How do you get a copyright?

[big K]

Hello all, I am recording a band(1 person for the song in question) and they wish to get a copyright. I would like to know how to do this? the song is just gutair and vocal, but we might do another version later on. As it is only 1 person has been recorded (vocie + gutair by the creater of the song). Any way , just wondering about what you can all tell me about copyright stuff. oh yea I am in canada - and I assume we want a world wide/north amarica wide copy right. also if you could tell me what is protected? the lyrics, the 1 version of the recorded song, .. the song in any of its forms? and how would the second version effect the whole mess? thank you all . Kevin Nemrava token candain

[Anifa]

[url=http://www.musicbizbuzz.net/legal/copyrights.htm]International Treaties and Copyright links[/url]

[Sylver]

First, all the info you are looking for is here for you to check out: [url=http://www.loc.gov/copyright/]US Copyright Office[/url] The standard fee for a legal copyright [i]registration[/i] is $35 US. That registration, note. A song or work is technically copyrighted as soon as it is commited to permanent media. That can be anything. A few words scribbled on some paper, humming a tune into a memo recorder, or a full blown production. A copyright registration is simply added protection in the event you ever have to go to court, but as soon as the work is recorded, it is copyrighted. There are several different types of copyright that you can apply for, serving different perposes. Most songs you hear on the radio have several copyright registrations covering them. you can copyright the lyrics, the melody, the sound recording, or all three at the same time. You can't copyright a chord progression, it has to have melody. Once something has been registered, it may be re-copyrighted, but onyl as a "derivative work" which means it needs to refer to the original registration. You might need to do this if you remix or re-record a song, but only the versions that you mean to release commercially. Get this, collaborations can't be split once they are registered. It's like this; if you and a buddy write a song, he writes the lyrics and you wrote the melody, or and combo of those two, you both own the song equally, and the song can't be split up again. You own his lyrics and he owns your melody. If you re-use that melody after it's copyrighted(Read: commited to media, not registered), your co-writer has half ownership of your derivative work. Also, keep in mind that you can copyright a body of work, and all of the songs on that work will be registered. I, like most people, wait until I have a bunch of songs together, then burn them all to a CD, call them a collected work(Sylver's Spring 2003 collection), and register them with one $35 fee, instead of $35/song. Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, just very well informed, and I read the US copyright office site pretty well. If you get sued or loose your #1 hit, I am not responsible.

[D_dup3]

Haven't checked out Anifa's cited site :D in full but here in the US the Copyright Office is a part of (or affiliated with) the Library of Congress & all information is available through them. I'm sure there's a comparable branch of the Canadian government. The likelihood is that the Canadian system is much like ours but possibly different. Here copyright is inherent in the creation of any work. This doesn't mean that you need not copyright things but you don't need to worry about copyrighting everything immediately or as works in progress. There are also varieties of "c" so that what might seem a single work can be "c" in various forms (Song/composition, Sound Recording, etc.). Don't overlook those variations; they can be very profitable ares. Also, as you'll see, each country has their own laws & methods of enforcing (or [i]not[/i]) those of other countries.

[Anifa]

The link I supplied is a page I created inside of my site. I personally reviewed each site listed for it's relative content to Internationalization and Intellectual Property Laws. The US Copyright Office is good for the USA, but as mentioned in the initial post; this guy is seeking information that crosses international boundaries. US means applicable inside of the United States of America. If one is "EXTREMELY" Internet savvy, they might be able to find international information relative to copyright laws within the U.S. Library of Congress' web site; but the U.S. Copyright doesn't make anything easily accessible. Just for entertainment, I conducted a search on the U.S. Copyright Office site to see what I could come up with. There was a result of 226 entries returned for the keyword I searched and here is a cut from their most relevant topic listed: A excerpt from the US Copyright Office on International Copyrights [quote] There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country basically depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions which have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. There are two principal international copyright conventions, the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (Berne Convention) and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). [/quote]Notice that the Copyright Office did not include any links to the treaties or conventions mentioned. The two entities addressed on the US Copyright Office's statement are among the top listings under International on my web site; with links provided to both. :D Towards the middle of the page, as you scroll down, you will find where I have listed Copyright Offices around the entire world; [b]Canada inclusive.[/b] Originally posted by Sylver: [quote] Also, keep in mind that you can copyright a body of work, and all of the songs on that work will be registered. I, like most people, wait until I have a bunch of songs together, then burn them all to a CD, call them a collected work(Sylver's Spring 2003 collection), and register them with one $35 fee, instead of $35/song. [/quote]As far as copyrighting materials in collective works, there has been a lot of recent controversy as to the protection of individual songs contained within a collective work throughout International boundaries. You may wish to check into this further. Another fallacy with registering a body of works is that if you find a producer/publisher/etc. interested in merely one or two songs of the entire body of works, you will have to amend the copyright first and then recopyright the individual pieces. Unless you are not worried about the fate of the other content that would be wrapped up into the copyright up for negotiations of contract. I always copyright individual songs. Another thing you might keep in mind is this; an initial registration of a copyright is set at [b]$30.00[/b] for most basic copyright applications (first time entries only) please reference the [url=http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html]Copyright Office Current Fees[/url] Once a copyright has been registered, any derivative works entered on the same piece thereafter are charged at double the initial costs, for each revised edition. Sorry I just threw the link up without a bit of info backing it; but I do encourage those who mentioned the US Copyright/Library of Congress to find information that would help a fellow out in Canada. :D I CHALLENGE YOU!!! :evil: ;) :evil: Find the page where I pasted an excerpt.... good luck! Let's see how Internet Savvy one is. The US Copyright Office "IS" loaded with extensive information about copyright law inside of the U.S., but internationally, it lacks.

[Rim]

Thanks for the great info, Sylver and Anifa. I'd been wondering about this myself.

[D_dup3]

The method Anifa cites for copyrighting groups of works is possible & legal but my understanding is that it might lead to some difficulties when separating a single work out from the bunch. I've never done it & am admittedly unsure what those problems might be but I was long ago advised against it (who knows maybe that was bad advice). I'd explore that before trying that option. What's your experience in that regard been, Ani?

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by d: [b]The method Anifa cites for copyrighting groups of works is possible & legal but my understanding is that it might lead to some difficulties when separating a single work out from the bunch. I've never done it & am admittedly unsure what those problems might be but I was long ago advised against it (who knows maybe that was bad advice). I'd explore that before trying that option. What's your experience in that regard been, Ani?[/b][/quote]d, I was quoting Sylver's comment; if you notice, I was opposed to copyrighting bodies of works as one. In my opinion, the only time one should copyright an entire body of works is when there is a compilation of songs fixed in a Sound Recording set for commercial release. These projects, such as CD'S and other sound recordings, should be copyrighted using a Form SR whereas the initial works are usually protected using a Form PA. For the reasons mentioned earlier, I would not copyright multiple tunes under one copyright; it creates additional paperwork and costs more in the long run. We all know how long the Copyright Office takes to process entries and it takes them even longer to review and process derivative works, or to amend original filings. If you dissolve the original copyright protecting a whole group for one song; then you have to RE-COPYRIGHT the remaining works AGAIN at a higher price. Interested parties could be detoured by the waiting process; most expect complete professionalism and preparedness. We wouldn't want to keep an interested party waiting, now would we?

[Dave Pierce]

I read a great book when I was a much younger man, called "This Business Of Music". It covered this, and ever so much more, in great detail. Laws change, and that particular volume is probably outdated. Does anyone know the modern equivalent? --Dave

[Sylver]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Pierce: [b]I read a great book when I was a much younger man, called "This Business Of Music". It covered this, and ever so much more, in great detail. Laws change, and that particular volume is probably outdated. Does anyone know the modern equivalent? --Dave[/b][/quote]I got a lot of my info from that book, and it is the most recent publishing. The author never mentioned difficulty in dealing with bodies of work. My understanding is that all you need to do is copyright the individual song as a derivitive piece, and it's not a problem. The above problems mentioned may have to do with not following the correct steps, like not re-registering an individual work when ready to use it.

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by Sylver needs a new ...: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dave Pierce: [b]I read a great book when I was a much younger man, called "This Business Of Music". It covered this, and ever so much more, in great detail. Laws change, and that particular volume is probably outdated. Does anyone know the modern equivalent? --Dave[/b][/quote]I got a lot of my info from that book, and it is the most recent publishing. The author never mentioned difficulty in dealing with bodies of work. My understanding is that all you need to do is copyright the individual song as a derivitive piece, and it's not a problem. The above problems mentioned may have to do with not following the correct steps, like not re-registering an individual work when ready to use it.[/b][/quote]It is my understanding that you were under the impression that copyright registration fees are currently set at $35.00 when, in actuality, most basic copyrights are still at a current rate of $30.00. If one is in question about unpublished collections of work, and also derivatives of work; there is a brief explanation provided on the Form PA copyright registration in the instructions. [url=http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formpai.pdf]Copyright Form PA with instructions[/url] You'll find some information located under sections 5 and 6. Sylver, perhaps you missed a few things that I stated in my earlier post. Allow me to emphasize, in bold print, some points you seemed to have overlooked. [quote] Another fallacy with registering a body of works is that [b]if you find a producer/publisher/etc. interested in merely one or two songs of the entire body of works, you will have to amend the copyright first and then recopyright the individual pieces[/b] . Unless you are not worried about the fate of the other content that would be wrapped up into the copyright up for negotiations of contract. I always copyright individual songs. Another thing you might keep in mind is this; an initial registration of a copyright is set at $30.00 for most basic copyright applications (first time entries only) please reference the Copyright Office Current Fees Once a copyright has been registered, [b] any derivative works entered on the same piece thereafter are charged at double the initial costs, for each revised edition. [/b] [/quote]You must first modify the original works to extract a song from within; then you have to reprotect both the indivual song extracted, and also the remaining body of works. I don't believe that there is a problem in following the correct steps, I believe I covered my bases. Again, this particular statement from inside the other bothers me.... [quote] Like not re-registering an individual work when ready to use it. [/quote]:confused: ????????????????????????????????? :confused: You amuse me; what part of [b]"you will have to amend the copyright first and then recopyright the individual pieces"[/b] did you not understand????????? I believe there are certain things that I have extensive knowledge in; and intellectual property and trade laws just so happen to be two of my strengths. Please, if you wish to attempt to make me appear as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about; learn how to spell the word "derivative" and get it straight on current registration fees if you want anyone to take you serious. This Business of Music, recommended by Dave Pierce, is an excellent choice; as it showcases multiple music business contracts that cover different facets of the music business from mechanical licenses, artist/producer agreements, record label contracts, to copyright forms and instructions. Most of these contracts can be located otherwise through searching, but this book sets them all in one place and provides detailed information as to the procedure used in executing the documents. The information is very comprehensive and it is a great reference book to keep on hand; the most current release is the 8th Edition. The authors are Krasilovsky and Sidney Shemel, published by Billboard. Also another great reference book is "All You Need To Know About The Music Business" by Donald Passman; his is a more casual approach, yet extremely informative.

[Mats Olsson.]

Not totally on topic, but very close: Add to shopping list: [i]confessions of a record producer[/i] by Moses Avalon, this book covers many common "biz tricks" - the stuff you need to know about if you don't want to be totally ripped off. /Mats

[D_dup3]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b] [quote]Originally posted by d: [b]The method Anifa cites for copyrighting groups of works is possible & legal but my understanding is that it might lead to some difficulties when separating a single work out from the bunch. I've never done it & am admittedly unsure what those problems might be but I was long ago advised against it (who knows maybe that was bad advice). I'd explore that before trying that option. What's your experience in that regard been, Ani?[/b][/quote]d, I was quoting Sylver's comment; if you notice, I was opposed to copyrighting bodies of works as one. In my opinion, the only time one should copyright an entire body of works is when there is a compilation of songs fixed in a Sound Recording set for commercial release. These projects, such as CD'S and other sound recordings, should be copyrighted using a Form SR whereas the initial works are usually protected using a Form PA. For the reasons mentioned earlier, I would not copyright multiple tunes under one copyright; it creates additional paperwork and costs more in the long run. We all know how long the Copyright Office takes to process entries and it takes them even longer to REVIEW [emphasis added by d] and process derivative works, or to amend original filings. If you dissolve the original copyright protecting a whole group for one song; then you have to RE-COPYRIGHT the remaining works AGAIN at a higher price. Interested parties could be detoured by the waiting process; most expect complete professionalism and preparedness. We wouldn't want to keep an interested party waiting, now would we?[/b][/quote]Sorry for the mis-attribution. Your remarks, though, lead me to this additional comment: I don't think the copyright office [i]checks out & verifies the validity of copyright applications[/i] as, for example the patent office does. One could aquire a copyright for material & have it invalidated if someone files a legal infringement case.

[Anifa]

[quote] Your remarks, though, lead me to this additional comment: I don't think the copyright office checks out & verifies the validity of copyright applications as, for example the patent office does. One could acquire a copyright for material & have it invalidated if someone files a legal infringement case. [/quote]d, Thank you for acknowledging the mis-attribution. However, in response to your disagreement with the review process; may I point you back to the Form PA with instructions again to see where I interpret a "review" of documents. [url=http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formpai.pdf]Form PA with instructions[/url] . Again, I refer to sections 5 and 6. This form is in .pdf format so I can't cut and paste; I'll just briefly outline the text that supports my interest. Notice the line in section 5 that says: If either of these two exceptions applies; check the appropriate box and give the ealier registration number and date. Continue reading section 5 and notice the last line of information. I'm not going to retype the form, but you can view the form at the provided link. The Copyright Office will review previous filings of the works in it's original form and then write reference numbers to both the original version and the derivative works on each file; notating there is more than one entry on this particular copyright. This is the reason that a derivative of works is charged at the higher fee of $60.00 per filing instead of the $30.00 charged in the initial filing of new works. It requires a manual review process to see if the reregistration is valid and/or permissible, and also to cross reference files to one another or all.

[Kooky Mogessi]

I heard another way to do it but i dont know if it works or whatever and i dont remember where i heard it. You just make a copy of whatever it is, date it, and then mail it to yourself but DONT OPEN IT. then if anything comes up you have the unopened package with you stuff in it. like i said before i dont know if it works or is legal or if its the same as a normal copyright. I was talking to some friends about it and they didnt know about it. This way if someone here knows if its legal i can find out for sure. If not you can just forget everything i just said.

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by Penguinsarebirds: [b]I heard another way to do it but i dont know if it works or whatever and i dont remember where i heard it. You just make a copy of whatever it is, date it, and then mail it to yourself but DONT OPEN IT. then if anything comes up you have the unopened package with you stuff in it. like i said before i dont know if it works or is legal or if its the same as a normal copyright. I was talking to some friends about it and they didnt know about it. This way if someone here knows if its legal i can find out for sure. If not you can just forget everything i just said.[/b][/quote]I seriously hope you are joking! But just in the event you are not here is an excerpt from the Copyright Office: [url=http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr]U.S. Copyright Office - COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION[/url] excerpt directly from the US Copyright Office; link supplied above. [quote] COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim. Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner. Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at [url=http://www.customs.gov]www.customs.gov[/url] for online publications. Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired. [/quote]

[Brittanylips]

In the U.S., (after 1976) once you create it, you own the copyright. Period. Don't need to do nothin. I would imagine that Canadian laws are the same, if not more favorable for the artist (as is French copyright). Registering copyrights is another story. The benefits of registering a copyright are largely related to potential lawsuits (e.g. if you successfully sue an infringer, if your copyright was registered, you can recover attorney's fees, if it wasn't, you can't, etc.) If you want to register your copyright, I read about a software package that makes the process a little easier; it may be called "official copyright." -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[D_dup3]

Re the last cuople of posts that suggest you need not actually file for copyright---this is risky! As for my comment that the "C" Office doesn't review copyright to validate them, I meant that they don't compare them to other copyrighted works (as the Patent Office does with inventions). I thought that was clear the first time but I guess not. The point is that you may copyright a work & still have it successsfully challenged by a legitimate coipyright holder of a previous work.

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by d: [b]Re the last cuople of posts that suggest you need not actually file for copyright---this is risky! As for my comment that the "C" Office doesn't review copyright to validate them, I meant that they don't compare them to other copyrighted works (as the Patent Office does with inventions). I thought that was clear the first time but I guess not. The point is that you may copyright a work & still have it successsfully challenged by a legitimate coipyright holder of a previous work.[/b][/quote]d, My apologies for misinterpreting the comments iside your earlier post. The last post I made was actually taken from the "C" Office relative to the importance of registration. And yes, I agree that one can have a registered copyright and still be successfully challenged by a legitimate copyright holder of previous works. It is necessary to hold a registered copyright in order to file a lawsuit; which is the whole reason for having a copyright in the first place. Brittanylips, [quote] Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. [/quote]According to text written in the above article taken directly from the Copyright Office web site relative to copyright registration; it is "necessary" to have a copyright registration prior to the filing of an infringement lawsuit when claiming ownership from within the United States. It does not say anything about recovering attorney fees; at least not in the way I interpret the above clause. [url=http://www.officialsoftware.com/portal/default-osw.asp]Official Software[/url] , the manufacturers of Official Copyright Software, is where one can register a copyright online up to the point of the final submission. Paula Kouletsis, CEO of Official Software, is working directly with the Copyright Office on the implementation of their CORDS program which is the beta testing of electronic filings of copyrights. Official Software is one of only two involved in the electronic filing process; the other is Harry Fox Agency and they limit their submissions to members of NMPA, from my understanding. The fees for Official Software are set at $90.00 per each, with price breaks for multiple filings. This price includes the copyright registration fee of $30.00. They also do Trademark filings. It's far less than hiring an attorney to do the process.

[MojoHaiku]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b] It does not say anything about recovering attorney fees; at least not in the way I interpret the above clause.[/b][/quote]How you interpret anything is irrelevant. Section 505 of the Copyright Act gives a court discretion to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs. Anifa, I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but if you don't know what the Copyright Act says to begin with, then it might be a good idea not to purport to give advice on the subject...

[george costanza]

[quote]Originally posted by MojoHaiku: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b] It does not say anything about recovering attorney fees; at least not in the way I interpret the above clause.[/b][/quote]How you interpret anything is irrelevant. Section 505 of the Copyright Act gives a court discretion to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs. Anifa, I'm sure you're well-intentioned, but if you don't know what the Copyright Act says to begin with, then it might be a good idea not to purport to give advice on the subject...[/b][/quote]I think the phrase "in the way I interpret it..." refers to Anifa's meaning that she's giving her view of what the law states, not that she's trying to sound as though it's up to her to interpret it. Lighten up, Mojo, the tone of your remark is a bit too snide. Anifa has demonstrated her experience on this subject before.

[Anifa]

Originally posted by George Costanza: [quote] I think the phrase "in the way I interpret it..." refers to Anifa's meaning that she's giving her view of what the law states, not that she's trying to sound as though it's up to her to interpret it. Lighten up, Mojo, the tone of your remark is a bit too snide. Anifa has demonstrated her experience on this subject before. [/quote]Thanks George. I've let some of these folks get me worked up and I've got caught up in impulse so that they have worked my words against me for entertainment. It's nice to see someone who appreciates and acknowledges the time I spend and the information I contribute to these boards. Hope "I" didn't get too snide in my last post... just retaliation...

[MojoHaiku]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]I think the phrase "in the way I interpret it..." refers to Anifa's meaning that she's giving her view of what the law states...[/b][/quote]Right. That’s exactly how I took it. And my point is simply this – whether or not attorneys’ fees are available in an infringement action brought under the Copyright Act is not a question of interpretation. The Act has a section explicitly addressing this point. So, whatever anyone’s “interpretation” of an informational statement from the Copyright Office may be, the Act itself is quite clear (thereby rendering any such interpretation irrelevant).

[george costanza]

& my point is that if you feel the need to offer a corrective opinion, being self-righteous is bad form. Just trying to promote a little frindliness on the board.

[MojoHaiku]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]& my point is that if you feel the need to offer a corrective opinion, being self-righteous is bad form. Just trying to promote a little frindliness on the board.[/b][/quote]Fair enough. One of the things to be truly valued about these boards is the sense of community that is engendered here, and I respect that. My apologies -- and specifically to you, Anifa -- for the tone of my original post. Looking back on it, I could have framed the whole thing in a more constructive fashion. Peace, Jim

[Brittanylips]

Holy moly! Anifa: I think you're fabulous, and don't mean to ruffle your feathers. Like many others, in another thread I disagreed with your opinion, and in this one, I simply responded to the original question. I'm not sure why you've pounced on me, and it makes it that much harder to offer a "corrective opinion" as George diplomatically phrased it. George -- I don't think MojoHaiku intended to be snide at all, but helpful. What would you do if you were aware that someone was posting bad medical advice while presenting herself as informed? ANIFA WRITES: "I was trying to emphasize the fact that it "IS" necessary to have a registered copyright to file a lawsuit whereas "B" was implying that one could file a lawsuit without a registered copyright" You are mistaken about my implication and about the facts: Since Canada is a non-U.S. Berne Convention nation, and big K is our token Canadian, he has no requirement to register a copyright prior to initiating a lawsuit. However, even if he were American, the technical requirement of registration as a precondition for action is easily met. However, the real issue is not registration as a precondition for action, but the benefits to big K or any one of us in registering our copyrights *prior to infringement* -- i.e. what should big K or any one of us do now. The simple answer is what I posted above, that after 1976, registration is not necessary, but provides potential benefits in court. More precisely, if you register your copyright BEFORE an infringement (assuming it's unpublished, or within the first three months of first publication and an infringement occurs within that period), the remedies of attorney's fees and statutory damages are available. If you register your copyright AFTER infringement (or after the first 3 months following publication) for the purpose of filing a suit, you can forget about recovering attorney's fees and statutory damages. And, as you may know, statutory damages are a good thing (as long as you're on the receiving end). However, since you need not register anything to obtain a copyright, recovering actual damages will always be available to you. A popular recording artist who hired me to do some arrangements for him a few years ago was successfully sued for stealing a song (his preoccupation with the lawsuit, btw, made it easier for me to do my work in peace). The court determined that he earned SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS! from the song, and was ordered to fork it over to the guy who sued him (with all due respect to another thread, I don't know too many sanitation engineers who pull in seven million bucks a year). Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. -Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[george costanza]

BritLips, I just thought the tone of the correction was a bit too sharp [I'mean if he wanted to safeguard against quasi-experts, why not shoot down that "mail yourself a letter" folkwisdom from Penguinsarebirrds?]; & I applaud the response of MojoHaikuing Jim :thu: . Alls well that ends chill. ;) One thing that really bugs me about the forums is the fact that, as valuable a resource they are, people act like this their personal talk show or something. Were you around when the new webmasters were coming on & everyone was shook up about "what if this forum disappears"? It's amazing how quickly everything reverted to irrelevancies &, in the case of some, personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. It's just my personal view but I also get tired of reading some of the looooong-winded comments that could be more concise (especially when quoting other posts)...[let's see, anything else buggin; me today? ;) ] I do agree with your point (that seemed missed by many---though not all---posters) that the question inherently had to do with Canadian law & that's not necessarily consistent with US law.

[Anifa]

You know, I'm really not too sure how everything got so bent here because when I made the replies that I did in relation to attorney fees; the comment was directed at the Copyright Registration clip posted earlier in the thread that was retrieved from the Copyright Office. I was NOT speaking about Section 505 of the Copyright Act. Had Mojo actually read the post following his, instead of ignoring it, he would realize where there was a misconception. There's a BIG difference between referring to a specific topic that was being discussed within a thread and taking into account the entire context written inside of a law. I'm not going to try defending myself anymore; those who know my credibility overall will continue to respect my input. Mojo, thanks for the apology; my apologies to all on the board as well.... including you BrittanyLips.

[george costanza]

Hope we've been helpful, BigK! ;)