So negative...

Do you have any better ideas then bakerstreet?

Actually, the registered mail thing works over here as well. The trick is to make sure the envelope is and remains sealed. Besides, one shouldn't be too gratious with ones originals and keep stuff behind for juridic purposes.

Okay, okay, okay. i promise I don't mean to be negative, but it really is a myth. An easy-to-find one, granted, but so are flying saucers and alligators in the sewers...

According to a local IP lawyer that donated 5 minutes to talk to me, the issue would first be whether your sealed envelope could be admitted as evidence in the first place. To do so you would have to prove:

a) In order to testify to the integrity of the package, you will have to prove that it was constantly under your *control*. Once you hand it to the employee in the post office, it is out of your control, and doesn't return to your control until you sign for it and pick it up. This negates your ability to testify to the integrity of the contents of the package, and makes the package's seal a non-issue.

In a copyright case you aren't there to prove possession, or even authorship, you are there to prove *ownership* of the copyright. Depending on the opposing party's evidence, it may not even matter that you possessed the item at that given time. In order to prove someone infringed your copyright, you have to prove they had access to the work, and therefore possession was possible. If possession of the work isn't in question, and possession doesn't prove authorship or ownership, then you aren't gonna bring up the envelope as evidence.

c) A postmark, even registered mail, makes no claim as to reliability of the package's seal. If you have ever received a broken item or ripped envelope in the mail, you know they aren't liable for the integrity of the mail. Registered mail and other such stickers can be scanned, reprinted, and reapplied to other envelopes. Such will not grant any credence to a claim that a particular item was *in* the package, only that a particular package at a particular weight went from point A to point B and was picked up by a particular person. That is all the postal service can attest to, and all that their documents can prove.

He stated that if his client brought such a package to him for a copyright case, he'd tell them to leave it at home.


**


I have emailed the US copyright office about it and haven't heard back, yet. When I do my Ebay stuff I'll ask at the post office.

Sadly, he was very, very dubious about our particular artform. You really don't wanna know what he thought our chances would be if we needed to proceed against someone legally, and I won't post the reasons, since someone reading this could use them against us. Depressing, though.


**

Here are a few other blurbs from around the net so you won't have to rely my heresay.

http://www.riger.com/pdfs/advertising/copyright.pdf

"The so-called “poor man ’s copyright ”—mailing a copy of your work to yourself to obtain a postage date —is not adequate to secure registration,and cannot be used in a court of law to support a case of copyright infringement."

http://screenwritersguild.org/copyright.htm

"Do not mail your script to yourself (the poor man's copyright) and expect to be protected. This is extremely foolish and offers very little, if any, protection in a court of law. "

http://www.music-law.com/copyright.html

"If you had to go to court, you could give the unopened tape to the judge and prove when you created the work. This procedure, however, does not afford any legal protection. I never recommend this route to bands."

http://www.musicindustrylaw.com/copyright.htm

"...sealed and postmarked envelope containing the song as proof of the date of your copyright authorship. From a practical perspective, it is a pretty pointless exercise."

http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/b/tbritton/Bizboook.html#registering

"...if the matter ever did get to court, rest assured that the first thing that will come out of the opposing lawyers mouth will be a challenge for you to prove CONTROL over that envelope – that is, that in no-way could someone have steamed open the envelope, altered its contents, and resealed it. Not even someone at the Post Office!! This challenge has shot down case after case. "


The best description I heard was here:


http://www.eszine.com/index.cfm?DocID=87

"However, after studying copyright law, I cannot find any reason to do this unless you're a) bored or eager to support the post office. Here's why:

-The post mark is not prima facie evidence. You can forge a postmark, or you can send an empty envelope in the mail and then fill it later. You're going to need a damn good lawyer to prove this one. But you won't have a damn good lawyer because:

-If you're too cheap to register your copyright, you're too cheap to hire a lawyer. Forget about trying to claim attorneys' fees; your copyright had to be registered before the infringement occurred. But none of this matters since:

-You need to register your copyright before going to trial. So what good did your CD in your envelope do besides collect dust?

Poor man's copyright is not "better than nothing," it's the same as nothing. Worse, it is a waste of time and money. I have yet to find an instance where it was used as evidence, let alone even allowed to come to trial. Case closed"

I haven't even tried to find any evidence to prove otherwise, but I've read about the usefulness of this method, and its positive legal worth, in many highly-respected graphic design print publications over the years. It may well prove to be a futile act, but surely it's better to be seen to do something to protect copyright, however seemingly insignificant, than simply rolling over and admitting defeat in the face of copyright theft.

As I've stated time and time again in these message boards, and forums all over the net, it's a lack of education on the issue of copyright which is the main problem. It's only through positive discussion on potential deterrants that we can hope to fight the ever-increasing problem. I tend to think that threads like this one, and bakerstreet's comments, only serve to add fuel to the fire and encourage those who deliberately break the law to continue their 'screw them, they can't touch us' attitude.

greyhaze: Or you could say that perpetuating false information on how to protect your copyright "only serve(s) to add fuel to the fire and encourage those who deliberately break the law to continue their 'screw them, they can't touch us' attitude."


**

It isn't gonna matter what I come up with. All people have to say is 'you're wrong'. Whether or not they have facts to back it up is meaningless when people will just take your word for it because of who you are. Discussion here is worthless. I'm sick of it.

If greyhaze thinks my perspective on this is promoting theft, fine. I'll be more than happy not to waste any more time.

My only gripe with your approach bakerstreet is that you try to produce as much evidence as you can to discredit this particular form of copyright protection without coming up with a worthwhile alternative. It's easy to say something won't work, but not so easy to produce a better solution at the same time.

I didn't mean what I said to come out as an attack on you, but rather an expression of my continuing irritation over this issue and the lack of constructive discussion that goes on about it. On the one hand we have threads complaining loudly about particular instances of copyright theft, and on the other those threads where we're constantly told how pointless it is to attempt to protect our work.

For once I'd like to see the thread that turns toward constructive discussion on how to combat the problem, instead of these depressing displays of defeatism. I've tried to start such a thread on more than one occasion, but they invariably turn into discussions about what doesn't work, rather than coming up with new ideas.

???? what?

I'm sorry, grey, but if you go back to the first post I made I gave the *only* alternative. Go to the Copyright office page, and see what they say to do.

a) if you made it, you already have copyright.

if you want dated proof of copyright, register it. Last i read it costs a whopping $30 dollars in the US.

I didn't offer any other options because there *aren't* any other options. Granted, once you are successful enough to have an agent or belong to a union or guild, they may allow you an advocate or even a way of storing your work with a more impartial party. In the end, though, it is gonna come down to you having to take the other person to court. I'm sorry if that isn't enough, but it isn't really in my hands...

greyhaze: i was typing while you were posting #27. As I said, there is already a solution to your problem, registering with the Copyright office. I'm not at all telling you it is pointless to protect your work, i am telling you that it is meaningless to mail it to yourself, since no one is gonna accept that as evidence.

I think anyone can tell you (especially the administration at other sites) that I am the last one to have a defeatist attitude about this. There are noteworthy people in this community that I have pretty much torpedoed my relationship with because I insisted on them taking the time to remove items that shouldn't be there. Jafo has suffered as much or more than I have, too.

I don't know where you got the idea that I am defeatist about this, I just don't want people to feel safer than they are, or waste their time on methods that don't work.

baker....the US Copyright Office is the US.....there is a world outside it...[the US]
You are wrong. It has been done.

Fine, jafo. I guess your word is good enough. A shame mine isn't.

baker....not so....your investigation of 'local' copyright law is probably 'spot on'...it's just not relevant necessarily world-wide.
Bush may consider the USA as the centre/center of the universe, but it really ain't...
On some levels of Australian Law, a carded Registered Mail is considered to have been legally delivered even though the recipient has only been notified that a package is at the PO for pickup and hasn't physically got it in his hot little hands, but only a postal notice that something is awaiting pickup.
Different strokes for different folks...

Exactly Jafo. Here in the UK it's a very similar situation. Again I could be wrong, but I've heard of copyright cases here in the UK being won on the basis of 'poor man's copyright'. It may be 'poor man's', but it's still copyright.

Perhaps the US doesn't offer the same kind of protection. It seems downright ridiculous that you should need to spend out $30 to protect each and every work you create. What's the point of having a law which grants copyright on creation, if you have no way to enforce that law??

Baker: You're wrong, you defeatist!


Anyhow, say someone has used something you made, what then? Go to Court about it? Legal counseling is expensive, especially if you lose the case.

And what would the case be? You proving that "they" used your work? That would mean that a) you'd have to prove that your work predates theirs; and that they had access to it. You'd have to prove both.

Or would it be the other way around? They would have to prove it's their own creation?

Tricky.

crea: from what I got yesterday, the date has little or nothing to do with it. You have to prove that you owned the copyright ( not just possessed the work, a.k.a. "registered mail" ), and that they had the means to get their hands on it. By the time you get them in court, they know when you are claiming to have made it, and they can just claim to have made it before you. If they say it sat around in their drawer for ten years before they did anything with it, it is up to you to prove it didn't. IN our case I suppose it would mean showing that we created the work with layered image files, rough drafts, etc.; and testifying to the fact we never sold it or gave permission to use it.

**

Jafo, you're absolutely right, Registered Mail certifies that it has been legally *delivered*, and has nothing to say about what was in the package then, and whether it is the same contents now... *YEARS* after it has been delivered. Don't you see how insane that is?

I don't mean to be a smart-alek. If you and greyhaze can get something besides "I say it, therefore it is true", I would love to see it. I went out of my way to back up my opinion, so I'm leaving the rest to you. It is your point to prove.

Personally, the idea of "poor man's copyright" makes me feel much less protected. Anyone with access to my work and an older postmark than mine could take me to the cleaners, or at least haul me into court whenever they they want to cause me problems. That just isn't so.

**

Some things I learned yesterday were *depressing*... so before you get all comfy with your own nation's legal system, remember that to stop someone in another nation, you'll have to prove they are breaking the law *there*, and prove it according to that nation's standards of evidence. Look at the conflict between us, and our three nations are cupcakes...

We have it *good*. ISPs listen when the rippers themselves won't. So far we don't have any horror stories. I am very, very dubious as to how long we will stay this lucky.

baker...just a few months ago, International Legal precedent was set over a libel case relating to comments made on another country's website. The Australian High Court determined there was a case to answer.
I can't recall the details, but let's just say the world got a great deal smaller because of it....

Jafo: what did they actually decide they could do to enforce the outcome of such a case, or did it rely upon the foreign government to voluntarily to it for them?

As I recall....extradition was allowed for the US site owners to be tried in Australia under Australian Law.
As I said, it was a landmark case, world-wide...

I'll have to go find some info on it if I can. It was about 2 or 3 months ago...