if the publisher wants your song and you are willing to allow the publisher to have full or partial copyright to your song (which I agree with you that is usually necessary if you want the publisher to promote your song), then it is nothing more than a hassle to them to get it changed at the copyright office.  I'm sorry that's a hassle to them, but that's ALL it is.  that does NOT make it wrong for you to have it registered!

if a publishing company believes in your material then they will get the copyright changed with your permission.  just because they would RATHER it not be copyrighted yet doesn't mean that it's something to be avoided.

I cannot be convinced that it is wrong to register my songs with the copyright office by these arguments you are presenting by sourcing quotes from publishing companies.  there are NO publishing companies currently who are out for my best interest.  I am out for my best interest and until I am even considered by a publishing company then there's no good reason for me not to register my copyrighted material.  even then, if they want the material, they will file an ammendment with the copyright office to change full or partial ownership on my behalf with my permission.

If you sign with a publisher, you will turn over 100% of the rights to the song..... there is no such thing (to my knowledge ) as a partial copyright. It would be like selling a house and wanting to keep 5% for sentimental reasons.... it doesn't happen that way. 

Y'all are making what was a simple suggestion, with a valid reason, into a huge freaking issue, which it is not. 

It's Simple.... if you copyright a song and a publisher wants it, they will sign it, they will transfer it regardless of the hassle, and you don't keep any of the ownership. None, nada, zip. Your only remaining claim on the song is that you have writer's credits for writing it and you will be acknowledged as such, and you are entitled to a net percentage of the income produced according to the original single song contract you signed. That is it. You have no say in how that song is used commercially from the day you sign it, till forever... it's gone from your control.

You do not amend a copyright. You can however file a new one and replace it, which is what the publisher will do for you, assuming you have filed a valid LOC copyright to begin with.  Like a deed to a house, the new one replaces the old and  refers back to the previous one by registration number, and  it  makes the previous one null. 

I never said it was wrong to register your songs with the LOC. If you want to do that, spend the money and sleep well at night and you have my blessing. 

I have stated that this is how I do things. It is an accepted and recommended way to work with publishers. If you are not trying to get your songs into the commercial market, none of this applies anyway. I never said that this is how everyone should work. 

Copyright is good, but in reality.... as far as someone stealing your songs? Give me a freaking break... anyone who has ever tried to pitch songs knows just how hard it is to try to get someone to even listen to your song for 15 seconds.....let alone steal it. No body's out there stealing songs and getting big artists to sing them and making millions. If it makes you feel better , copyright those songs. 

In OP 1, the advice was to join a PRO and register your songs with the PRO, leave copyright to the publisher. 

You don't have to follow those guidelines. 

Peace!

Thanks for the info Herb

I'm still working on making anything that would be copyright-able in the first place...

(Maybe I should change to copylefts?)

From my perspective if someone wants to steal your material they will, whether or not you register it.  All the fear, urgency and stress about getting a song copyrighted is not worth the hit it takes to your creativity and ability to flow stress free in the industry.

A prolific songwriter will have loads of unregistered songs in many industry inboxes.  If a song is going to get placed at the major label level they will negotiate the splits / publishing for the record at that point (many times even after its on radio already).

The smaller guys who may rip you off won't make a dime off it any way so is not worth the hassle.

If your stolen song becomes a smash you will likely find a way to prove it, and there will be no shortage of lawyers chomping at the bit to help you do this.

Make great music because you love it. The rest is b.s. ;)

Herb - I am simply trying to state that "your way of doing it" as you call it is not necessarily correct for everyone, yet when you post information as you have, you often make the statements as if your way is "the correct way" for everyone.  What your recommendation is on this page is that you recommend people do not register their copyrighted songs with the copyright office because you have been told that by publishing companies and you believe them.  that's your perogative, but don't make the recommendation for others to follow your beliefs without getting all the information for their situation.

Copyright is good, but in reality.... as far as someone stealing your songs? Give me a freaking break... anyone who has ever tried to pitch songs knows just how hard it is to try to get someone to even listen to your song for 15 seconds.....let alone steal it. No body's out there stealing songs and getting big artists to sing them and making millions. If it makes you feel better , copyright those songs. 

first of all, I personally haven't said anything about worrying that my work would be stolen.  If you say that I have, you'll need to find that and show me, and I don't really appreciate the condescending attitude there and the implications you're making.

HOWEVER, I recommend to ANYONE who creates a song and distributes it (for free or for sale) to copyright the material to protect it.  when you create your own CD or stream your material then YOU are your own publishing company and YOU are responsible for all aspects of that material.  copyright registration is simply part of that process.

as we have established, it CAN be transferred to a publishing company IF a publishing company desires to represent you and you wish for that company to represent you.

I have stated that this is how I do things. It is an accepted and recommended way to work with publishers. If you are not trying to get your songs into the commercial market, none of this applies anyway. I never said that this is how everyone should work.

no, you haven't said this is how everyone should work, but you fail to "recommend" any other way and you constantly state that "your way" is "the way it's done" in the music business. 

do I agree that it is an acceptable way to do it?  yes.  is it what everyone should do? NO.  As I said above; if you are posting your original songs on the internet for streaming or download OR if you are creating a CD for distribution then YOU are being the publishing company for yourself and you should protect your works by registering your copyright until such time that you decide a different publishing company could better represent your interests.  At that time the publishing company can transfer part or all of your copyright for representation (yes, partial copyright is a viable and available contract).

Y'all are making what was a simple suggestion, with a valid reason, into a huge freaking issue, which it is not. 

I think it takes more than one person to make something an "issue."  I disagree with you on this subject.  I have made that clear every time you post your recommendation for people not to register their copyrighted material.   If you can't handle the disagreement then don't post your recommendation.  I don't have any problem posting my recommendation which is in opposition of yours.

It's Simple.... if you copyright a song and a publisher wants it, they will sign it, they will transfer it regardless of the hassle, and you don't keep any of the ownership. None, nada, zip. Your only remaining claim on the song is that you have writer's credits for writing it and you will be acknowledged as such, and you are entitled to a net percentage of the income produced according to the original single song contract you signed. That is it. You have no say in how that song is used commercially from the day you sign it, till forever... it's gone from your control.

You'll have to prove that.  this is from your mouth only and I happen to know you're not a music lawyer.  There is information available if you look for it which is contradictory to that.
Where are your references for this information? 

Here's one source which contradicts that information:
http://www.allmusicindustrycontacts.com/music-publisher.htm

Not necessarily saying that this website is the full authority, but that's one source which is saying the 50/50 copyright with the publishers is a viable contract as well as 100% is a viable contract  to the publishing company.  It's not as "cut and dried" as you make it seem.  It depends on the contract.

If you have information from a music industry lawyer which states otherwise or have other proof I'll be glad to look at it and I am open to changing my mind IF you give me something other than what you've learned from publishing company (which I think you met at a Taxi conference - I don't trust Taxi as a viable resource either - I've met one of the founders and I wouldn't trust him with 50 cents).

but you yourself have said that the typical contract between a songwriter and a publisher gives 50% of the royalties to the publisher and 50% to the songwriter.  doesn't it make sense that in that case the copyright would need to be 50/50?  that's one of the options mentioned on that website I posted.  it also states that it depends on how much "pull" you have - completely understandable.  "nobodies" like most of us would likely not get that deal - at least not at first.  we'd likely have to give 100% for the first contract.  but that is not the only option as you have stated.

You do not amend a copyright. You can however file a new one and replace it, which is what the publisher will do for you, assuming you have filed a valid LOC copyright to begin with.  Like a deed to a house, the new one replaces the old and  refers back to the previous one by registration number, and  it  makes the previous one null.

when I said "ammend" I misspoke.  but you don't exactly file a new copyright to replace the old one, either.  technically what you do is transfer the copyright in full or in part to your representative.
ref:  http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html#transferable

I never said it was wrong to register your songs with the LOC. If you want to do that, spend the money and sleep well at night and you have my blessing. 

Herb I am not trying to make you mad over this disagreement, but this statement sounds a little too condescending to me.  and technically yes, you have recommended here in this page and several times before that we shouldn't register our copyrights.  maybe you didn't say it was "wrong" to do so, but your entire recommendation and posts on this subject are arguments against doing so - so what's the difference?

I am not trying to fight with you Herb, I am simply trying to make sure that people who read this don't just take your word for it without researching all of the information available.  I don't trust information propogated from a publishing company without representation by a music business lawyer.  no one else should either.

for research - I suggest that anyone who wants to know if they should register their copyrights to start here:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

there is a LOT of great information on that website. 

Once again...

Just a good reason to keep good backups of the projects.
If one is ever worth all the hassles you'll hold the key.

People to sort out all the BS will gladly do so for their piece of the pie.

Publishing a song or literary work that the author holds copyright to is no more difficult than turning over the copyright to the publisher. The new copyright a publisher would apply for from an existing copyright would have to be accompanied by the agreement-contract entered into by both parties. It would be signed by both parties. There is a copyright form especially for this. You don't even have to transfer copyright to allow a publisher to make and distribute copies of a work. One simple contract with all the conditions and stipulations in place, signed by both parties is all that's required. Specific rights contracts for musical works are signed all the time for limited use in films etc.
The contracts for rights transfer and limited use rights release are not much different. We're talking a paragraph or two. I'd draw you one up as an example. One line on one contract will say author__________, one line on the other contract will say author-copyright owner______.

Craig... yeah... back in the day a mans word and a handshake were all that was needed.  Now days, all the details are expanded upon in excruciating detail. 

Reece,,,, I'm not trying to be condescending.... "you" refers generically to "you" plural...to anyone. Not specifically you. 

If you do it the way I do or not... and choose to do it some other way that is fine with me....I thought I had made that clear. In no way am I claiming this is the only way.  

You asked in #6 if all the songwriters signed their songs to publishers. I was replying to that...yes that is standard operating procedure in this biz..... as far as writers not obtaining copyright.....some do and some don't....again I thought I had made that clear that there are people in both camps and either one is fine.  I don't think I came off anywhere in this thread as stating that not copyrights is the absolute best way for everyone to do this.... I thought I was making it clear that not copyrighting was one way to do it when dealing with reputable publishers because they would pay to copyright it anyway.

If I copyrighted every song I write, I would be paying hundreds of dollars to the LOC on a regular basis. So I choose to let the publishers pay that cost. I do use protection but just not the LOC. 

On the 50/50 vs 100% issue..... yeah.... I saw that and know about this as well. Most individual writers do sign 100% copyright ownership to the publisher. they still split the money 50/50. 

And yes there are the co-publishing deals. In this, the copyright is 50/50 or some other percentage between 2 or more publishing houses. collectively they take 50% of the publishers share of income and the writers get the other 50%.... what they didn't tell you in that web site is that it is hard for a writer to get any percentage of the publisher share unless they are someone like Jeffery Steel (with 24 #1 country hits) or the writer owns a publishing company, again this is usually someone with a string of hits. Publishers do not easily give up the publishers share to any kind of split.  So in a simple co-publishing deal with a writer with clout.... the writer would make 75% of the income  (100% of the writers share and 50% of the publisher's share) and the publisher would make 25% on a 50/50 co-publishing deal...assuming one writer. 

In either case, the writer still signs away 100% of the copyright to the publishers. Since when this level is reached in the songwriting business, it is like any other business.... you find very few sole proprietors at the top of the business world.... they have formed corporations or at the very least, an LLC. Same applies here in the music world.... anyone who starts a publishing house to handle commercial music will have it in some sort of corporate entity to protect their personal assets from law suits and litigation. So while the songwriter may have ownership in the LLC publishing house which holds his copyright.... the writer has signed the rights away on a personal level. One small lawsuit over a misunderstanding could wipe out years of hard work. I do not run my business as a proprietor..... it's a corporation. If I get sued in business, no one can take my personal assets, and vice versa. 

I would suggest a book called This Business of Music for a deeper look into how all this works and why it works this way if you are interested. It's not a light easy read.....I think it's written by lawyers, but it digs deep into copyrights, contracts, publishing, PRO's and many more juicer subjects that only lawyers can really appreciate. They have sample contracts in there too. Now that's some good reading. But if you ever get to the point where you are contemplating signing a song to a publisher, it pays to understand the language on the paper. 

Peace