I've recently started performing my own songs at gigs I play, and the temptation is to immediately upload clips of me playing them to youtube to send to friends/family/whoever. Before I do that I want to know a lot more about copyright issues - as unlikely as it is that I get ripped off and cheated out of millions of dollars in royalties, I would like to protect what is legally mine.

It seems the Berne Convention protects me in some way or other, but it seems kind of vague. Is an uploaded clip on youtube automatically protected given that it has a date-stamp and it's clearly me playing it? Is there paperwork I should be doing first?

Anyone have any good references or advice?

The date/time would be proof that it was your material as of the date on youtube unless the video itself has proof that it was some specific date/time. If someone came up with something with a date before you uploaded it to youtube I'd imagine you could potentially get screwed. I'd do something to date/time stamp your work before you perform it the 1st time tbh.

Once you put your original music into some kind of physical form (i.e. not kept in your head) then you own the copyright. That would mean that as soon as you post an original song on YouTube, ReverbNation, SoundClick, etc., the copyright is yours. As long as these sites are up and running you'll have the date stamp to back your claim if anyone tries to steal you music. If you want to register the copyright with the government you can do it for $35 per song or entire album electronically iirc. The songwriter forum that I post my original music on requires you to post the lyrics for copyright reasons so you might want to do that on YouTube as well.

Did you get paid?

If so, you would at least have trademark rights, which would set you far ahead of anyone else trying to make a claim to the songs.

I've played them at paid gigs in bars but also recently at a big fund-raising music festival. The festival gig was all expenses paid (travel, food, 5 nights accommodation in 5 star resort... sweeeeet) but I wasn't paid cash. The festival was recorded and broadcast locally via internet and radio.

The thing about copyright is that you ought to have as much evidence as possible to support your claim.

Digital time stamps are one form of evidence, although I'm not sure if there is any case defining their use.

The old way of doing it was to score your music and send it to yourself by registered post. Then you have it in writing.

I'd say that was better evidence than digital forms, which can be manipulated and may conceivably be deemed invalid.

**but all forms of evidence should be used. As much as possible is the key.

You can't trademark a name. You can trademark a design. With names the law refers to passing off; so, if I were to form a band called the Rolling Stones, nobody could really stop me unless they could prove that I were passing off as the greatest RnB band of all time.

Uh...this is false.

what about it is false? If my memory serves me correctly, that's what I learned at college.

Well, regardless of that, calling Rolling Stones GOAT is false IMO

You claim your service mark (name) by using it but you can register it as well. You can't name your other genre band Rolling Stones. You couldn't even name a record company Rolling Stones. Dilution is the key word here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

http://www.uspto.gov/

I'm not sure where you heard that. I'm referencing a book we used in a Music Business class and it is written by a lawyer so I'm pretty sure he's right. He actually uses the Rolling Stones Record Company as an example btw.

I had a roommate who was in a band named Slo Poke back in the late 90s. The candy company made them change their name. Slow Poke didn't cut it either iirc or else they just decided to completely change their name at that point. It was a while ago heh.

this is also true

It may be different in Europe but there are tons of precedents in the US. You absolutely can't do that here and get a free pass. There are a lot of finer points, some "use it or lose it" things that can come into play too, none will apply here though. It's more complex now than years ago also.

As it happens the Rolling Stones aren't the first band to be called the Rolling Stones either. Same with Skid Row, Nirvana, and some others I can't recall. In the latter case both bands had to buy the rights - Gary Moore owned the Skid Row name and was paid $35,000 though that (story is being disputed lately).

But as a practical matter, naming a band the Rolling Stones would be horrible. You're essentially lawsuit-bait, and you'll never get your hands on the rights to other things you might want (like the "RollingStones.com" domain). And wait until you want to make a CD or sell t-shirts.

Yes, clear & protect your name & work if you ever expect hope for it to have some kind of value. Register a domain and all of that too. I wanted to use Clowngod for my most recent project but it was taken by an artist online. Think up something people can remember and unique and save yourself some headaches.

Sound. Thanks for clearing that up. Dunno why I remembered it like that.

However I should bring it to your attention that you need to seek professional help if you think the Stones are not the greatest RnB band ever. I'm not sure but I think there are some medicines you can take to help.

I just knew when I read the thread title the "Poor Man's Copyright" would pop up. Basically, this is an Urban Legend.

Also...

Bottom line...


My favorite from the US Copyright Website...

Sending it by registered post is a form of evidence.

...but NOT a Legal form of protection.

The IPO Website goes on to point this out.

"May be useful..."

...not the strongest wording.

Again, this along with the Copyright office statement...
...indicates that the "Poor Man's Copyright" provides no legal protection.

Feel free to continue to think it has some sort of validity or protection, but it is pretty much useless.

All i said was its a form of evidence that could help. I'm not arguing its absolute protection. In court you would have to provide sufficient evidence. This would be helpful in doing so, not on its own, but nevertheless helpful, not useless.

I don't know what part of not giving "any such type of protection" you're refusing to acknowledge. You get no legal protection from the "Poor Man's Copyright".

...but whatever, you win. Mail it to yourself.

Enjoy.

You don't need "legal protection" to prove you own the work; in fact, registering your work doesn't prove you own the work, but it does constitute prima facie proof. You do, however, need the work to have been registered if you want to bring forth an infringement suit against someone.