anybody have tips on legal patent on the album i finnished?

No, you already have the copyright when you created it.
 
Proving it is another matter.  There have been many threads about this, but the safest way (providing you are in the US) is to send the whole thing at once to the copyright office.  There is a $35 fee or so to register it, proving the recordings on it are yours when you fill it out.
 
If you want, you can register each song.  If you are trying to sell the songs, this is the correct way to copyright them.  If you just want to protect your work, registering a mechanical copy will do it.
 
@

First tip. Copyright (not patent) is the correct protection mechanism.
 
Although it is true that you do not need to register copyright in the US to have a legally valid copyright (and you cannot register copyright in some countries at all), under US copyright law, you must register in order to bring suit for infringement, collect statuary damages, or claim reimbursement for your legal costs if you succeed in a suit against an infringer. To get those benefits you must not only register your copyright but the registration must be "timely" i.e. before infringement occurs or within 3 months of publication.  Note that posting your songs to an internet site for sale or other distribution will constitute publication.
 
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ50.pdf

ELsMystERy
You can sue for infringement if it isn't registered, but you won't get as much out of the suit and it might be harder to prove. Heck, you can sue for anything, really.

No, you cannot sue for infringement of an unregistered work. You can register the work after infringement has occurred but you lose the rights mentioned in my previous post. You must then prove actual loss of income from the infringement (not statutory damages) and pay your own legal costs.
 
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
"411 . Registration and civil infringement actions
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

If you have an album of original songs you have 2 things to protect by copyright.
 
1. Copyright on the songs themselves. Since they are on one album, you could do a compilation of them all for one low fee..... but if they are to be released commercially, you really should do individual copyright on each song. Individual copyright costs more but it affords the protection to one song apart from the others so each has it's own umbrella of protection under law. Look at your old albums and CD's where a band or even one person in the band is the writer of the songs. You will see that they are all individual copyrights. I can not think of one instance where a band album is protected by a compilation copyright. It's that way for a specific legal reason.  Writers often use compilation copyright to protect a batch of songs but when one gets cut by an artist, it is registered with a new individual copyright.
 
2. copyright the physical CD so it has protection from illegal duplication.
 
These are protections for the "law abiding" people...... the criminals will still bootleg the CD if it's worth their time to do it. But at least you have the legal standing to sue them in court.
 
Copyright law is it's own unique practice of law.... a very specialized area.....  Certainly if you go to the effort and expense to release a CD you should spend the money for copyrights.

ELsMystERy

slartabartfast
No, you cannot sue for infringement of an unregistered work. You can register the work after infringement has occurred but you lose the rights mentioned in my previous post. You must then prove actual loss of income from the infringement (not statutory damages) and pay your own legal costs.

 
It is way more complicated than that, as any good copyright attorney can tell you. You certainly can sue. It doesn't mean that you will win, or the case won't get dismissed, but you can definitely sue and the court CAN settle the case in your favor based on "subject matter jurisdiction".
 
On March 2, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, ___ U.S. ___, No. 08-103, interpreting the Copyright Act to allow judicial approval of settlements of copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works.  Reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court held that the Copyright Act's statutory requirement that plaintiffs register their works before instituting a claim for copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), does not limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. -  Gibson Dunn dot com.
 
If you can't sue for infringement of unregistered works, then your material isn't REALLY protected by copyright upon creation, is it? Like I said, you can sue for anything. I never said you would win.

I stand corrected: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-103.pdf
The courts can not be barred from trying copyright suits involving unregistered works based on lack of jurisdiction. But note that the court made no ruling here regarding whether 411(a) is a mandatory precondition to suit that...
district courts may or should enforce sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works.
 
Can we agree that, given the expense of the legal proceedings that might be required to settle that issue, anyone anticipating using the copyright law as a remedy to infringement would be well advised to spend $35.00 to register their work prior to filing suit.
 
http://www.nycbar.org/images/stories/committee/north%20jersey%20media%20group%20v%20sasson%20-%20opinion%202013-01-04.pdf
 
 

slartabartfast
Can we agree that, given the expense of the legal proceedings that might be required to settle that issue, anyone anticipating using the copyright law as a remedy to infringement would be well advised to spend $35.00 to register their work prior to filing suit.

Of course. That $35.00 is way cheaper than retaining an attorney for a risky lawsuit.
 
As for that mailing it to yourself stuff... the infringer could do that also. Heck, the infringer could register the works. I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

ELsMystERy
 I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

 
Not true.  Dates can be easily changed and the thief would claim that all you did copy his (actually yours), changed the date on your computer then saved the files.

MarioD

ELsMystERy
 I think a hard drive with all of the original dated tracks and other files would be better evidence than the registration alone.

 
Not true.  Dates can be easily changed and the thief would claim that all you did copy his (actually yours), changed the date on your computer then saved the files.

The thief would have to prove how you had access to the files in order to do that. Besides, the thief would need access to ALL of the files (originals, backups, etc...) in order to convince a judge of that claim. That's one reason (edit: that would be one reason, if it even mattered) for having secure, even encrypted backups in different locations (such as a password protected archive on a removable hard drive in a safe deposit box) other than with your computer, aside from protecting the originals from being destroyed in a disaster.
 
As for my statement not being true: It certainly is not a lie. I said "I think", meaning that is what I believe would be a better way of showing evidence until I am convinced of something better. I did not say it was an indisputable truth. I have been recording music for over 30 years and have learned some tough lessons. Not to mention the years of dealing with copyright issues as a professional programmer and photographer. I have had allot of time to consider all of this.

You missed all of my edit.
 
Anyhow, the creator of the works would have to prove that the thief is a liar. I don't disagree that CURRENTLY the safest way is to register the works, I am simply saying that an intelligent infringer could potentially make that process pointless. If the infringer did file before you, then a wise judge would have to consider further evidence to settle the dispute. If the infringer could not produce the files then he has nothing.
 
In order for someone to change the dates, then they have to have access to those files. If he doesn't know where they are kept and has no access to them, then he has nothing. Besides, anyone who really wants to protect their work should not keep all of it in one place. I make copies of my projects on external drives (while the project is still underway) that will never get deleted for more space and then I delete everything from the project drive to make room for the next project. You can't hack what's not connected to the computer and no common infringer is going to access a studio computer, or secure location (safe deposit box, or safe stored in a secret location) to steal the files on a hard drive. If he even tried he would be facing much stiffer penalties than copyright infringement.

Well, I'm 41 now and at the age of 19 when I started producing www.soundtraxxmusic.com I made the decision not to copyright my music because to me all these organizations are money hungry conglomerates from europe (no offense europeans! CHEERS!!!) I just don't believe that these companies and have your best interest in mind, they say they protect you but all I see is limitations on how you can sell your own product and more costs.  I treat my music as any product....produce a great product at a fair price and get it to market first and you will be rwewarded.  So far theft hasn't really been a problem, a couple incidenses (in Europe by golly) but I am to this day verry happy with my decision. CHEERS! - Shawn

I am in my mid 40s and started recording when I was about 18 (not including simply running a tape recorder to evaluate band rehearsals prior to that). I ran into some problems with a small indie label that wanted to sign me in the 80s. The owner/producer wanted to be included in the registered copyrights before even offering a contract. It was a bit more complicated than that, but my attorney at the time told me not to sign anything with them. Another incident I encountered was when I was creating software and some of my programs ended up on the black market in some odd country like Malaysia. People who had never purchased it started requesting tech support.
 
I also had a volunteer organization that I did some (volunteer) programming for consult attorneys when I revoked their rights to continue using the programs and deleted them from the server. Since it was never a work-for-hire (has to be an agreement in writing designating it as a work-for-hire) they just told people they were going to have their attorneys sue me, but no one ever tried. They tried to convince me that the law says it is a work-for-hire unless there is a contract stating otherwise. ~ROLLING EYES~ I told them they were not reading the law correctly and that they should get an attorney to explain it to them. I never heard from them again.
 
I am now signed to a publisher and record label, so I no longer have to register my music. The label/publisher owns it and handles all of that. The label has had artists contact them who want to get signed and keep ownership: it doesn't work that way. I just have to register it with BMI. As for my work in application development, everyone who pays any amount for a program seems to think that because they payed something to have it created that they own it. They never want to pay the cost of making it a work-for-hire.

AT
A guy I knew claimed he had a great idea for a movie script but refused to send it out in fear someone would steal it.

Some people have actually called my publisher hoping to get some kind of deal, but when told they needed to send a demo they refused because they were afraid their material would get stolen. Some claimed to have "the best material anyone has ever heard". Some of these people had nothing: no recordings, nothing online to listen to... She explained to them that it doesn't matter if they are the next Elvis, if they won't send out demos no one will work with them and if they are hesitant then they should ask an attorney. Demos are part of the process. You can always copyright something before you send it out. If someone does want to sign you, the copyrights can be reassigned. They can also be reverted back to you later and some contracts have provisions for that.
 
With all of the opportunities available for indie artists now, you can't assume that your material won't make any money, or get used illegally by someone. You have to put it out there to be sure and it should be protected when you do. A copyright infringement can be as simple as someone buying a download and then sharing it on their website, or using it as a music bed in a homemade YouTube video without your permission.

As far as registering a song with the copyright office..... No Sir, I don't.
 
That is not to say that I don't protect my work, I just do not use the US Library of Congress (LOC) to do it.
 
I use a service provided by Masterwriter software called SONGUARD. It is basically a third party secure server which date stamps the submitted song and keeps it on file. A judges written order is needed to retrieve any song submitted.
 
Posting your songs online or in a third party storage site will get a date stamp from the server. Those are not as easy to fake the dates. YouTube, Reverbnation, Sound Cloud, Soundclick, DropBox, all date stamp the files coming in. And in reality, the LOC copyright is nothing more than a date stamped paper that says you submitted a certain song on a specific date to them. They have the original paperwork and hardcopy (CD or cassette) of the material.
 
One reason I do not use the LOC is that I have had several music publishers ask me not to register LOC on any of the songs I send to them. They prefer not to have to reference previous copyrights and research the previous LOC submissions to get the numbers correct. It's their job, I know, but I'm good with the explanation. And yeah these are some reputable, long running publishing houses.
 
In reality, the chances that someone will rip your songs off is actually pretty remote. I don't lose any sleep over the fact that my songs are not LOC protected. Oh yeah, I used to use the LOC for everything. I have a stack of copyrights to prove it. However, I realized that as hard as it is to get someone of importance to even simply listen to a song I write, let alone get it to someone to record..... there is not really a need to copyright them. Most publishing houses don't even talk with people they don't know. When they do interact with people, they want copyrighted songs more to protect THEM from the claim that they somehow stole the song idea. A reputable publishing house wants good songs but they are not in the ripping business. One bad rumor and they are out of business in a business that is based largely on trust.
 
Just my 2 cents on why I don't use LOC .... but I still protect, and I still us the copyright symbol or notice on all my stuff. My publishers and libraries all handle the LOC registration when I sign the rights to my songs over to them.
 
In the end, YOU have to determine the level of safety that allows you to sleep at night..... but please do not use the "mail it to yourself" method and think it's good.