john

What is the difference in the US, Oz and UK regarding the definition of publication? In particular, why would it be considered publication on Soundcloud, but not on Songstuff? For example: is a poem posted on Songstuff considered published? Are lyrics? Is an instrumental? Is a full song? If they were paid downloads would that make a definition? Your comments back an forth have raised these questions for me (where I thought my understanding was good, the points you have raised Gary and David are interesting. Sorry to the OP for this deviation!)

Just to be clear Gary, this is the US definition of publishing only? Ie the definition in the UK and elsewhere hasn't changed since I last looked. My understanding is that in the US for it to be published money has to change hands between the end user and someone providing it to them... in this situation site visitors would need to pay Songstuff for the lyrics / song for it to be considered published in the USA. In most other jurisdictions money changing hands isn't a qualifying factor as far as I understand it. To further my understanding I am more than happy to be corrected. Additionally, if you can confirm, even in the USA, posting on Songstuff absolutely strengthens your claim of copyright by way of providing you an independent, verifiable, time stamped, copy of your lyrics and / or embedded songs. I didn't mean to appear defensive, my interest is in the facts as they affect Songstuffers and when waters get muddied for whatever reason my interest is in boiling it down to as simple and clear an explanation and agreement of understanding as possible to save confusion. That is the reason for my picking through things. Looking at this discussion like many visitors may do, I may only see all the worrying stuff. Not all the positive things, such as "there are a number of legally versed individuals interested in our well being making sure we are both well-served and well advised to post on Songstuff." Tom and Hobo took the attitude that there is no satisfactory answer because even after answering the questioner is still left with "someone can steal my work". It might come off as dismissive, but really the motivation is that the fear is there before and after the answer. The answer might possibly ease things in a small way in that there is a potential comeback, but really, it does little to ease that fear of posting your work. Indeed I would highlight again, we are all discussing this in detail precisely because we want everyone to be informed and because we have everyone' well being at heart. Regarding Tom's approach of mentioning ego and theft, the intention was to help people get over being crippled into inaction by an unhealthy fear that their work will be targeted because there is an belief that their work is so special. My guess s It was intended to make members who felt that way less protective and more comfortable by pointing out that Songstuff is full of talented people producing talented work, and in general musicians have better things to do than steal their song. Ie the point was not to attack people, it was to free them from inaction by showing another perspective. I can understand te point they were making, although I understand that point can be made in several ways.

First time I have seen that sheet from Oz. It more or less says what I think we already have and what is in our topics and articles on the topic, but it is a good summary sheet. If I remember correctly Canada also has a central copyright registration service... I could be wrong.

Good points all.

Hi Gary I am not a legal expert, far from but for artists puting their music on the web, at some point their music will be available within the United States and likely to be subject to the laws of the US at some point. In the US my understanding is that songs and other artistic works are required to be be registered with the US copyright office for the circumstance where you are ever in the position of having to defend your copyright in the US courts. In the UK you are quite right, no registration is necessary in order to provide proof of ownership of copyright. I was not suggesting that any other site has better time stamps, nor did I suggest that as a UK resident you should register with a UK copyright service. In fact I would say don't. As it happens the UK does not have a copyright service just like the USA. The US Copyright Registration Service is a government service. Any services based in the UK are not affiliated with the government, they are purely commercial in nature. By laying out the evidence chain of time stamps you are agreeing with me (check my many posts on the subject), by posting here you are strengthening your evidence of authorship, you are providing a verifiable timeline and achieving a burden of proof. Even in the UK registering with the US copyright service helps to establish that timeline with a degree of certainty that no tampering has occurred. That is why I say, no matter where you are, it is a wise idea to register your song at least in the US. Idealy you should do so in other jurisdictions too and follow what is required, jurisdictionally, if you are making your music available on sites hosted in those countries. For me this is about safety. I Get both Hobosage's point and to a degree Tom's in that regard. Copyright law is all about what happens when someone has stolen your work. It is nor preventative in nature. Safety wise, the larger the body of, and more authoritative the evidence of authorship and ownership, the better protected you are should you ever be unfortunate enough to have to go to court. So I recommend both. I would be pretty stupid and self centered if I ran a music site and thought that members posting here weakened their copyright claim or otherwise damaged them as a writer or artist. When it comes to legal fees for such legal proceedings membership iof local songwriter's societies, musician's unions etc usually provide some form or legal coverage for for members. Regarding the quoted $35, you can also submit collections of works. Have a look at their guidelines for this.

Welcome to Songstuff Dylan

As Hobosage says, the only way, no matter who you are, is to never share your music. That is not down to Songstuff, or the Internet. If you let someone hear it or read it, they can steal it. They can then try to pass it as theirs. You have better protection here than you do when you play your song at a local gig, but then there is a HUGE difference between someone passing something off as their own and their being no comebacks isn't there? I can hear a chart song, pass it off as my own. The comeback is as it always is, the threat of being sued and the threat of exposure

What is to stop you taking a song by any famous band and passing it off as your own here? Absolutely nothing. As soon as you put your music in the public arena, anywhere, including your local bar, anyone can take your song and pass it off as their own. Why don't they? Multiple reasons. The shame of being caught, because they would be. The threat of being sued, which is very real. It would likely be the end of their musical career. No one would trust them. Okay but is that likely with a song posted on Songstuff? Yes. We at Songstuff retain time stamped entries that would go towards constituting proof of authorship (based on who posted first is more likely the owner/author). That aside many authors have their work posted elsewhere too, which all goes towards a burden of proof. Stronger proof than Songstuff, and many writers on Songstuff do this, and we definitely recommend it, is to register your works with the US copyright registration service. I would recommend this no matter what country you are in. Why? Because it is the biggest jurisdiction on the Internet, and because it is still a respected organisation worldwide. So nothing can stop someone doing it, but protection comes in the form of proof of ownership, which for a large part comes down to who can show they had what, first.