The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
So anyone can claim my original content on Youtube?
Old 22nd May 2019
  #31
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yul View Post
Copyright for 50 ish dollars? Is this accurate?

https://aristake.com/?post=91
This page is super useful:

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

I believe it's up to $55 USD now, but you can register up to 10 tunes at once for the one fee.
Old 22nd May 2019
  #32
Gear Addict
 

Thanks so is the 55USD$ copyright in the US for a bundle of songs all I need to cover my a&& ? (On top of having all the session files and multiple publications online with date stamp? )

Last edited by Yul; 22nd May 2019 at 03:33 PM..
Old 22nd May 2019
  #33
FWIW all my tracks are distributed on YouTube only, as one take performances and mastered in post.

Here in the USA ... just by posting these original works as a "tangible form" on YouTube automatically guarantees enough copyrights to suit my purposes ymmv.

I have a jazz standard I am about to release which is more complicated, but YouTube automatically grants covers of it with ads (depends on the song).
Old 22nd May 2019
  #34
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yul View Post
Thanks so is the 55USD$ copyright in the US for a bundle of songs all I need to cover my a&& ? (On top of having all the session files and multiple publications online with date stamp? )
Yes, I‘d still get a youtube content-ID myself because no one else can even claim it then. Otherwise you‘d have to manage all infrigments yourself (which is probably expensive and wasted energy).
Make sure the first thing you do is registering your work before publishing it somewhere else.
Old 22nd May 2019
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood View Post
So, by definition, free music cannot be stolen... what are you even talking about? You’re made at the possibility of someone stealing music of yours that you’re planning on releasing for free... on the internet... on YouTube?
I agree the OP's use of the term "stolen" was perhaps misplaced. That said, I think it's worth noting that deciding not to charge any money for your music is a separate issue from protecting your copyright. Per the link someone else posted, as a copyright owner you have the following exclusive rights:
"You alone can create copies of your song, distribute it, make derivatives, display it, and perform the composition and sound recording. If someone else wants to do any of these things, they need to get permission from you, and, in most cases, provide some sort of payment."

So even if, for example, you don't charge for digital downloads of your music, you can certainly assert "all rights reserved" on your copyright and retain the right to control how those free songs are redistributed, used in other works (such as background music in a video), played in public, etc. In other words, you may make a song free to download for personal use, but as the copyright holder you may charge other content creators to, say, remix the song or use the song in a video.

For folks that want to put out music for free, I strongly recommend reading up on Creative Commons licensing, which provides a standard way for copyright owners to grant copyright permissions:
https://creativecommons.org/share-yo...onsiderations/

For example, although I have no illusions that anyone is going to listen to anything I put out anyway (), I release my music for free with the CC BY-NC-SA license, which allows the following:
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

In other words, if someone wants to (for example) do a remix of one of my songs, they are free to do so without my explicit permission as long as they credit me as the original creator and put out their remix for free with the CC BY-NC-SA license as well. If they want to do something commercial, such as sell a remix of one of my songs, that right is not granted in the license so they must get explicit permission from me, the copyright holder, to do so.

I don't expect anyone to ever want to do anything with any of my songs, but I've at least asserted what rights I retain on the very off chance that it ever comes up.
Old 22nd May 2019
  #36
Pip
Lives for gear
 
Pip's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljefe View Post
Just copyright your stuff before you release it. This is what it’s for.
Exactly it’s not expensive and well worth doing.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
There are a couple of things you should do before releasing your music anywhere. In the UK, copyright is granted automatically at point of creation, but...

From a legal protection POV you can do one of two things... You can either join the MU (Musicians Union) and register your work with them in case of copyright infringement. They will keep a physical copy of your work and will fight your case in terms of infringement. Or, you can send a physical copy of your work via sealed registered post to either yourself or a solicitor - and don’t open it. It will have more weight if it’s sent to a solicitor (sorry, lawyer).

In the US you can do similar things.

Most importantly, when you release your work include the line in the description:

”© & Ⓟ Your name/band name, year. All rights of the produced and of the owner of the work reproduced reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting of this recording prohibited.”

...along with a link to your track on your label’s website or streaming service so that you are making it clear that your work is reserved and not royalty-free and where the source of the music is derived from.

Putting a link to your track on iTunes, for example, will time-stamp your work for any future disputes.

As an aside... all this is moot because people will try it on regardless. However, if you have all these things in place you can reply to YouTube’s copyright notice with links to all this information in order to give them evidence in your favour. The more the better. Simply saying “it’s my track” is not enough.

Also... You should register your work with PRS (in the UK) in case it gets picked up and played somewhere - you’ll then earn royalties from it. You never know.

Best of luck.
The whole “post and don’t open” copyright thing has been debunked time and again btw....
Old 4 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
When you say “copyright” your work. What do you mean by that exactly? This is curious to me as in the UK copyright is implicit upon creation. It doesn’t need registration. Is this not how it works where you live?
The Berne convention states that the copyright in a creative work rests with the creator at the point of creation and that no form of registration is required for this. In fact, it is normally regarded as a breach of the convention if registration is required.

However...

When the US finally signed the Berne convention, the US Government managed to obtain some kind of derogation, such that the amount of damages and legal recourse available to creators is severely limited UNLESS the work is officially registered. So if you want to protect yourself to the full extent in the US, you need to register work there.

Of course, in either case, you do still need some form of proof that the work is yours. A pre-existing release on some other platform or some kind of voluntary registration through your local musicians union or performing rights organisation can help with this.

Sending yourself (or sending a solicitor/attorney) a sealed copy of something (sheet music or whatever) is known as “poor man’s copyright” and is, perhaps, the most common urban myth amongst musicians. It has no legal standing and is not accepted in court.

(I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve hung around with a lot of them during my life!)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Thank you for clearing up the US copyright question.

However...

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Sending yourself (or sending a solicitor/attorney) a sealed copy of something (sheet music or whatever) is known as “poor man’s copyright” and is, perhaps, the most common urban myth amongst musicians. It has no legal standing and is not accepted in court.
...is not the advice the MU give...

https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Ho...sing/Copyright

”The MU provides a CD onto which you can record whatever you want to protect — compositions, recordings, lyrics, artwork or data. You then seal the CD in the cover provided and post it to us.

You should also send a second copy to yourself by Special Delivery and keep a third copy for reference. We would advise you to do this as soon as possible after the creation of a new work.”


In fact, at a recent event about copyright the MU quite clearly stated that sending a copy to your solicitor or to them is absolutely admissible in court - at least in the UK.

If anything it’s a myth that it’s a myth.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 
mark1971's Avatar
 

Yes but we in the USA have the worst legal system. Why worry about a copy right? They will just take you!

They can take you off the streets, for 7+ days , without you doing anything. Somebody only needs to "claim" you did something up to 18 months ago. Then police can detain you about it. Investigate while your locked up. No charges filed. No warrants obtained.

They do not call your work, feed your pets, nobody knows nothing.

The first responder flat out lies and calls you out as a danger to yourself. It could be for something as little as rolling through a stop sign a year and a half ago. Perhaps you didnt notice , but somebody did, and claims it 18 months later.

Gone is the world.

DUI's have changed, you can get a DUI being intoxicated next to your parked vehicle. How's that driving?

The system can completely fold in on you and get hit with Eminent Domain. The law says they can take your house and everything in it.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Fay Smearing's Avatar
 

With regard to the specific platform, you'd probably want some means of quickly and simply providing evidence enough to satisfy YouTube in a dispute that it's your original content, whatever that may be, rather than thinking along the lines of protracted legal proceedings.

A good walkthrough of dealing with some YouTube scenarios -

https://youtu.be/qdjakuMaW_c?t=813
Old 4 weeks ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1971 View Post
Yes but we in the USA have the worst legal system. Why worry about a copy right? They will just take you!

They can take you off the streets, for 7+ days , without you doing anything. Somebody only needs to "claim" you did something up to 18 months ago. Then police can detain you about it. Investigate while your locked up. No charges filed. No warrants obtained.

They do not call your work, feed your pets, nobody knows nothing.

The first responder flat out lies and calls you out as a danger to yourself. It could be for something as little as rolling through a stop sign a year and a half ago. Perhaps you didnt notice , but somebody did, and claims it 18 months later.

Gone is the world.

DUI's have changed, you can get a DUI being intoxicated next to your parked vehicle. How's that driving?

The system can completely fold in on you and get hit with Eminent Domain. The law says they can take your house and everything in it.
Just sounds like you have a lot of bad luck.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #43
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
In America, you definitely have to copyright. Don't believe any of that hype about mailing crap to yourself, or you own the file, or you didn't own the newspaper. If you don't have a copyright, no one cares. The law and lawyers are a necessary evil. Either understand how the legal system works so you can protect yourself, or prepare to be made into mincemeat.

I copyrighted an album and I had a chick actually copyright my songs after I copyrighted them! (Which is IP theft, not copyright infringement, by the way). She then served me with a lawsuit in supreme court claiming she wrote the songs and I stole them from her and she was suing me for complete ownership of my songs along with money for damages! Mind you, this woman wasn't even a musician and couldn't write a single song.

I found out later, she just thought the songs had tremendous commercial potential and would propel her to stardom and so it was some kind of a messed up power move to seize my songs from me.

Of course this daffy chick didn't realize I copyright my songs when I'm done writing them, long before I even submit them to anything commercial.

It's true that anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. All it costs them is about $15, or so I'm told. I was served papers one morning by some guy who didn't even serve me! He shoved them in my neighbor's hand while my neighbor was taking out his trash, jumped in his car, and ran for his life. And don't think that bull**** about that you weren't served means anything. That means as much as mailing a song to yourself does. Because it was a supreme court case, I wasn't allowed to respond to the case - only a lawyer can. I called my entertainment attorney, sent him everything over, and he prepared a response.

Remember, that I still had the original copyrights to the song. In the end, the case was dismissed but it took 2 years and $17,000. And I got lucky with the expenses, that's on the cheap side. Of course the girl was willing to drop the entire case in exchange for the ownership of the songs. She didn't think I'd fight her, but I fought the crazy b!tch tooth and nail. In the end I won because I had the original copyrights. If you think mailing a song to yourself or some other crap would have carried any water in this situation, you're crazy. You need to be involved in a few lawsuits to understand how much, and how rock solid your evidence needs to be, and then some.

Think about it - two years, $17,000 and that was with me owning the original copyrights.

As far as the IP theft, yes she broke the law by doing that but since she hasn't done anything with the songs, there's no money to win so there's no point in even breeching that lawsuit. I'll win the lawsuit, but congrats, I won a lawyer bill. If she ever does anything with my songs that results in any revenue (READ: Even if she releases a free album claiming their hers, it's not worth pursuing because there's no money) then I can go after her, but unless it's a significant amount of money, it's pointless.

This is what a lot of people don't get who aren't in the music business professionally is that when you hear about someone suing another person over a song 5 years after the fact, people are like, "Why is he suing him now? Why didn't he do this when the song was released?" It's because there's NO MONEY. You need for there to be significant money involved before people are interested in a lawsuit of that nature.

For example, if Pharrell steals a song of mine and it becomes a hit, you can bet your ass I'm sitting back for 5 years and letting him do all the work - all the promotion, all the licensing, and let him build up a few tens of millions of royalties before I come out of nowhere and slap him with a lawsuit and get my money. I don't want to hit him right out of the gate and risk him pulling it off the shelves and not licensing it. I want him to do what he does and license the hell out of it to make maximum money before I come out and take it from him.

Anyway, it's just a cautionary tale - copyright your songs, anything less and you're fooling yourself. Either that or just give them away because at that point and don't be shocked if someone steals them and you have no recourse. Even when you have the copyright, it's a hell of a battle.

As for me, I think the chick was just nuts- I don't think this is a normal occurrence. Someone told me they bumped into her at a party a few months after the lawsuit and she was still carrying on, telling anyone who would listen that she was gonna be bigger than lady gaga and I took it all away from her. Crazy world, man.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
In America, you definitely have to copyright.
Thank you for that tale. Blimey, that’s bonkers. I’m glad I live in the UK!

It does raise an interesting point though... should people who like in the UK (and under different copyright laws) still register copyright in the US to help protect them over there? Are they even able to if they’re not a resident?

Old 4 weeks ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
Thank you for clearing up the US copyright question.

However...



...is not the advice the MU give...

https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Ho...sing/Copyright

”The MU provides a CD onto which you can record whatever you want to protect — compositions, recordings, lyrics, artwork or data. You then seal the CD in the cover provided and post it to us.

You should also send a second copy to yourself by Special Delivery and keep a third copy for reference. We would advise you to do this as soon as possible after the creation of a new work.”


In fact, at a recent event about copyright the MU quite clearly stated that sending a copy to your solicitor or to them is absolutely admissible in court - at least in the UK.

If anything it’s a myth that it’s a myth.
I think you’ll find the MU is being somewhat economical with the truth. Either that or they need to find a new IP advisor.

It has never been tested in any court, but any competent IP lawyer will tell you that it’s not a great idea to rely on this. Even the UK IPO office used to explicitly state that, while you can do this, it does not prove ownership or that you created the work in question. (I’ve had a quick look at their website this morning and it doesn’t seem to have anything on there relating to proof of ownership nowadays.)

While having an external body (such as the MU or a solicitor) hold a copy as some form of evidence might appear to be potentially useful, there are too many ways that it can be faked or subverted for it ever to stand. Any half-decent barrister could drive a horse and cart through it. You could take the view that it’s better than nothing, but in the real world, it pretty much isn’t. For it to be properly workable, you’d have to have a fully-tracked system such as police forces use to ensure chain of custody for evidence. And no postal or courier service gives you that, even if you assume that the sender and recipient are on the level.

You’d probably be much better off having an actual release somewhere (even if only on iTunes or whatever) if you wanted to have better evidence of your copyright in something.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #46
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
while you can do this, it does not prove ownership
Isn’t that the same problem with registering a copyright in the US though? Surely all it proves is that you were the first to register it.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
Isn’t that the same problem with registering a copyright in the US though? Surely all it proves is that you were the first to register it.
From a strictly practical point of view, you’re quite right. And, as I said earlier, you don’t actually have to register your work in the US to hold the copyright - you’re just limited in what you can claim for infringement if you don’t.

I’m not even sure how the US got this derogation in the first place, as the convention explicitly states that registration should not be a requirement. Although it’s easy to follow the argument that, strictly speaking, registration still isn’t required (as such). You can just claim a lot more against infringers if you do register. It’s also possible that, at the time of signing up, the US Government just said “Hey, it’s the way we do it. Like it or lump it guys.” (The 800lb gorilla in the room and all that.)

As for why it works (or whether it works any better than anywhere else) it’s an open question. You can perhaps reason that, being a statutory system (of a sort) it is perceived as having more legal clout than the arrangements elsewhere and those involved are more likely to play by the rules. But really, it’s probably just another one of those things that only keeps working as long as people believe in it. Sort of like fractional reserve banking.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
I think you’ll find the MU is being somewhat economical with the truth. Either that or they need to find a new IP advisor.

It has never been tested in any court, but any competent IP lawyer will tell you that it’s not a great idea to rely on this. Even the UK IPO office used to explicitly state that, while you can do this, it does not prove ownership or that you created the work in question. (I’ve had a quick look at their website this morning and it doesn’t seem to have anything on there relating to proof of ownership nowadays.)

While having an external body (such as the MU or a solicitor) hold a copy as some form of evidence might appear to be potentially useful, there are too many ways that it can be faked or subverted for it ever to stand. Any half-decent barrister could drive a horse and cart through it. You could take the view that it’s better than nothing, but in the real world, it pretty much isn’t. For it to be properly workable, you’d have to have a fully-tracked system such as police forces use to ensure chain of custody for evidence. And no postal or courier service gives you that, even if you assume that the sender and recipient are on the level.

You’d probably be much better off having an actual release somewhere (even if only on iTunes or whatever) if you wanted to have better evidence of your copyright in something.
In this day and age, a private soundcloud upload or something which is independently date stamped as to when it was uploaded must be infinitely better, right?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
In this day and age, a private soundcloud upload or something which is independently date stamped as to when it was uploaded must be infinitely better, right?
Very probably. A public release of some sort is probably even better. With that, you’re not just relying on one or two people saying “Yes, this is the work in question” but you have the organisation/company through which the release happened as a witness (so to speak) as well as the entire world (or, at least, those parts of the world who have seen it/heard it/bought it/downloaded it/whatever).

That almost certainly gives you a much stronger argument to say “Yes, I created this and released it at this time.” Of course, some lying little toerag could still come along and say “Ah, but it’s actually mine and I wrote it first!” but they’re now going to be the ones on a sticky wicket when it gets to court and someone says “Alright then - show us your proof or GTFO.”
Old 4 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
Thank you for that tale. Blimey, that’s bonkers. I’m glad I live in the UK!
It's all good. I rather like our copyright system. After you copyright a song, you get an official document in the mail with all the info you filled out and embossed with an official seal.

I like having a physical document in my hand that pretty much says that I created this song and I own it, with an official seal.

I keep them in a filing cabinet and if there's copyright problems, this document is what I show to my music attorney.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrianww View Post
Very probably. A public release of some sort is probably even better. With that, you’re not just relying on one or two people saying “Yes, this is the work in question” but you have the organisation/company through which the release happened as a witness (so to speak) as well as the entire world (or, at least, those parts of the world who have seen it/heard it/bought it/downloaded it/whatever).

That almost certainly gives you a much stronger argument to say “Yes, I created this and released it at this time.” Of course, some lying little toerag could still come along and say “Ah, but it’s actually mine and I wrote it first!” but they’re now going to be the ones on a sticky wicket when it gets to court and someone says “Alright then - show us your proof or GTFO.”
Well that’s all good provided you’re ready to release! Not always the case with writing songs
Old 4 weeks ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
It's all good. I rather like our copyright system. After you copyright a song, you get an official document in the mail with all the info you filled out and embossed with an official seal.
...yet it still cost you $17k to defend it. That doesn’t seem like it’s a very effective embossed piece of paper.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #53
Lives for gear
One of the issues here is that song names are not copyrightable. Many people can have songs of the same name yet its all unique and original material.
Despite the fact that you can't copyright a song name there are companies out there looking for breaches and claiming ownership based on nothing more than a song name.

I wrote and published to youtube an original song I called, Wisdom of Ages.
There is however an older published work called Wisdom of Ages and someone made an ownership claim against my original work.
The annoying thing to me was that no one bothered listening to my work to see if it was a breach or not. They just claimed it based on the name even though song names aren't copyrightable.

Yes I was annoyed yet I just challenged the claim with YouTube and declared that it was original material and the claim on my original song was dropped.
It was annoying that the onus was on me and not the claimant yet there is a process to defend your own material.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well that’s all good provided you’re ready to release! Not always the case with writing songs
True enough.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #55
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
...yet it still cost you $17k to defend it. That doesn’t seem like it’s a very effective embossed piece of paper.
Well, it did its job and protected me. Seems very effective to me.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Well, it did its job and protected me. Seems very effective to me.
You mentioned that “In the end, the case was dismissed but it took 2 years and $17,000”.

Two years!? It does rather question the effectiveness of that document, wouldn’t you say? I mean, why wasn’t it thrown out of court as soon as the document was submitted as evidence? It seems crazy that you had proof of copyright and yet it took that amount of time and money for the court to decide in your favour.

My point being, either that document isn’t the holy-grail of copyright protection or there’s more to that story because otherwise it just doesn’t add up. It certainly doesn’t bode well for copyright owners if that’s the norm with defending copyright in the US.

It’s certainly not how Judge Judy would have ruled.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #57
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by markodarko View Post
You mentioned that “In the end, the case was dismissed but it took 2 years and $17,000”.

Two years!? It does rather question the effectiveness of that document, wouldn’t you say? I mean, why wasn’t it thrown out of court as soon as the document was submitted as evidence? It seems crazy that you had proof of copyright and yet it took that amount of time and money for the court to decide in your favour.

My point being, either that document isn’t the holy-grail of copyright protection or there’s more to that story because otherwise it just doesn’t add up. It certainly doesn’t bode well for copyright owners if that’s the norm with defending copyright in the US.

It’s certainly not how Judge Judy would have ruled.

You can't base our entire copyright system off the cliffs notes of my entire case.

First, once my case enters the legal system, there's steps that have to be followed. This was not just some kind of judge judy small claims reality tv garbage. I was sued in Supreme Court which is no laughing matter.

I have to contact my entertainment attorney, then we have 3 weeks in which to prepare an answer to the case which means going through tons of documents, phone records, text records, anything to refute the points in her lawsuit. After the three weeks my lawyer is permitted to respond, and this isn't even towards the case, this was only to prove that we had a case. If the judge reviews our evidence and considers that we have a case against the accusation, then we're allowed to proceed.

This is where I think you're getting confused. You see, I was accused so the burden of proof is on me to prove that I'm innocent. If the situation is reversed, and I go after someone and I AM the copyright holder, it's easier for the judge to look at it and dismiss the case outright because the person I'm accusing doesn't have a copyright and has no basis to fight my accusation. But here I was ACCUSED so I have to show the judge that I have enough evidence to move forward and fight this accusation.

What follows is tons of hours preparing arguments, lots of appointments with the lower level court people in attempts to try to settle this before it gets serious, even more arguments, court appointments, etc. Lawyers from each side contacting each other trying to come up with deals, requests for extensions, etc.

I can only assume you've never been involved in any serious lawsuits judging by your very little understanding of how time consuming court cases can actually be. Of course you should be thankful for that.

This has nothing to do with our copyright system - in the end I was vindicated. The system worked as it was supposed to. What it sounds like you actually have a problem with is the speed and the expense of what it costs to be part of a court case. Of course that's something that can be argued and improved.

I tend to look on the bright side of things - it's good that it's easy to bring a case to a courtroom because when I have to go after someone who steals from me, I'm grateful that it's not that hard for me to go after them.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 
markodarko's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
You can't base our entire copyright system off the cliffs notes of my entire case. [snip]
Ah. Thank you for the clarification. And no, you’re right. I’ve never had to be in an American court and certainly not in a Supreme Court. It’s disappointing to know however that a copyright system that was setup by the US government to show proof of copyright isn’t more efficient than that.

Here’s how I think it should have played out (in my head):

Judge: “Does anyone have a copyright certificate for the works in question?”

Lawyers: “Yes, your honour. We both have one”

Judge: “Which one was filed first?”

Your Lawyer: “Ours, your honour. X months before the other party fraudulently filed theirs”

Judge: “I see. Well let’s not waste anymore of anyone’s time or money here. Case dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal fees.”

Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rack gear / Music Business
8
rack gear / Music Business
9

Forum Jump
Forum Jump