Poor Mans Copyright...
- Thread starter dreamfroggy
- Start date
- Status
Poor Man's Copyright is a myth; there's nothing illegal about it, it just won't do a thing for you. You might read this thread here, paying particular attention to what Jaws writes; he's a well-known and respected attorney, with particular expertise and experience in publishing.
Honestly, people worry too much about copyright before they're published. It's not that big a deal. Wait until you get a contract, then look very very carefully at what rights you are selling, where, to whom, for how much and for how long.
Honestly, people worry too much about copyright before they're published. It's not that big a deal. Wait until you get a contract, then look very very carefully at what rights you are selling, where, to whom, for how much and for how long.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction score
- 316
- Location
- England
- Website
- www.richardcobbett.co.uk
Yes, it's when you mail yourself a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and use the postmark to prove its datestamp.
But no, it's completely and utterly worthless, to the point of potentially costing you a ton of money. Hell, a five year old could forge it. Don't waste your time, or the stamp. Nobody is going to steal your book. Relax.
But no, it's completely and utterly worthless, to the point of potentially costing you a ton of money. Hell, a five year old could forge it. Don't waste your time, or the stamp. Nobody is going to steal your book. Relax.
Copyright
Once upon a time, many, many years ago, under very different copyright laws than those we now live under, "poor man's copyright" was a procedure that was acceptable.
Then two things happened. 1. Copyright law was changed to give a writer much more protection. 2. The courts figured out it was very easy to fake a poor man's copyright.
This was almost 100 years ago, but for some odd reason, poor man's copyright lives on.
As things now stand, your work is already copyrighted the moment you write it, and in order to get money from the courts should your work be stolen, the work must be registered.
But no one is going to steal your work. It's only work that has already been published that people are interested in stealing. Unpublished work simply has no value, and there's no reason for anyone to steal it, and nothing they could do with it, anyway.
dreamfroggy said:
Once upon a time, many, many years ago, under very different copyright laws than those we now live under, "poor man's copyright" was a procedure that was acceptable.
Then two things happened. 1. Copyright law was changed to give a writer much more protection. 2. The courts figured out it was very easy to fake a poor man's copyright.
This was almost 100 years ago, but for some odd reason, poor man's copyright lives on.
As things now stand, your work is already copyrighted the moment you write it, and in order to get money from the courts should your work be stolen, the work must be registered.
But no one is going to steal your work. It's only work that has already been published that people are interested in stealing. Unpublished work simply has no value, and there's no reason for anyone to steal it, and nothing they could do with it, anyway.
Thanks guys. I am just a little fearful because I sent a short story off to a contest. I worry that I may accidently get involved in a contest that is not as ligit as it appears to be, and someone will help themselves. While I realize that most people are honest, there are always those that are not.
Honesty
True, but even the dishonest are extremely unlikely to want your unpublished story.
dreamfroggy said:
True, but even the dishonest are extremely unlikely to want your unpublished story.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 563
- Reaction score
- 67
- Location
- Norwich, UK
- Website
- www.scarrow.dsnet.co.uk
Perhaps a far greater risk than having your manuscript 'stolen' by a publisher, is having your idea copied by another writer ;-)
If you're a high concept or Big Idea type writer, then it's relatively easy for someone else to grab the concept and write their own take on it...which sadly there is no legal protection against. If you write more character-driven stuff....then there's nothing there really that can be 'nicked' so to speak.
At the end of the day though, no publisher/agent will steal a manuscript....there's no need, there are loads of manuscripts full of cool new ideas that they can pick and choose from, and then pay the author a pittance for...why steal?
If you're a high concept or Big Idea type writer, then it's relatively easy for someone else to grab the concept and write their own take on it...which sadly there is no legal protection against. If you write more character-driven stuff....then there's nothing there really that can be 'nicked' so to speak.
At the end of the day though, no publisher/agent will steal a manuscript....there's no need, there are loads of manuscripts full of cool new ideas that they can pick and choose from, and then pay the author a pittance for...why steal?
Just as a historical aside on the poor man's copyright—
The poor man's copyright is actually an artifact of evidence law, not of copyright law. Under the 19th-century rules of evidence that somehow stayed dominant in this country until the 1950s, a document wasn't independently admissible for the truth of what was contained in it without certain other "indicia of authenticity." I won't bore you with the details… but in the late 1890s, a case in New York held that unpublished manuscripts were the lowest of the low, and that decision essentially spread across the country.
In the 1950s, two things happened: Law professors started to question Wigmore on Evidence, and the Patent Act was revised. The revisions to the Patent Act specifically made laboratory notebooks kept in the ordinary course of research admissible in all patent proceedings, including in court. Other reforms to evidence rules had already begun, such as making books of account (the uncertified, day-to-day stuff) admissible in the 1920s. This, in turn, became the "business records rule"—records kept in the ordinary course of business in support of a legal duty, such as documenting deductions from income for tax purposes.
What this longwinded explanation means is this: Your file copy of the manuscript plus your regularly kept submission log are admissible evidence of the provenance of your manuscript now, whereas they weren't a century ago. Given the speed with which things change in the publishing business, it's not entirely surprising that the myth of the "poor man's copyright" persists. The sad thing is that even the poor man's copyright didn't do the job… because the postmark on the envelope couldn't necessarily be accepted as proof of its own validity under the evidence rules of the time, since the item as a whole was not a government document!
The poor man's copyright is actually an artifact of evidence law, not of copyright law. Under the 19th-century rules of evidence that somehow stayed dominant in this country until the 1950s, a document wasn't independently admissible for the truth of what was contained in it without certain other "indicia of authenticity." I won't bore you with the details… but in the late 1890s, a case in New York held that unpublished manuscripts were the lowest of the low, and that decision essentially spread across the country.
In the 1950s, two things happened: Law professors started to question Wigmore on Evidence, and the Patent Act was revised. The revisions to the Patent Act specifically made laboratory notebooks kept in the ordinary course of research admissible in all patent proceedings, including in court. Other reforms to evidence rules had already begun, such as making books of account (the uncertified, day-to-day stuff) admissible in the 1920s. This, in turn, became the "business records rule"—records kept in the ordinary course of business in support of a legal duty, such as documenting deductions from income for tax purposes.
What this longwinded explanation means is this: Your file copy of the manuscript plus your regularly kept submission log are admissible evidence of the provenance of your manuscript now, whereas they weren't a century ago. Given the speed with which things change in the publishing business, it's not entirely surprising that the myth of the "poor man's copyright" persists. The sad thing is that even the poor man's copyright didn't do the job… because the postmark on the envelope couldn't necessarily be accepted as proof of its own validity under the evidence rules of the time, since the item as a whole was not a government document!
Poor man's copyright
Not only persists, but in some odd places. About eight years ago, I gave a talk to a writer's group wherein one woman defended the poor man's copyright. She said an attorney friend, one who handled copyright matters for a very large coorporation, told her that poor man's copyright was still valid, and still a very good way to protect your work.
I was invited back to this group some months later, and the woman brought a letter from the attorney stating that he did recommend poor man's copyright to any and all who wished to protect their work.
Now, my response wa sthe the corporation needed a new attorney, but my word against that of the attorney in question just wasn't going to convince anyone. When things like this happen, it's no wonder the myth persosts.
Jaws said:
Not only persists, but in some odd places. About eight years ago, I gave a talk to a writer's group wherein one woman defended the poor man's copyright. She said an attorney friend, one who handled copyright matters for a very large coorporation, told her that poor man's copyright was still valid, and still a very good way to protect your work.
I was invited back to this group some months later, and the woman brought a letter from the attorney stating that he did recommend poor man's copyright to any and all who wished to protect their work.
Now, my response wa sthe the corporation needed a new attorney, but my word against that of the attorney in question just wasn't going to convince anyone. When things like this happen, it's no wonder the myth persosts.
loquax said:
For the record it was published it just wasn't released yet. They stole a copy of the printed book from a warehouse where they worked and were trying to sell it to the Tabloids to release all the pre-release secrets of the book.
loquax said:
J. K. Rowling isn't an unpublished writer, but at the very most all anyone could do with a stolen manuscript of hers but be to leak the contents. They chouldn't couldn't sell it, or have it published under their own name.
Unpublished writing is simply worthless. It's after you get published, and your books sell very well, that you have to worry about piracy. This is the big threat.
Stealing unpublished manuscripts from unpublished writers makes less sense than stealing dirt. At least you can use the dirt to grow some flowers. There just isn't anything you can do with a manuscript from an unpublished writer. And nothing you can get away with doing with a manuscript from a known writer.
Poor Man's Copyright
There's a page that I normaly reference on the topic of using the poor man's copyright, that everyone else is not referencing that I can see from Google. That's the "Poor Man's Copyright page" and goes through all the reasons that you should NOT use the Poor Mans method. Generaly as a rule - it doesnt really stand up and you should know the pitfalls. There are lots of online notary style websites out there - but, there's no safer method than just registering an official copyright.
There's a page that I normaly reference on the topic of using the poor man's copyright, that everyone else is not referencing that I can see from Google. That's the "Poor Man's Copyright page" and goes through all the reasons that you should NOT use the Poor Mans method. Generaly as a rule - it doesnt really stand up and you should know the pitfalls. There are lots of online notary style websites out there - but, there's no safer method than just registering an official copyright.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,937
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Yes, well, some major witing magazines are still perpetuating this one so it will be with us for a while (i.e. the Writers Journal last October)
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
Thanks for providing that link, Marcus. However, a work is protected by U.S. copyright laws the moment it leaves your head and is "fixed in tangible form." That is to say, put onto paper, into electronic text on a computer, or dictated into an audio recording device. These questions are answered right on the U.S. Copyright Office's home page, in their FAQ section.
Now, it's possible that the linked page was written before the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1997, in which case, I'll merely say it's out of date. The "Berne convention" repeatedly referenced was held in 1971. The DMCA made several changes to this.
See, the DMCA changed a lot of the older copyright law, but I won't get into all that here. Suffice it to say that the only purpose registering your work has is if, and that's IF you need to sue someone for plagiarism. You only have standing to file a suit in Federal Court if you've registered the work. But until there's something to protect (i.e., royalties, or published status), it has little value. In addition, only the FINAL work should be submitted to the Library of Congress, and the publisher is likely to make edit changes to the book from the raw manuscript. Copyrighting the raw manuscript won't help the final book, because if someone plagiarizes the final book, the original copyrighted text won't be the same. Hence, there's nothing the court could do.
Go to the source for copyright information. This link will give you everything you need to know.
Now, it's possible that the linked page was written before the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1997, in which case, I'll merely say it's out of date. The "Berne convention" repeatedly referenced was held in 1971. The DMCA made several changes to this.
See, the DMCA changed a lot of the older copyright law, but I won't get into all that here. Suffice it to say that the only purpose registering your work has is if, and that's IF you need to sue someone for plagiarism. You only have standing to file a suit in Federal Court if you've registered the work. But until there's something to protect (i.e., royalties, or published status), it has little value. In addition, only the FINAL work should be submitted to the Library of Congress, and the publisher is likely to make edit changes to the book from the raw manuscript. Copyrighting the raw manuscript won't help the final book, because if someone plagiarizes the final book, the original copyrighted text won't be the same. Hence, there's nothing the court could do.
Go to the source for copyright information. This link will give you everything you need to know.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,456
- Reaction score
- 175
- Location
- Basking in the sun.
- Website
- thoughtsontheroad.blogspot.com
Potentially of more concern than stealing your work is whether you signed away your rights to the story in the contest fine print.dreamfroggy said:
Actually, if you look at the flow chart under 3A, it looks like they are separating the steps of creating a work and fixing the work in a tangible medium. It's true that before it's fixed in a tangible medium (still in your head?), it isn't copyrighted.CathyC said:
(as an aside, I guess that means that if you simply tell a story or sing a song it isn't copyrighted either)
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2006
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Six Feet Under
- Website
- eroticjames.tripod.com
One of the things it does do... if you get into a fight about whether you stole someones work or they stole yours, you have probative evidence (eg: it's not conlusive - but the judge can use it to weigh the credibility of people) as to what you wrote then. BUT you need to have the post office seal every flap and never open it.
It is not, however, a copyright... it's amunition in a legal battle. And we should all be so lucky (or unlucky) as to have such battles come before us.
It is not, however, a copyright... it's amunition in a legal battle. And we should all be so lucky (or unlucky) as to have such battles come before us.
I've recently moved house. During the move I found a big thick envelope I had clearly mailed to myself at some point in the past. I think this is an example of "poor man's copyright".
I have absolutely no idea what's in the envelope.
I have absolutely no idea what's in the envelope.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Location
- Hiding in my writing cave
- Website
- www.cathyclamp.com
Actually, no -- it wouldn't even do that. The judge would have to apply copyright law and there is no provision in copyright law for this method of "dating" a work.
Let's look at the probable scenario for a copyright lawsuit. First, at least ONE of the works has to have been PUBLISHED. Otherwise, no laws have been broken. Plagiarism only occurs when harm has been done to the other person. Without some method of attaching financial consequence to the act, there's no case. So, if one of the writings has been published and the other not, then there is a cause of action. But if there's a cause of action, then copyright law applies. Since there's no provision in copyright law for such a method of "registration", it has no value as evidence.
Perhaps Jaws can speak to this issue more. But in general, just forget that the entire concept of a "poor man's copyright" even exists. It's as outdated as a telegram or a Victrola.
James Buchanan said:
Cathy C is right. It won't even do this much. It doesn't matter where you have the seal, what's in the envelope, or when it was put there.
Anyone really worried about their work, and such worry is needless almost 100% of the time, should bite the bullet and actually register it in the proper, and legal, fashion.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2006
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Six Feet Under
- Website
- eroticjames.tripod.com
Used to litigate copyright law... You're right not conclusive. Doesn't, by itself, prove anything. It is mearly part of the case building issue. Probative means explanitory. It helps fill in the background for the trier of fact. It doesn't establish ownership, but it can help to figure out who had created it first.
And you are right... 99.99999999% of us will never have that problem.
And you are right... 99.99999999% of us will never have that problem.
James Buchanan said:
Not really, no. I can't find a single case where "poor man's copyright" was successfully used. Every copyright savvy attorney I've ever asked about it -- including David Nimmer -- dismissed it, after they stopped laughing.
Writers really should spend more time writing, and let publishers worry about copyright; it either maketh men mad, or turns them into I.P. attorneys, and some days, I'm not sure there's a difference . . .
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2006
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- Six Feet Under
- Website
- eroticjames.tripod.com
That I'll buy. And all attorneys who stay in law more than 5 years are mad. Law drives you insane.Medievalist said:
It is always the difference between evidence and proof. And 90% of attorney's miss that distinction as well. It is evidence that you are the writer. It is not PROOF that you are the writer. Honestly if you're really worried about it... go dig yourself a bomb shelter 'cause you ain't living in the 21st century.
- Status