken to writer services rep at APRA-AMCOS (Australia)... they said; in the section; Publisher; = {your business name - publisher/label} and YES you can update the details at any time. 

TIPS: 
(1) I recommend joining Affiliate Programs or otherwise known as Partner Programs. When filling out the form in section; label = {your business name} 

IMPORTANT: 
All legit Affiliate Programs are FREE, thereby I strongly advise to everyone; do not get sucko'd into paying money because that's a tell-tale sign that it's a scam! 

So why the heck join affiliates and partners?, because if you expect to make loads of money on streaming (and without an affiliate plan) then you'll be greatly disappointed. I got a long Email explanation from writer services (APRA-AMCOS) and yes there is not much anyone can do about this issue (very low rate % on streaming/plays), seriously the fact is; APRA-AMCOS, BMI, ASCAP are not to blame..... the Internet is like the wild west and IMO more needs to be done (improved)! Meanwhile; affiliate program came about to help small businesses (labels) make money! Remember; there's a lot of labels own by independent bands and they are all trying to make a profit or at the very least break even. 

(2) Retailers - Your Choice; that right; when you sign up with a distributor you have options to NOT include certain retailers such as for example; S-p-o-t-i-f-y and M-y-S-p-a-c-e will publish ALL your song @ full-length streaming and there is not a dang thing you can do about it (you cannot change it) unless of course you decide not to include such sites in your distribution plan beforehand or contact the distributor to request; removal (some sites will charge a removal fee).  You must decide if such sites will benefit you, you need to research and decide for yourself. 

In other examples; some retailers take a much larger slice of the pie (% of sales), again; you need to research all retailers included with the distribution plan before blindly accept them ALL. 

(3) Pre-sales; when you sign up with a distributor it's wise to plan way, way, way, way ahead of time. You have the option to move the release date forward way ahead of time = this allows you plenty of time to gather 'money' and have plenty of 'time' to recheck important things such as; mastering, artwork and music video. I guess you could call this approach; Quality Control that actually Pays LOL!!  

(4) Marketing on a tight budget - it's also important to research marketing strategies and I think one of the most effective and reasonably affordable ones is; Promote it as it will get your business advertised on hugely popular music sites. Read all about it here 

Now that all above is said; I will admit that I made mistakes earlier this year but it's been a learning experience. My mistakes are all due to poor planning and lack of fully understanding in regards to distribution and retailers. 

Honestly I was shocked when I read my first sales statement; music streaming sites tend to fair extremely worse whereas other sites such as; Amazon CD on Demand proved to be really good.  I guess it appears that people still prefer to buy the CD's.  All those streaming sites such as; M-y-S-p-a-c-e and S-P-O-T-I-F-Y are better suited to already established bands (Top 40) although if you have a band that is gigging + lots of spare money for advertising and marketing then I guess you may do a heck of a lot better on those sites. 

A lot has changed particularly in regards to the Internet --- there are great opportunities but there are probably more cons, and viruses too. Dang it!! 

Anyway, I sincerely wish ALL of you great success! 

Much of this discussion is based on the idea that a legitimate publisher will never steal your material, and that you are only dealing with legitimate publishers, and only they will see your material. The underlying assumption (in reality probably correct most of the time) is that your material is not worth stealing unless it is represented/owned by a legitimate publisher anyway. In the model of the songwriter who more or less works for/with a single publisher as the primary conduit of his work to the public this should be fine. 

In the internet posting happy world of modern musician/composers, where your material may be exposed to many thousands of potentially illegitimate eyes/ears, and rendered subject to compulsory licensing as a result of being de facto published as a phonorecord via CD's sold out of your van at the concert or MP3's uploaded to sharing sites, the security gained by copyrighting your work yourself before giving it a lot of exposure may make a lot of sense. For one thing, without a registered copyright, you cannot win legal costs in a dispute, even if you win the suit. Obviously illegitimate publishers (pirates?) would not want you to have a copyright for that and other reasons. 

It is not necessary under law to prove that you wrote your song at a certain date, or even that identical material did not exist prior to your writing, only that it is your original work. In practice this is hard to do if it sounds exactly like a popular song that was available when you try to copyright it. In practice that might make a successful pirate more likely to win a suit against the legitimate owner if the pirate gets his goods to market first. The author would have to prove he had not copied his work from the pirate. Much easier (and cheaper) to do if the copyright is registered before the theft can occur. 

But again, almost every singer/songwriter will be wasting his time and money protecting his intellectual property, since almost all of it has no market value at all, unless it is taken over by corporate music. And most of it never will be.

@ Herb and Slart 

Copyright is automatic, there is NO registration system of copyright, NO fees, NO BS. That's according to official Australian documents: PDF Format ((there is also a lot of details in regards to all sorts of copyright information in that document that applies to most countries)) 

Well anyway that's how it should be; once the material is created usually the 'work(s)' is produced on any one or more of various media formats/files such as .wav, CD, MP3 and usually published online. That is effectively 'automatic copyright'....  

... and in fact before you upload your work to music sites they usually ask for example; copyrights; is this your own original work (or whatever wording the site uses along those lines)

What I strongly recommend to professional independent bands/writers is to register their own business (Label/Publishing) and in doing so does not hinder the process of signing to a major. 

-

craigb


So no need to mail it to yourself (to get the date stamp) and leave it unopened, eh?

When I was really young (17) I actually done just that and the post office mildly-reprimanded me for doing that by saying; I'm not suppose to do that! LOL!! Anyway.... I got the parcel but that's the last time I ever sent a parcel to myself. 


Nowadays I might send an Email to myself (to check the system when I have created a new account and/or when syncing) I suppose they don't like that either huh *Doh*  


.

Copyright is automatic, there is NO registration system of copyright, NO fees, NO BS. That's according to official Australian documents:

Sorry, I forget that this is an international forum. Copyright law is specific to each nation, and harmonized for international law, mainly through the Berne Convention. Under US law, the copyright is also automatic and commences at the time the creative work is fixed in permanent form (written down, photographed, recorded etc.). The salient point in the document you reference is:


"How do I prove Iʼm the copyright owner if thereʼs no registration system?
If thereʼs a dispute about who created something protected by copyright, it may need to be
resolved by a court."


The clear problem with not having a registration system, is that it requires what the legal profession calls a lying contest, and what the lay public calls a lawsuit without clear evidence, to resolve disputes. 

Under US law no suit can be brought unless the copyright is registered with the Copyright Office. That registration can be done after infringement of the work has occurred, but there are major advantages to doing so earlier. 

From the equivalent document from the US Copyright Office http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf:

"Even though registration is not a requirement for
protection, the copyright law provides several inducements
or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright
claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration
will establish prima facie evidence in court of
the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in
the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication
of the work or prior to an infringement of the work,
statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to
the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an
award of actual damages and profits is available to the
copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record
the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection
against the importation of infringing copies."


Apparently under Australian law, in the absence of a registration system, the author is given the automatic protection of being able to claim legal fees in addition to damages if he prevails in a law suit. In the US, where legal costs often dwarf potential damages, the ability to make the loser pay your costs removes a strong disincentive to going up against a rich opponent. 


US law provides that "statutory damages" can be awarded to the author in the case of infringement of a timely registered copyright. Proving that you as an author actually would have profited by a certain amount had the infringement not occurred is problematic. In the case of a misuse of your work, like the use of your creation to promote a hate group, the actual monetary loss to your potential profit may be minimal. Statutory damages are the source of the appallingly unjust multi-million dollar verdicts against individuals who downloaded pirated mp3's achieved by the RIAA here. They can clearly be a strong deterrent to infringement. I do not find any "statutory damages" in a brief review of the Australian law, although the court is given considerable latitude to assess damages aside from actual loss of profits to the owner by the infringement.

@ Slart 

In regards to Australia's 'Automatic' Copyright Protection Act; 

The clear problem with not having a registration system, is that it requires what the legal profession calls a lying contest, and what the lay public calls a lawsuit without clear evidence, to resolve disputes. 

Is the above in your own words or sighted from an official document? 


Anyway... what Australia has done in regards to 'Automatic Copyright Protection' is simplified the process and all without discrimination and prejudice. It does not matter if a writer is rich or poor since 'all' copyright owners have the right to seek legal aid especially if the evidence is clear such as; published work(s) which is effectively 'registration' --- no doubt if the work(s) is published (and clearly evident) the legal profession in Australia will NOT throw their arms up in the air and shout out; lair, lair, liar LOL! 


Copyright laws have gaping loop-holes in it and is appallingly out-dated; 

Particularly not keeping up with technology and the Internet --- one example; most music streaming site owners go through loop-holes to avoid costs yet some of these music streaming site owners are millionaires who make their money from advertising and from numerous additional services ($$$) that writers/bands pay.... 

.... to be fair; without the contribution of music posted on such sites these site owners (music streaming sites) would NOT be stinking rich, so why don't they pay part of (advertising shares) to the bands?... I know of one site that attempts to do just that = pay the writers/musicians.   That said; there is a way to distribute those shares $$$ to bands but a lot of music steaming sites simply take the whole slice of the pie. 

.

Beagle

slartabartfast


In the internet posting happy world of modern musician/composers, where your material may be exposed to many thousands of potentially illegitimate eyes/ears, and rendered subject to compulsory licensing as a result of being de facto published as a phonorecord via CD's sold out of your van at the concert or MP3's uploaded to sharing sites, the security gained by copyrighting your work yourself before giving it a lot of exposure may make a lot of sense. For one thing, without a registered copyright, you cannot win legal costs in a dispute, even if you win the suit. Obviously illegitimate publishers (pirates?) would not want you to have a copyright for that and other reasons.  

This is exactly the point I've been making.  When we put music on the internet for streaming/download or if we make a CD and sell it on CDbaby or at the gig to the fans - then we are acting as our own publishing company.  if we are acting as our own publishing company then it is important, IMO, to register that copyright.  if you don't then you are leaving your songs unprotected since you are not represented by anyone other than yourself.

In that case scenario and as a US citizen then YES I guess you are correct. 


From an Aussie perspective and IMO you would think that once a song is published (globally) and clearly time-stamped then it should be clear evidence and protected which it is according to Australia's automatic copyright act.  

Of course anyone can very easily (freely) release a CD as Slart said and in that case scenario (regardless if copyright registration was done or not) it's still a matter of; will the work(s) be in serious violation of copyright and if so?.... then I guess life is gonna take a quick path to hell and it won't matter if the violation of copyright was intentional or unintentional. 

I tell ya' writers/musicians may have to take up another much 'safer' artistic endeavor such as; painting.   


.

you would think that once a song is published (globally) and clearly time-stamped then it should be clear evidence and protected

The potential problem occurs when it is not the author, or the author's licensee who first publishes/popularizes the work. The internet may well be the best way to debut your work from that perspective as it creates potentially thousands of witnesses who can say they first heard it from you (via the download site). Clearly that is a better way than singing in the park, where a pirate might easily hear (or surreptitiously record) it, and then re-record it, claim it is his own and upload it to the internet, thus creating potentially thousands of witnesses who can say they first heard it from him. Or said pirate could just file a false copyright before you did, thus creating a prima facie case that he is the author. Against that you will have to produce your mother who heard you sing it in the shower and the two stoners who were playing hacky sack in the park and think they remember you singing it.

I really should pay attention to this thread. I have to get registered with SOCAN and the songwriters guild. SOCAN is weird though with their membership stipulations. I think I'm gonna have to call them and see what the heck I'm supposed to do. I qualify but I really don't know what approach I should take and which requirements I should focus on. All the stuff I've done is irrelevant to my current needs and goals but it seems I'll have to invoke the past to make the future happen. Not sure about this publisher business either. I want to publish my own stuff but apparently that's a completely different set of rules. 

I JUST WANT TO MAKE MUSIC!!!

blerg...

Slart: The potential problem occurs when it is not the author, or the author's licensee who first publishes/popularizes the work. 


Exactly ;) 

Sort of kinda like saying; the potential problem is when a guy walks into a 5 star restaurant enjoy's the 5 course pig-out meal then walk's out without paying for it --- dang it LOL! 


Be it; unintentional infringement (use) or with intention to blatantly rip off another authors work(s) 


Furthermore there is no doubt that the copyright registration process is not perfect (I'll explain more later) and in regards to other issues;  


To put your reply back in context and with what I said above; regardless if the work(s) (music) is registered at the copyright office or NOT there is still a potential problem that it's NOT the original author(s) work(s) --- the copyright registration process is not perfect; 


I agree with Herb; copyright registration is a waste of money especially since most writers/musicians will be lucky to break even = earn zero $$$ dang it and since there's thousands of releases everyday 'most' writers/musicians will be lucky if anyone else besides their family and close friends and their forum buddy's had heard their songs; 


now in that context I strongly believe that the 'Australian' system; no registration required in regards to copyright protection makes more sense as it simplifies the system and removes unnecessary added cost!! 


In regards to the Internet; I agree it's oh so easy for 'anyone' to publish their work(s) --- but when writers/band release/publish their work(s) there is generally a clause in the agreement (or site's TOS) concerning author(s) and copyrights; there are penalties for submitting false claims; writers/musicians work(s) can be removed! 

I agree with Herb; copyright registration is a waste of money especially since most writers/musicians will be lucky to break even = earn zero $$$

Theft of a popular, finished and released recording by a major group, via illegal digital copying, is so common as to be approaching the worldwide norm in recording distribution. This type of theft results in billions of dollars in potential lost profits annually. Infringement of performance rights on a mega-hit via unlicensed covers is common enough, but in most such cases the damage is minimal. In the event that an unauthorized cover hits it big, it is not too difficult for the author to, locate the guilty party and extract damages. Outright theft of an author's basic composition, by stealing the unpublished work and claiming to be the true author is very rare. You hear about it only when the ownership of a mega-hit is in question and lawyers are willing to line up for a tasty contingency fee.


The main reason for that rarity, can be seen by a simple analogy. Most of us would not leave a pile of cash on the bench at the gym while we went to take a shower. Someone seeing it might be tempted to take something of such obvious value, and so easily fenced=spent, and might easily decide that the risk to value ratio for stealing it was acceptable. Were we to leave one of our beat-up running shoes on the bench, we would probably expect it to be there when we returned. It is pretty unlikely that anyone would be able to turn that shoe into something of value to them or a potential buyer. If we had to pay money to secure the shoe in a locker, it would probably be a wasted investment.


An unpublished work of art is more like the tennis shoe, than the cash. Yet many artists think of their work more on the analogy of a lottery ticket. If it is a losing ticket, then someone taking it would be a pretty stupid petty thief, but if it is a winner, they have made a fortune. The decision on how much effort to take to protect the lottery ticket before the drawing depends on the hope of the ticket holder. 


If you believe that you are holding a winner, then certainly early registration of the copyright (where available) is a good choice for you. If it really clearly is a valuable creation then, someone who makes his living exploiting artists' work, will be able to deal with his qualms about not being able to file for the initial copyright registration himself. If his belief in the potential profitability of the copyrighted work is so low that he will be reluctant to buy it, then it is not too likely that he will expend a lot effort in promoting it anyway.