If I had a character/picture uniquely my own, what would I have to go through to copyright it? How much does it cost, or, does it cost? I would like a watered-down, somewhat easy to understand explanation, mainly because I’m too dumb today to understand anything otherwise… :smack:
If my understanding of US law is correct, your piece of original work is under copyright from the moment that you create it. There is nothing that you have to do in order to assert copyright in your work.
BUT…
Again, if my understanding of the statute is correct, in order for you to pursue any action against someone who you believe has infringed your coypright, the copyrighted work needs to be registered.
The text of the relevant section of the U.S. Code says:
I believe that there is a fee for registration.
If i’ve misinterpreted this statute, i’m sure someone will correct me.
Could you elaborate? What is this character - someone in a story you wrote? Is the picture a photograh you took or a painting you drew?
Eh, several pictures, actually, and a character in a story I’m writing. Since I’m not finished with said story, there is probably no copyright in effect.
You get copyright in works of art, literature and music, but not in characters. Even if your story isn’t complete, you probably have copyright in what you have written so far – unpublished works are copyright.
Other intellectual property, such as trade mark law, may apply to characters, but trade marks must be published, and it helps if they are registered.
You can’t copyright a character. Disney does not own a copyright on Mickey Mouse, for instance. What they do have is a trademark on Mickey. What this means is that Mickey Mouse is one of the things which identifies a thing as being Disney. So if, for instance, I give away copies of Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse’s first movie), I am not violating Disney’s trademark on Mickey, because Steamboat Willie is, in fact, a Disney product. I am, however, violating their copyright on the complete creative work. On the other hand, suppose I draw a picture of Mickey Mouse enjoying a bottle of Chronos Cola. Now, I’m not violating Disney’s copyrights: The picture I drew is my own creation, so I own the copyright on it. But I am violating Disney’s trademark, since I’m using one of their trademarks (namely, the Mouse’s likeness) for my own commercial benefit.
There are other differences, as well. Copyright is automatic, and automatically expires after some number of years. Nothing you can do, short of getting the laws changed, will cause a copyright to last any longer than it does. Trademarks, you have to apply for, and they last for as long as you defend them. If I did make an advertisement showing Mickey drinking Chronos Cola, I would very quickly get an angry letter from Disney’s lawyers. This is Disney defending their trademark. If they stopped sending people those angry letters, they would be abandoning the trademark, after which they would no longer have any particular rights to Mickey’s image.
Most notably, this happened to the Bayer drug company earlier this century: Bayer originally had a trademark on the word “Aspirin”. But when other drug companies started making salicylic acid and calling it “aspirin”, Bayer didn’t complain. As a result, anybody can now legally call their salicylic acid “aspirin”, and Bayer can’t stop folks, even if they wanted to.
On the other hand, there’s no upper limit on how long a trademark can last. If Disney’s lawyers keep defending Mickey Mouse for the next ten thousand years, Disney will keep the trademark for ten thousand years.
So, to summarize: In a few decades, the copyright will expire on Steamboat Willie. When that happens, I’ll be able to make copies of the movie, and give them away or sell them, to my heart’s content. But assuming that Disney’s lawyers are still defending the Mickey trademark (as they almost certainly will be), I will not be allowed to make a new movie of my own with Mickey in it. On the other hand, in the (highly unlikely) event that Disney stopped defending the trademark before the movie entered the public domain, I could then make a Mickey movie of my own, but I could not make copies of existing Mickey movies. Currently, the trademark and the copyright are both still good, so I can’t do either.
And here comes the correction. 
Any infringement of your copyright is punishable. However, if you have not registered your copyright you are limited to recovery of "the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer… " These are usually small and hard to prove.
What registration gets you are statutory damages. “A copyright owner may elect to recover statutory damages at any time prior to final judgment; such damages can range anywhere from as little as $200 for innocent infringements to $150,000 for willful infringements.”
The problem is that registration is currently $30 per item. Here’s the page at the Copyright Office’s website. This other page gives all the basic information about registering.
Now the reality. Nobody wants your stuff. Nobody. That may be harsh and painful to hear, but it’s the truth. There is not the slightest need to register a copyright until and unless you are successful enough for somebody to want to steal from you. In addition, the amount of damages you would be eligible to would be far less than the amount you pay in fees.
Your words are copyrighted as soon as you write them. That’s really all you need to worry about.
Thanks for the info! And now for more questions which may or may not belong in this thread, but I don’t want to clutter the archives with a new one: What are the differences between copyrighting, trademarks, and registering? Are registering and copyrighting the same thing, and if so, why are different marks used on things?
Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t read closely enough to differentiate between actual and statutory damages.
But now i have another question, or perhaps an observation. You say:
This is certainly true in the vast majority of cases. But what gets me is this section from Title 17:
This means that, in the unlikely event that i produce some copyrighted work (which i don’t register) that gains sudden and unexpected success six months after its first publication, i can’t then register it and claim statutory damages from people who have used it in the period before registration.
It seems to me that the rules regarding registration, and especially the fees associated with the process, are designed to (a) raise revenue for the government, and (b) make defending copyright much easier for the wealthy and large corporations than for the average American.
clutter, From the “What is a mark?” link on a wonderful site called All about trademarks
Google is a trademarked brand name, for example. So is Disney and all the variations on the name, including Disney World and Disneyland, and so are all its characters, movie titles, television show names, etc.
You don’t normally trademark a story. You can trademark a character and its representations if you think it could become valuable, but that is something that would be incredibly rare for an author who is not a corporation. Many authors are these days, however.
Registration is a process, not a thing. You can register a copyright or a trademark with the appropriate government office.
Since the government gives you three months to get that registration in - even after an infringement has taken place - I don’t see what you base this comment on.
As I said, 99.999999% of all work ever published will never need registration. I’m an author by profession and I’ve never registered a work. You and I and clutter will never need to. But the works that do need registration can get registered for a mere $30, a fantastic bargain.
Only the infringers need to worry about registration and I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
It does?
That’s not my reading of the statute, which says:
As far as i can tell, that means you can only make a retrospective appeal for statutory damages if you register your copyright within three months of the first publication of the copyrighted work, not within three months of the first breach of copyright.
If i’m reading it wrong, then they need to do a better job of writing their laws.
Well, that might be a fantastic bargain depending on the process of registration.
Sure, for a book or work of art or some other rather substantial piece, it’s pretty good value. But say, for example, that i’m a professional photographer with a website, and want to protect my copyright by registering my work. Is it necessary to pay $30 for each individual image? Or can i register the whole website? Or groups of images? And if i can register a group, does the registration only apply to the group intact, or to each individual image in the group?
But see this more recent regulation from the Copyright Office:
Not registering is like not buying insurance: you’re taking a risk that you won’t need to use it. If the risk bothers you then by all means register. But like insurance, you can’t wait until after the damage to take out the policy. How can you blame the government for not allowing you to do that?
I would certainly encourage any serious photographer to register copyright on their works as part of their business. Copyright infringement of images is pretty rampant, and I know one photographer who’s paid for the downpayment of his house by winning a copyright case.
I’ve had my own work infringed several times and, since I had not had my copyright registered, did not have the leverage to do anything more than get paid fair market value for the illegal reproduction of my work. Live and learn.
That’s a pretty poor analogy. Insurance is something paid out by the insurance company, which takes on the responsibilty for paying as part of a contract.
If someone wins statutory damages for copyright infringement, it’s not the government who pays out, it’s the infringer. Why should you have to pay for the privilege of enforcing something that the government has enacted into law in the first place? The copyright legislation is clear that copyright exists in such works, and yet forces people to register in order to make a claim for statutory damages.
Sure, as you’ve pointed out, registration is not required in order to claim actual damages. But if there is enough evidence to support a claim of actual damages, surely the existence of such evidence is not affected either way by a rather arbitrary process of registration. Why should statutory damages be contingent on registration? Did the government give any reason for making this seemingly arbitrary demarcation?
I used to think that, too. One of my magazine articles got quite a bit of discussion some years ago. A few months ago, on a whim, I did a Google search for an unusual combination of words I used in the article, and I’ve found my article on three different unauthorized Web sites. I’ve been neither credited nor paid, and I charge for reprints! All three Web sites are located outside the United States, and all three Webmasters have ignored my emails demanding that they either take it down or pay me.
I’ve had articles stolen two other times that I’m aware of. In both of those cases, I came to an agreement with the offending companies (one Canadian and one U.S.) fairly quickly.
You may think you don’t need to defend copyrights, Exapno, but this kind of theft is more common than you might think.
Much of the above discussion is only valid for U.S. citizens. For other nationals, The Berne Convention covers issues about copyright.
Part of the point of registration is making a public notice that you are claiming copyright on your creation. And that’s why after registration, you can claim the larger statutatory damages against an infringer. Because it was registered, they knew (or should have known) that this was copyrighted by you, yet they infringed anyway.
If it isn’t registered, they would have no specific way to know that they were infinging on your copyright; they might have done so unintentionally. So you can only recover actual damages, not any punative-type statutory damages.
Sort of being fair to both sides. If you think your creation is worth it, register your copyright so everybody knows about it, and you can collect more if someone infringes your copyright. You decide if it’s worth the $30 to you.
So what good would registering your copyrights do you?
I wasn’t making the claim that nobody steals. I was saying that the cost-benefit analysis of registering your copyrights doesn’t work unless you already have a lawyer on retainer.