I'm reading that you shouldn't copyright your work - that it offends agents because they have better things to do than steal your work, and sending a copyrighted (right word?) ms looks unprofessional... is that true?
-Laura
-Laura
to copyright or not
- Thread starter LBW66
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that's absolutely true. First of all, there's implied authorship when you send your book out, and--though I'm not an attorney--I understand that it holds under law. So it's as though you had a copyright anyway. Secondly, if you've bothered to copyright the work before sending it out, it tells the agent that you don't trust him or her, which is a hell of a way to begin a relationship that depends on trust to function properly. Thirdly, it invites the agent to think, "Oh, this little pipsqueak, who hasn't published anything yet, thinks his idea is so hot, everyone will copy it in a heartbeat." Not good.
Let your publisher file the copyright for you, in your name.
Let your publisher file the copyright for you, in your name.
Technically speaking, the second a work is completed it is copyrighted by law. With or without sending a copy of your manuscript to the government copyright office. There is no need to send a completed manuscript to the government because you are still covered under copyright law without doing so. It is best to wait until the agent finds a publisher and they copyright the book because they will send an hard copy of the book to the government instead of a manuscript, which the government prefers over manuscripts.
You DO have the copyright anyway.
I think the use of the word copyright as a verb is obsolete. When you fill out a form, send the form and two copies or whatever's required of the work along with the appropriate filing fee to the Copyright Office, you are REGISTERING your copyright. You have copyright from the moment you write down your work, as covered here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
The agent has no way of knowing if you've registered it unless you say so. You might want to write "Copyright (C) 2007, Your Name" on the title page which will state that you are claiming your copyright (the one you already have just because you wrote something more creative than a grocery list), but any good agent should know the basics of copyright law and know that you automatically have copyright on anything you've written anyway, and not be offended by a copyright statement.
You mean let the publisher file the REGISTRATION.
It's easy to learn the USA laws on copyright just by reading this website:
http://www.copyright.gov
There is absolutely nothing wrong with registering your copyright. You should know the basics of copyright law before paying the bucks (read the faq on the copyright site) but nothing wrong with registering.
The issue with submissions is putting the "(c) 2007 Havlen P. Nelson" on your manuscript -- don't do it. It's a bit amatuerish and you want to make sure you come off as professional as possible.
I disagree with this poster.
You already have copyright. There are good reasons to wait and not register it. If your book is published, the publisher is going to register the copyright it. All books change during the editing process. The publisher is going to want to register the copyright on their final edited version, not your manuscript version. If you have already registered the copyright your manuscript version it makes all kinds of complications for the publisher to try to register the final, edited, published version, which, after all, is the one that matters in terms of copyright issues.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
But there's no reason to register, if your work isn't published. Registering gives you no additional protection under copyright law. All it does is give you the right to sue in court in the USA if your work is infringed. But theft of unpublished work is not a concern--it truly is so rare as to be functionally nonexistent. It's not till your work is widely available--i.e., published--that you need to worry about registration.
Most countries don't even have a registration process, anyway.
Don't fall for those faux registration services that datestamp or archive your work--they're worthless.
- Victoria
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 267
- Reaction score
- 14
I was at Dragon*Con 2006. There they had several sessions to talk with editors and agents. One of them had a story about a person that gave him a draft and stressed very clearly that all of it was his property, and no-one else's. He was then told to just keep it and go.
I'm pretty sure, like mentioned above, that being published automatically implies getting a copyright, to some extend anyway. So don't scare them off by doing these things yourself.
I'm pretty sure, like mentioned above, that being published automatically implies getting a copyright, to some extend anyway. So don't scare them off by doing these things yourself.
If you DON'T place the copyright notice on a manuscript, you lose much of the monetary protection registering gives you. You can't register the work, and then pretend you didn't by not placing the notice on the manuscript. You have to read quite a bit more than the FAQ to understand copyright law.
Unless you intend to self-publish your work, there simply is no reason at all to register the work. It's a complete waste of time and money.
This is a case of do as the pros do. No one is going to steal your work before it's published. It isn't worth stealing before it's published. It isn't worth a penny until after it's published. It's just one of millions of unpublished manuscripts that no one wants.
Once it is published, and proves popular, someone might well try to steal it, but at this point it's already registered.
This is rather muddled.
The first sentence is flat wrong. In some truly exceptional cases, the defense "but the copy wasn't marked with a copyright notice" has been successfully invoked to limit damages available for willful infringement. In those four instances — all of which, by the way, occurred long before the US ratified the 1996 WIPO treaty, and therefore are probably no longer good law anyway — all that was denied was the equivalent of punitive damages. Since 1978, this has only been relevant for published works anyway, when relevant at all. The marking requirement went out in 1989; from that date forward the public is presumed to know that a work is copyrighted.
The second sentence is a complete non sequitur. Marking has never been required for unpublished manuscripts, so failure to mark an unpublished manuscript pretends nothing. Further, the fact of registration and the fact of marking have been separate issues for nearly a century (since the 1909 Copyright Act came into force).
The third sentence is correct. No FAQ will really enable anyone to understand copyright law, or even any substantial area of copyright law.
The bottom line: A copyright notice on an unpublished manuscript is the dreaded Mark of the Amateur. Don't do it. Those who would otherwise "steal" the manuscript won't be deterred by a copyright notice; those in the industry wouldn't care about a copyright notice; and, under the 1976 Act, registration and the copyright itself are separate things, so you'd technically be entitled to put a copyright notice on a manuscript without bothering to register it first. You shouldn't.
I never said the O.P. should register. I said there was nothing wrong with it. I directed them to a faq on the subject so they could get all the facts and make their own decision. I probably should have directed them to a writer's faq on the subject as well so they'd know that theft of manuscripts is almost unheard of in the industry -- but ultimately it is their decision.
Also, registering does provide extra protection under copyright. Unless it has changed recently, you cannot sue for statutory damages or lawyer fees without registering -- only actual damages. (Though I think you can register after the infringement and before filing the case -- I won't say that for sure though.)
I won't go so far as to say that the U.S. shouldn't either -- I think it can provide a decent service even if I think it is a little too expensive -- but I do think it is silly on how you can't sue for statutory damages or lawyer fees without it. It's like a goverment scam.
Dunno if I would go so far as to say that. You can get a small understanding of the basics from a faq such as: You don't need to register to have copyright, there are instances (fair use) where copyrighted material can be used, etc.
You aren't going to understand it in full, of course, but if you need to understand it in full you should be getting a lawyer.
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 22
p.s. many countries outside the US including NZ have companies who claim to register your copyright. They exist merely to exploit those who don't understand how copyright works. Steer clear. At least there is some point to registration of published works in the US but elsewhere there is none.
I've never heard of that. Not saying it isn't true, but I have never heard that subsequent updates to a work nullify its registration. I'm not even sure why a publisher would bother to register an updated version -- the publisher could still sue for actual damages even without it ever being registered.
As a side note, sounds like it would make it a real hassle to computer companies if registering an updated version is such a hassle and a requirement for full protection. A software company comes out with a patch almost immediately after the box hits the shelves.
Jaws is a lawyer. Specifically in this area of expertise. So, if he wants to say "No FAQ will really enable anyone to understand copyright law, or even any substantial area of copyright law." I will believe him.
What would a person's motivation be for registering a copyright for his/her work?
I just don't see the point in it. You get published, you receive your contracts in the mail, and there's a C with a circle around the title of the work. Why would you ever need to copyright it before that point?
I just don't see the point in it. You get published, you receive your contracts in the mail, and there's a C with a circle around the title of the work. Why would you ever need to copyright it before that point?
The motivation would be paranoia. There isn't much point in it because manuscript theft is almost unheard of. But some people might find the key word in the sentence to be 'almost'.
Personally, I don't do it, and I wouldn't recommend it. But I am not going to tell someone absolutely do not do this. I will just stress not to put the notice on the manuscript for submissions as that might actually hurt their chances.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 67
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56831
Heya, LBW - there's a lot of good reading on copyright if you follow the link above (or do a forum search for Jaws and copyright, which will bring up more information and heated debates than you ever wanted to read
).
Heya, LBW - there's a lot of good reading on copyright if you follow the link above (or do a forum search for Jaws and copyright, which will bring up more information and heated debates than you ever wanted to read
).notice
I think you're missing the point. If you don't place the notice on the manuscript, you just invalidated much of the protection registering gives you. If you register the work, you have to place notice on the manuscript, or registering makes no sense.
I think you're missing the point. If you don't place the notice on the manuscript, you just invalidated much of the protection registering gives you. If you register the work, you have to place notice on the manuscript, or registering makes no sense.
No, not really. Minor updates and minor version changes do not require a novel be registered a second time.
But each new version is usually registered again. An example is when you find a publisher releasing a book that is already in the public domain. There's still a copyright notice inside. Even though the copyright has expired, the publisher nevertheless holds copyright on the particular format of this release.
Again, this is wrong. The mark has never been required for an unpublished manuscript, and has not been required at all since 1989. Period. I really don't care what ancient tales one might try to dredge up otherwise — they're no longer good law.
Registering makes sense because it's the gatekeeper into the courts. Some courts are starting to realize that it's an element of the claim, and not a jurisdictional element — there was a decision just a few days ago on this, contrary to the whole Morris line of cases — but the registration is an administrative requirement for court enforcement. Under the 1976 Act, the registration is not the same thing as the copyright.
In fact, I've actually gotten substantial damages for my client in more than one instance in which the infringement came from copying of an unmarked manuscript. Please stop giving incorrect legal advice.
No, I believe you are missing the point. Putting a copyright notice on a submitted manuscript -- regardless of whether or not the work is registered -- should not be done. It will mark the writer as an amatuer and could hurt their chances of being accepted.
Jaws,
Could you address Tish's statement that registering a previously registered work creates "all kinds of complications" for the publisher? (Her words).
It is the first time I have heard that one and it was my understanding that it simply required a different form.
Could you address Tish's statement that registering a previously registered work creates "all kinds of complications" for the publisher? (Her words).
It is the first time I have heard that one and it was my understanding that it simply required a different form.
The "all kinds of complications" for the publisher to which Tish refers goes only to the scope of what the new registration will cover, which is described in a few lines (I think five lines fits at most) on the back of the registration form. In fact, this is a routine situation in nonfiction publishing with revised editions and so on.
In short, don't worry about it. It's essentially meaningless, and adds maybe three or four minutes to the amount of time it takes to register the copyright.
In short, don't worry about it. It's essentially meaningless, and adds maybe three or four minutes to the amount of time it takes to register the copyright.
- Status