BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Copyright Question

 
 
ibis the being
15:41 / 05.02.04
Please excuse the length of this question as I think I have to describe the issue in detail.

Recently I "worked" for a webzine created & run by some friends of mine. I was on the editorial staff and also a writer. We intended to become a "real" business at some point, but as of yet they still are not registered as any type of company (or LLC, Inc, LP, etc), have no business plan drafted, no legal documents of any kind.

The site uses pMachine software and one person is responsible for designing the site in the sense of content. He found it was easiest for him to simply include "copyright [name of zine], all rights reserved" in the template. But it was generally agreed, conversationally on staff, that that was only to protect our site from being ripped off and we didn't really care what the authors did with their content.

This month they're running a Best-Of issue. At the same time, a past contributor chose to submit one of his stories that we posted last spring to a major national magazine. Although he informed the magazine of its prior publication, he requested that we (the webzine) please remove the piece from the posted Best-Of issue just in case.

Now the staff is claiming exclusive rights to anything they have published in the past, and saying that while they'll take the story down to be nice, they don't feel the author has any rights. I'm extremely worried about this because I don't want them to have exclusive rights to things I've written for them in the past. They're griping "we're not just a blog," blah blah - but they're legally not a company either. They're just some folks with a website really.

I have absolutely no knowledge of copyright law, and now I see it was a bit foolish to get involved with something so totally lacking in written rules or guidelines but hindsight does me no good. My feeling on it (FWIW) is that if they're going to claim exclusive rights or intellectual property (?), shouldn't that have been stated in the beginning, in submission guidelines? At the very least, shouldn't they put it in now and allow old contributors a chance to pull out our work? And does their not being a registered company have any bearing? I just have a feeling something wrong is happening but have no factual information to defend my POV, so please help, if anyone can.
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:17 / 05.02.04
Copywrite law is a very sticky and confusing thing.

In the most technical sence "they" do own the copywrites to anything they "publish" with the statement "copywrite 2000(or whatever year)" etc...

Now most magazine's nust purchase the "rights" from an author and typicly do so as an outright "purchase" or as right for a single publication. In the case of the later, the publisher would have to regain the rights for a second publication.

As there was no formal contract (from what I understand) then it can be disputed weither they "purchased" all rights... or "single use" right.

Of course any "official" magazine would probably roll their collective eyes at the idea of some website trying to claim copywrites like you're discribing.

Multiple submission is also a rather common phonomenon in publishing with authors submitting the same article to various sources. In some cases 2 different magazine's will publish the same article. Who's got the copywrite then?
In the sence they both do but only in so much as the particular "layout/design" of those published pages.

Besides one can generally get around any copywrite with a 20% change to the content.

grant could probably go into greater detiail as well....
 
 
distractile
16:25 / 05.02.04
It depends slightly on where you are, but in the US and UK you automatically have copyright in anything you've authored - even if it's unpublished. You have to explicitly transfer it (and even then, it's usually a right of reuse, not the copyright itself) - just because someone's published it and slapped a copyright mark on it doesn't mean anything.

More generally, if there's no written documentation, then no-one can plausibly claim to have acquired the copyright from you. I'd say you're well within your rights to do whatever you want with your stuff, and to demand that they take down anything you want unless they can produce something proving their right to keep it.

The only substantive exception (I think) is if you had an employment contract, in which case your employer could argue that your products were works made for hire. But that doesn't sound like it really applies here if there was no legal entity, and would be hard to argue if you don't have an employment contract that makes your status clear. More information here.

Mr Tricks: In the most technical sence "they" do own the copywrites to anything they "publish" with the statement "copywrite 2000(or whatever year)" etc...

I'm pretty sure this isn't true, except insofar as they own the design or layout of the website in general.
 
 
ibis the being
16:45 / 05.02.04
Ah, thanks so much, already this is tremendously helpful and any more info is welcome. I believe they are going to consider me (and all existing "published" work) grandfathered out of whatever cockamamey policy they're about to come up with, but I'm still aggravated just on principle. I feel like I've become a part of some ridiculous GI Joe lesson on the hazards of webzine publishing. And remember kids, always secure the rights to your own work before handing it over to an online magazine!
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:48 / 05.02.04
Hmmm.. I've always understood copywrite protection to come into effect only after a created piece of work is displayed to the public with the date and the " © " symbol or the word copywrite. I've read of cases where someone claims to have written a song or a story which was "stolen" and Published/Produced by someone with the funds to publish/produce it. Often these claims go to the publisher/producer who presented it to the public at large.

However this site says:

  • What is a Copyright?
    Copyright is a protection that covers published and unpublished literary, scientific and artistic works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form. This means that if you can see it, hear it and/or touch it - it may be protected. If it is an essay, if it is a play, if it is a song, if it is a funky original dance move, if it is a photograph, HTML coding or a computer graphic that can be set on paper, recorded on tape or saved to a hard drive, it may be protected. Copyright laws grant the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the work publicly. Exclusive means only the creator of such work, not anybody who has access to it and decides to grab it.

    When does Copyright Protection begin, and what is required?
    Copyright protection begins when any of the above described work is actually created and fixed in a tangible form.

    For example, my brother is a musician and he lives in the United States. When he writes new lyrics, he prints them out on paper, signs his name at the bottom with the Copyright © symbol to show that he is the author, places it in an envelope and mails it to himself without opening it. His copyright begins at the moment he puts his idea in a tangible form by printing the lyrics out on paper. He creates proof when he mails it to himself - the postmark establishes the date of creation. He then registers his copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office which is a requirement in order to sue for monetary damages should a violation of his copyright arise. However, if somebody copies and redistributes his lyrics without permission before his copyright is registered, he still has the right to assert a copyright claim as the true author.
    The above applies to digital art and graphics. Open a gif, jpg or png file that you created and look at the properties. It states the date that you saved it to your hard drive as the date of creation. If somebody copies a graphic from your web site I assure you that the date of creation on your copy of the file is earlier than the copy taken off your web site. If that still doesn't feel like enough proof for you, save everything to a floppy disk and mail it to yourself via certified mail. Keep the envelope sealed, wrap it in protective plastic and put it in a safe place.


Not sure how effective the Mailing it to yourself really is though. But there you go...
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:55 / 05.02.04
The point of contention I suppose...

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright."

from the Copyright law link above . . .
 
 
distractile
19:22 / 05.02.04
Mr Tricks: I've always understood copywrite protection to come into effect only after a created piece of work is displayed to the public with the date and the " © " symbol or the word copywrite.

If I understand/recall correctly, that was true in the US before it joined the Berne Convention in 1989, but now the mark (and registration with the Copyright Office) just make it easier to back up a copyright claim. Even then, I doubt that it meant anyone could attach a copyright mark to any work and claim they owned the rights to it. But I'm not a lawyer, thankfully.

ibis: I feel like I've become a part of some ridiculous GI Joe lesson on the hazards of webzine publishing. And remember kids, always secure the rights to your own work before handing it over to an online magazine!

Not just webzines: I once worked for a large publishing company that employed someone whose sole job was to ring up contributors and "inform them" that their work was to be reprinted. The aim was to secure legal permission for the reuse without raising any suggestion that the authors could refuse or ask for further payment. They were also pretty hot on stopping contributors from making their own copies for personal or business use on the basis that it would contravene their copyrights in the design. And they made a small fortune that way.

I'm not really sure what I think about the fundamental basis of copyright any more, what with filesharing and the like, but I'm pretty solid that it should work for the author before it works for the publisher.
 
 
grant
02:55 / 08.02.04
Yeah, legally speaking copyright begins as soon as the physical form of the artwork comes into being - pen hits paper, or music hits tape.

Everything else is just *proof* of copyright.

The only way a magazine can own writing is if it was done by staff writers paid a salary and writing on company time. Their employment (even if not explicitly stated, I think) constitutes a contract that they produce for the company, not themselves.

And I've also heard (in film/screenwriting classes) that the certified mail trick doesn't really work as proof of copyright any more.
 
 
nedrichards is confused
13:55 / 09.02.04
The Creative Commons website is a useful quick education on the current state of copyright law, although it mostly deals with the US. Their 'Get Creative' 5 min flash movie is top not least for the voiceover which I find laugh out loud funny.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:02 / 09.02.04
I suggest you go and take a look at this and click on Licensing Electronic Rights. It's not entirely relevant but I suggest you read it in light of this sentence-

authors who sign a "non-exclusive licence" with a web site owner to upload their works onto the pages of a web site may find that, in reality, they have transferred all rights and interests in their work.

If you're concerned about copyright and specifically wrt signing documentation you should seek advice. Having said that in this case nothing has been signed and thus regardless of the copyright sign the work belongs to the author.
 
 
admiraladz
15:54 / 10.02.04
The problem here is whether you wish to continue being good friends with these people. If you do I suggest having a quiet word with them about what you 'understood' the verbal agreement to be... if not then read on ->

In the most technical sence "they" do own the copywrites to anything they "publish" with the statement "copywrite 2000(or whatever year)" etc...

however if they have not applied to you for the rights to display it then they cannot claim copyright (and this is where the no documents will work in your favour) because all you have to do is ask them for a copy of the contract you signed in which you grant them consent to exclusive/non-exclusive rights and to which medium it is copywritten web/print/audio etc if they don't have your permission (which has to be expressed NOT impled) then they cannot claim to own it.

You might want to think about copyrighting your own work in future. There's two ways - 1 print it out and put it on a CD then post it to yourself recorded delivery (to guarentee a date) then put it somewhere safe until the court appearance where you give it to the judge - proof that you authored the article BEFORE they printed their website, but remember it isn't actual copyright it's proof of ownership and intellectual copyright. Alternatively you can take out actual copyright, the cheapest of which is to stick it all on CDR and get a copyright lawyer to sanction it ... alternatively this guy will copyright a CDR for £35 http://www.divemusic.co.uk/copyright_services1.htm

-as an aside if you think you've got it bad, the contract for my job states VERY clearly that ANY idea I have for ANYTHING that could be of interest to my company BELONGS to them as part of my contract and they can sue me to take ownership of that copyright should I try to patent or copyright that idea while under employment - now that is taking it too far!
 
 
ibis the being
17:02 / 10.02.04
Well, thanks very much to all. The reason I asked here rather than just reading up on copyright law is because the circumstances are a little unusual, s.a. them not being a business, me not being a paid employee, etc. Though I've gotten a few conflicting answers (for example, I was under the same impression as grant that the mailing thing doesn't hold up), overall I think I get the picture.

I don't plan to work with these friends again. I did want to know the legal truth of the matter to settle some ongoing arguments mostly regarding contributors other than myself.
 
  
Add Your Reply