Copyright Office Needs More Employees

[Bill Hiatt]

I think the copyright office hasn't had a staffing increase to compensate for the increasing volume of applications created by indie publishers.

I decided that it would be prudent to register my old titles, just in case. I sent the first six applications in, intending to do another batch when those were done. I'd heard an estimate at the time that it might take as long as six months.

I got busy with other things and didn't really think much about the apps. The other day I realized it had been over a year. I logged in on the copyright office website, and all the cases were still listed as pending.

I emailed to point out they'd been pending for over and to ask if there was anything more I needed to do. I got a form response indicating I would hear back in five business days. One day later, I got an email indicating someone had been assigned to check, and it would take ten business days to hear back.

WTF! It seems as if this should be a simple inquiry. They have the paperwork. They have copies of the books in question. Why should it take ten business days to look at that and see what the holdup is?

[TimothyEllis]

To make it worse, didn't I see a court case where the Judge ruled only a fully registered book was of interest to the court? Or something?

[Post-Doctorate D]

I received the copyright certificate for my second book two months before receiving the certificate for my first book, and the first book was submitted eight months before the second book.  There was one I submitted in 2015 and received the registration certificate last year.  I submitted another one ten days prior and received its certificate nine months later.  So times are all over the place and don't happen in chronological order.  Also, it doesn't seem to make a difference whether they are submitted electronically or if you have to mail in a hard copy.

[Post-Doctorate D]

To make it worse, didn't I see a court case where the Judge ruled only a fully registered book was of interest to the court? Or something?

The ruling (U.S.) was that a work wasn't considered registered for the purposes of a copyright infringement lawsuit until the registration certificate was in-hand.

[Eric Thomson]

Ouch.  Y'all have a seriously broken system. I registered the first two novels I published with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office through their online portal last month, just to see how the process works.  The copyright certificates showed up in the mail the following week...

[okey dokey]

QUOTE:
" register my old titles"

Just a picky question:
Haven't you already put the old titles into public domain by letting them be marketed without copyright?

[Bill Hiatt]

There is a (much more expensive process) for fast registration in the event you need the certificate for court.

I wish I'd realized much sooner what the real situation was. The advice I was getting when I first started publishing was that you didn't need copyright registration to file an infringement suit, though you couldn't sue for punitive damages or recover court costs if you didn't have one. Maybe that was how things stood at the time. Only recently did I hear that you needed to be registered to sue for infringement at all.

Of course, most of us won't need to sue for infringement, but the registration is still nice to have. If, for example, Amazon questions your right to publish your own book, having the certificate is the easiest way to prove you do. In the age of weaponized DMCA takedown notices, this alone makes registration worth it.

I'm sure the system is broken as much as understaffed. If only a small fraction of self-published books are registered, that's still a considerable increase in the volume of work. Based on the growth in the number of books, the workload could easily be unmanageable if done by a staff of about the same size that existed prior to the rise of self-publishing.

[Bill Hiatt]

UOTE:
" register my old titles"

Just a picky question:
Haven't you already put the old titles into public domain by letting them be marketed without copyright?

Copyright protection is automatic. That's the way the law has been for some years. Registration gives you the ability to sue for infringement, but lack of registration doesn't put the books in the public domain.

[Post-Doctorate D]

As Bill Hiatt said, copyright is secured upon creation of the work.  Registration provides additional benefits, such as allowing you to sue for statutory damages, attorneys' fees and the cost of the lawsuit itself plus any actual damages.

But now with that judge's ruling, presumably copyright owners who have not yet received their certificates either have to bear the legal costs and miss out on statutory damages or wait until they receive their certificates while the infringement possibly continues and damages potentially increase.

That's kind of why the copyright office really needs to get on the ball on this.  Being understaffed may be an issue, but then whoever is in charge of their budgets (Congress?) needs to increase staff.  Or they need to be better organized.  To me, the way the registration times wildly vary suggests organizational problems rather than just simple understaffing.

[123mlh]

QUOTE:
" register my old titles"

Just a picky question:
Haven't you already put the old titles into public domain by letting them be marketed without copyright?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Copyright protection attaches the minute an author writes a work. There is no need to register a copyright for that copyright to apply to a work. Registering a copyright gives you more of an ability to sue for damages.

[bardsandsages]

Contrary to popular opinion, most government agencies are severely understaffed. OSHA, FAA, FDA, Copyright Office, IRS. Pretty much assume they do not have enough people to actually perform their mandated task. And this is by design thanks to the "small government" folks who only think about their corporate cronies and don't understand how us normal people might actually NEED some of these agencies to function so we can get stuff done. Meanwhile, we'll just keep passing more redundant laws that we don't have enough people to enforce anyway just so our "representatives" can go on Twitter and talk about all the work they do.

 

Onto other subjects...

From Copyright.gov

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

As per the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory, registration is NOT required for copyright protection. A work does not go into the public domain simply because you publish it without formal registration. I can upload my own book to a pirate site and allow it to be distributed for free and I would STILL have my copyright to the work.

Registration allows you to sue for damages and legal fees. Even without registration, you can still file a take-down notice to have an unauthorized work removed from a site or sue to have an unauthorized version of your work taken out of distribution. The only difference between registration and non-registration is whether or not you can also collect damages and legal fees.

[LilyBLily]

My average is eight months from date of filing to date of receipt.

Once, I got an email from a copyright office employee on a Sunday. Even after I answered his email and did what he asked--sending copies of my print edition because I foolishly published it first, something indies are advised to do to encourage early reviewing (which did not work)--even after our email exchange and mailing the copies, I didn't get my copyright until over a year had passed since I'd applied.

[Bill Hiatt]

My average is eight months from date of filing to date of receipt.

Once, I got an email from a copyright office employee on a Sunday. Even after I answered his email and did what he asked--sending copies of my print edition because I foolishly published it first, something indies are advised to do to encourage early reviewing (which did not work)--even after our email exchange and mailing the copies, I didn't get my copyright until over a year had passed since I'd applied.

In my case, I started out with print copies, and it's still been over a year.

The advice about print copies varies, depending upon whom you ask. Originally, I was told that if you had a print edition, the copyright office wanted the print edition. Later, I was told that the copyright office doesn't care what kind of edition it gets. It's the Library of Congress that demands print if print exists, and it may or may not ask. Some of the info on the site suggests that this is true, but it isn't clear. There is a lot of verbiage about a print edition if one is required, with no explanation about when one is required and when it is not.

To further complicate matters, I once got an email from the copyright office but using a library of congress domain. 

[Lysmata Debelius]

For any non USA  people reading this, put a silent "in the USA" in each of the above posts. Your country's laws are probably different.

I say this because I have seen people from other countries get very confused about this topic as most articles about whether you need to register copyright  are written about the USA situation but leave out that fact, assuming that all their readers are from the USA

[guest1291]

Honest question...open to having my mind changed on this...

If ideas are a dime a dozen and story possibilities for each of us are endless, then doesn't registering for a copyright equate to overvaluing one's content?

[Lysmata Debelius]

Honest question...open to having my mind changed on this...

If ideas are a dime a dozen and story possibilities for each of us are endless, then doesn't registering for a copyright equate to overvaluing one's content?

You don't copyright the idea, but the expression of the idea.
In other words, you copyright the story, the piece of music, the artwork, not the idea communicated by that work. It's called "copy" right because you claim the right to reproduce (copy) the physical expression of the idea.
We are claiming the right to profit from our own work, and stop other people from profiting from it without our permission.  How it that over valuing?

We live in a world that pays lip service to creative work, but denigrates creative workers. If we work despite the fact that we don't make money, we are called self indulgent navel gazers. If we do make money from our work, or try to, we are sell-outs, whores, or "too commercial".

Many of us have internalised this attitude.  Fight that. Creative work is work. Having ideas and turning them into stories is a marvelous thing to do, whether or not you get money, respect, or status from it. It makes life a little bit more worthwhile. Valuing yourself or your work is normal and rational.

[guest1291]

Honest question...open to having my mind changed on this...

If ideas are a dime a dozen and story possibilities for each of us are endless, then doesn't registering for a copyright equate to overvaluing one's content?

You don't copyright the idea, but the expression of the idea.
In other words, you copyright the story, the piece of music, the artwork, not the idea communicated by that work. It's called "copy" right because you claim the right to reproduce (copy) the physical expression of the idea.
We are claiming the right to profit from our own work, and stop other people from profiting from it without our permission.  How it that over valuing?

We live in a world that pays lip service to creative work, but denigrates creative workers. If we work despite the fact that we don't make money, we are called self indulgent navel gazers. If we do make money from our work, or try to, we are sell-outs, whores, or "too commercial".

Many of us have internalised this attitude.  Fight that. Creative work is work. Having ideas and turning them into stories is a marvelous thing to do, whether or not you get money, respect, or status from it. It makes life a little bit more worthwhile. Valuing yourself or your work is normal and rational.

I agree creative work is work. After coming up with a premise, the act of writing the story itself is in fact hard work more often than not. No dispute there.

By over-valuing, I mean if any one of us creatives could brainstorm many great story ideas in a relatively short period of time - and I believe we all can and wouldn't consider that aspect "hard" per se - and given we're all writers and so turning those ideas into a story is par for the course and an inevitability of the process regardless of the sometimes onerous nature of that butt-in-chair time, then doesn't that mean stories are always going to be around us and part of us and therefore we're always going to be flush with content or at least have the potential to be flush with content should we choose to keep said butt in said chair?

If so, doesn't it seem a bit precious to lean on any one given story property or piece of content and cautiously guard it when it's so easily joined in our canon by whatever other myriad of irons we have in the fire?

[LilyBLily]

<snip>

I agree creative work is work. After coming up with a premise, the act of writing the story itself is in fact hard work more often than not. No dispute there.

By over-valuing, I mean if any one of us creatives could brainstorm many great story ideas in a relatively short period of time - and I believe we all can and wouldn't consider that aspect "hard" per se - and given we're all writers and so turning those ideas into a story is par for the course and an inevitability of the process regardless of the sometimes onerous nature of that butt-in-chair time, then doesn't that mean stories are always going to be around us and part of us and therefore we're always going to be flush with content or at least have the potential to be flush with content should we choose to keep said butt in said chair?

If so, doesn't it seem a bit precious to lean on any one given story property or piece of content and cautiously guard it when it's so easily joined in our canon by whatever other myriad of irons we have in the fire?

I've seen people blossom young and fade early. For the young and confident who toss off stories for hire and think they'll always have new ideas, the hard truth is that life can be full of troubles and your ideas may dry up, so why give them away, or give them away for peanuts? Guard them. You may actually only have one brilliant idea in your entire life, regardless of what you think you have or will have. And you won't know beforehand which it is, so copyrighting everything and owning all rights to everything is the smartest way to go.

Things happen to people, and then they can't write anymore, or they can't write for months or years. All those great story ideas may never get written, and so all that is left are the ones that did get written. Guard them.

As for the writing itself, some people master a set style and don't vary from it, book to book. Others change styles and develop styles, and their life experiences infect what they write and how they write. The book is part of them, not some cute idea lightly tossed off.

Regardless of attitudes, what I have written is mine, and no one else's. Copyright is my first line of defense against theft.

[Bill Hiatt]

Honest question...open to having my mind changed on this...

If ideas are a dime a dozen and story possibilities for each of us are endless, then doesn't registering for a copyright equate to overvaluing one's content?

You don't copyright the idea, but the expression of the idea.
In other words, you copyright the story, the piece of music, the artwork, not the idea communicated by that work. It's called "copy" right because you claim the right to reproduce (copy) the physical expression of the idea.
We are claiming the right to profit from our own work, and stop other people from profiting from it without our permission.  How it that over valuing?

We live in a world that pays lip service to creative work, but denigrates creative workers. If we work despite the fact that we don't make money, we are called self indulgent navel gazers. If we do make money from our work, or try to, we are sell-outs, whores, or "too commercial".

Many of us have internalised this attitude.  Fight that. Creative work is work. Having ideas and turning them into stories is a marvelous thing to do, whether or not you get money, respect, or status from it. It makes life a little bit more worthwhile. Valuing yourself or your work is normal and rational.

I agree creative work is work. After coming up with a premise, the act of writing the story itself is in fact hard work more often than not. No dispute there.

By over-valuing, I mean if any one of us creatives could brainstorm many great story ideas in a relatively short period of time - and I believe we all can and wouldn't consider that aspect "hard" per se - and given we're all writers and so turning those ideas into a story is par for the course and an inevitability of the process regardless of the sometimes onerous nature of that butt-in-chair time, then doesn't that mean stories are always going to be around us and part of us and therefore we're always going to be flush with content or at least have the potential to be flush with content should we choose to keep said butt in said chair?

If so, doesn't it seem a bit precious to lean on any one given story property or piece of content and cautiously guard it when it's so easily joined in our canon by whatever other myriad of irons we have in the fire?

The fact that there are an infinite number of possible ideas does not mean it's easy to come up with them. There are many bad books and movies out there where part of the failure is clearly at the idea stage.

Without copyright, there would quickly be no professional writers, just hobbyists. There's enough competition out there without having to compete with one's own work, possibly in multiple different editions.

[Bill Hiatt]

For any non USA  people reading this, put a silent "in the USA" in each of the above posts. Your country's laws are probably different.

I say this because I have seen people from other countries get very confused about this topic as most articles about whether you need to register copyright  are written about the USA situation but leave out that fact, assuming that all their readers are from the USA

That's a very good point.

Here's an article that discusses international copyright issues in more detail. https://www.rightsdirect.com/international-copyright-basics/ It outlines principles of the Berne Convention and more recent treaties. Each country has its own copyright law, but signatories also agree to uphold certain principles with regard to foreign works and to acknowledge the copyrights granted by other countries. Without this kind of system, we'd not only have to register, but register in each country. Berne (ratified by almost 180 countries) supports the idea that copyright protection begins at the point the work is created, not at the point at which it is registered.

[Hopscotch]

We live in a world that pays lip service to creative work, but denigrates creative workers. If we work despite the fact that we don't make money, we are called self indulgent navel gazers. If we do make money from our work, or try to, we are sell-outs, whores, or "too commercial".

Because I want to make millions from my writing but haven't, the world considers me a whorish navel-gazer?  At least that's something to put on the business card.

[123mlh]

If so, doesn't it seem a bit precious to lean on any one given story property or piece of content and cautiously guard it when it's so easily joined in our canon by whatever other myriad of irons we have in the fire?

Like, say Harry Potter? Or Game of Thrones?

Those aren't the only content either of those writers wrote, but they're the bulk of their lifetime writing income.

Ideas are cheap and easy. Expressing those ideas in a way that resonates with a large audience takes an incredible amount of skill. It's that expression that copyright covers.