Forum Moderators: not2easy
What are the ways to proof ownership?
I read one way is to save the Google's cache, but I find that the time and date of the Google cache can be manipulated.
Mods: Can you help me change the title of this thread to "What are the ways to proof ownership of content?" Thanks.
[edited by: PowerUp at 12:23 pm (utc) on April 1, 2007]
2. Avoid messing with your stuff once published; that wy, server records and your file dates will help.
3. Don't put stuff on the web, if you anticipate big issues - or protect with passwords.
4.
Quadrille said: Save copy onto cd, post to self via dated secure service, and DO NOT open the envelope.
Quadrille said: Avoid messing with your stuff once published; that wy, server records and your file dates will help.
Quadrille said: Don't put stuff on the web, if you anticipate big issues - or protect with passwords.
It is true that, if you never let anybody see what you've written, nobody will ever copy what you've written. But then what's the point of doing the writing?
For convenience sake, make sure your site is being spidered by the Internet Archive. Many hosts will crumble with a DMCA notice and a reference to the Archive, pointing out that your stuff can be dated to X years ago, while their client's stuff first appeared Y days ago.
But, while the Archive can be helpful, it is not recognized by any court as having any standing, and should not be your final line of defense! Just bite the bullet, and file for the Copyright Registration. Fill out the Form TX paperwork, burn your site onto a CD, and send it all in with the required fee.
Once you get your Copyright Registration Certificate, post a scan of it somewhere on your site. When you can provide a link to the infringers' hosts to your registered copyright, this can induce speedy action.
The above is just my experience and opinion, of course; I could be wrong....
Eliz.
Sorry about that - but I learned it here, honest!
"It is true that, if you never let anybody see what you've written, nobody will ever copy what you've written. But then what's the point of doing the writing?"
There are other ways of disseminating information; the web is not always the best way, and is rarely the most secure.
How about using registeredcommons services? Will that proof my ownership assuming I timestamp it first?
Nobody wants to comment about registeredcommons dot com? it's a free service as far as i can tell and it's a thrid party providing a time stamp on your content. If in dispute, they can show proof who came up with the article first.
PowerUp said:...registeredcommons.... it's a thrid party providing a time stamp on your content. If in dispute, they can show proof who came up with the article first.
Does RegisteredCommons have any legal standing, should the issue get to court? (And would the issue ever land in court, since the point of RegisteredCommons is that you are giving other people free license to use your stuff?)
Eliz.
Now I just content my self with the old saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
<g>
Matt
[fairuse.stanford.edu...]
Syzygy
RegisteredCommons can only show who submitted the item for timestamping first. The organization has no idea who created the item or owns the copyright.
Isn't this good enough evidence when filing DMCA? There should be no way for the scrappers to come up even with a copyright registered with the copyright office before the time stamp.
Does RegisteredCommons have any legal standing, should the issue get to court? (And would the issue ever land in court, since the point of RegisteredCommons is that you are giving other people free license to use your stuff?)
In the FAQ, it says you can submit content for timestamp and you choose "All Rights Reserved". So, you are not giving other ppl free licence to use your stuff.
"This urban legend is known as "the poor man's copyright", and has been specifically disallowed by the US Copyright Office."
What that page you linked to means is simply that mailing something to yourself is not the equivalent of a deposit-and-register copyright. When you _register_ a copyright, it entitles you to statutory damages (up to $150,000 for willful infringement, plus attorney's fees). If you don't register it, you can only get actual damages and an injunction. In practice, most web sites won't be able to prove actual damages. So without registration you're not going to be very credible if you are trying to shake down an infringer for a monetary settlement.
Sending your stuff to yourself thus does not entitle you to seek these statutory damages. That's all they're saying. On the other hand, it can be used _as evidence_ of a no-later-than date of creation at trial. This has nothing to do with copyright law. It's just standard trial court evidence, proof of facts, and rules of evidence. If the sealed material seems not to have been tampered with, the opposing side doesn't introduce any evidence that tends to show that it was tampered with, and the jury (or judge) buys it, it's perfectly good evidence. But it will only prove that you own the copyright. It doesn't make that copyright into a registered copyright.
yodokame said: Sending your stuff to yourself...can be used _as evidence_ of a no-later-than date of creation at trial. This has nothing to do with copyright law....If the sealed material seems not to have been tampered with, the opposing side doesn't introduce any evidence that tends to show that it was tampered with, and the jury (or judge) buys it, it's perfectly good evidence. But it will only prove that you own the copyright.
You can mail yourself an unsealed envelope just as easily as mailing yourself a sealed one. Then later, when needed, you can change the clock on your computer to something before the postmark on this unsealed envelope, burn a copy of your content, and insert the disc in the envelope. Then seal it. No tampering will be evident, but the postmark clearly wouldn't "prove" anything.
And any lawyer can point this out.
For this reason, the black-letter law (in the US) clearly says that "the poor man's copyright" is legally judged to prove nothing with regards to copyright. A self-addressed stamped envelope has no legal standing.
Sorry.
Eliz.
* Copyright Office FAQ: Poor Man's Copyright [copyright.gov]
* Snopes (Urban Legends): Poor Man's Copyright [snopes.com]
* The Intellect Law Group: Dispelling the Poor Man's Copyright Myth [intellectlawgroup.com]
* How to Fake a Poor Man's Copyright [copyrightauthority.com]
You can mail yourself an unsealed envelope just as easily as mailing yourself a sealed one. Then later, when needed, you can change the clock on your computer to something before the postmark on this unsealed envelope, burn a copy of your content, and insert the disc in the envelope. Then seal it. No tampering will be evident, but the postmark clearly wouldn't "prove" anything.And any lawyer can point this out.
For this reason, the black-letter law (in the US) clearly says that "the poor man's copyright" is legally judged to prove nothing with regards to copyright. A self-addressed stamped envelope has no legal standing.
Hi, stapel. You make two points. The second, "the black-letter law," seems be that there is a statute that prohibits introduction of mail as evidence in a copyright case. I'm fairly certain that this is not true. If you know of one, please provide a link (all federal and state statutes are online). You can start by poking around Title 17 here:
[www4.law.cornell.edu...]
The first point, that mail could be faked and tampered with, only goes to the point that it would be unreliable evidence. That would not prevent its being introduced as evidence at trial. It would just mean that the jury wouldn't give it much credence, when considering the totality of the facts. But it would depend on the particular situation. Can you produce supporting testimony from someone living with you at the time about what you did? Did you send it to your attorney instead of to yourself? Do you have other evidence that would tend to show that the contents of the envelope date from a particular period?
The point of my original message was simply to clarify what the meaning of the cited URL at the Copyright Office was: that sending mail to yourself does not create the legal equivalent of deposit-and-register (and thus does not entitle you to seek the $30,000 to $150,000 statutory damages, over actual damages, at trial).
Some copyright basics. Copyright vests in the creator upon creation of a work. There's nothing extra you have to do. You can get actual damages and an injunction. Registering your copyright entitles you to additional remedies, e.g., statutory damages.
The whole issue of the "poor man's copyright" only concerns proving your authorship and the date of authorship. It has nothing to do with copyright law. Registration is one way to get incontrovertable evidence that you claimed authorship as of a particular date. It's just evidence, strong evidence, that would be weighed. Someone can claim that they created the work before your copyright registration, for instance, and if they can prove that, they win.
yodokame said: [You seem to be claiming that] that there is a statute that prohibits introduction of mail as evidence in a copyright case. I'm fairly certain that this is not true.
webjourneyman said: To proove ownership the old-way print all articles and have them stamped either at the police station, post office or law firm.
Eliz.
Even then it is your responsibility to enthusiastically and vigorously enforce your rights. that takes money and lawyers.
