Copyright Conundrum!

[Browniepoints]

Hi. I've not submitted to the Lit site in quite a while as I've been working on some other things. But I have a couple of rather serious questions about work that I have submitted to the site. It's not like I've submitted a lot; however, when I submitted it, I was a stupid newbie writer.

I didn't copyright my work. Now a friend of mine says that I need to see if I still own the rights to what I have put online because the stories are actually part of series of stories that he says may be publishable either in 'book form' or on a 'for profit eBook site'. Of course, if I could do it through Literotica, I would...heck, I'll be honest, I'm just looking for a profit here!

And now the other question...IF I can submit my work through Literotica (after I get the stuff copyrighted, hopefully) is there any way that I can edit the work because when I reread the chapters...I found errors that most people wouldn't think twice about but they made me cringe. (Although there was one mistake that is sort of major...it's a last name...I guess that's what happens when you make a change LATER in a story without remembering it was mentioned earlier!

Any advice would be great. Thank you all so very much.

Most coridally,
Browniepoints

 

[Trickie_Dickie]

Would it not be easier to delete the stories?

 

[KRCummings]

I guess it was too hard to read terms and conditions on submissions.

 

[bronzeage]

Resubmit the story, corrected, with the same title and put "EDIT" in the title window. You can explain more in the Notes window.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Browniepoints

Don't worry, you have - and always will have - exclusive copyright to anything you post on lit. Just look at that little © by your name on your stories. You are totally free to remove anything from the site or edit it at any time.

There are often scams when disreputable sites steal authors' work from lit but the site owners (Laurel and Manu) are like attack dogs in defending the interests (and rights) of writers on the site.

Anything you publish here remains exclusively your property and is yours to leave or remove. Read the submission guidelines.

 

[Guest]

Part of the agreement with Lit is that you retain the copyright to the stories that you submit.

 

[sr71plt]

As noted, your work is copyrighted as soon as you write it under current copyright law--however because current copyright law didn't close a loophole, your work is not copyright PROTECTED until/unless you file for and obtain formal copyright on it. (Meaning you can't actually take anyone to court over ownership unless/until someone holds a formal copyright document). (By the way, the latest copyright law also go rid of any effect that © symbol has--so putting it on a story here or anywhere else is meaningless).

On editing stories here, that's explained in the site FACs and directions were given by another poster up the line.

And once you've posted a story here, it's been published--most publishers contemplating paying you for the story will want to know that--and this will affect their interest in paying you for rights to republish it elsewhere.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

As noted, your work is copyrighted as soon as you write it under current copyright law--however because current copyright law didn't close a loophole, your work is not copyright PROTECTED until/unless you file for and obtain formal copyright on it. (Meaning you can't actually take anyone to court over ownership unless/until someone holds a formal copyright document). (By the way, the latest copyright law also go rid of any effect that © symbol has--so putting it on a story here or anywhere else is meaningless).

On editing stories here, that's explained in the site FACs and directions were given by another poster up the line.

And once you've posted a story here, it's been published--most publishers contemplating paying you for the story will want to know that--and this will affect their interest in paying you for rights to republish it elsewhere.

I think you are a bit too depressing. Copyright exists de facto and de jure by being able to show you published work before anyone else. Different from the claim of plagiarism, but perfectly valid. Filing for formal copyright is probably OTT for a free story site. The fees aren't worth the candle and you still retain your proprietary rghts.

The point about devaluing your work by publishing elsewhere is valid but nothing to do with copyright.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

And once you've posted a story here, it's been published--most publishers contemplating paying you for the story will want to know that--and this will affect their interest in paying you for rights to republish it elsewhere.

Some, but not all. Many of the authors here on Lit have successfully pulled their stories from Lit and placed them with epublishers elsewhere and are currently cashing royalty checks. Some epublishers (like eXcessica ) don't even require you remove them from Lit.

 

[sr71plt]

Some, but not all. Many of the authors here on Lit have successfully pulled their stories from Lit and placed them with epublishers elsewhere and are currently cashing royalty checks. Some epublishers (like eXcessica ) don't even require you remove them from Lit.

As if you didn't know I knew that.

Gotta watch the wording. I said they took that into account--I didn't say that meant all of them lost interest.

 

[sr71plt]

I think you are a bit too depressing. Copyright exists de facto and de jure by being able to show you published work before anyone else. Different from the claim of plagiarism, but perfectly valid. Filing for formal copyright is probably OTT for a free story site. The fees aren't worth the candle and you still retain your proprietary rghts.

I'm not being anything but informative of reality. If you want to decide to ignore reality so as not to be depressed, that would be your cross to bear when reality sets in. The only thing of importance about copyright is protection. Protection only comes if you formally register your work--because a court case would only be set if one of the parties produced a formal copyright document. How is that not helpful to know? Play with blinders on all you like. Spin those wheels, if you like.

QUOTE=elfin_odalisque;29816604]The point about devaluing your work by publishing elsewhere is valid but nothing to do with copyright.[/QUOTE]

Umm, so? The question I responded to in that regard is posed right there in her paragraph two.

 

[deathlynx]

You're misreading a loophole in that law sr71...I'm assuming you're referring to the rules that were recently proposed (again) for the unknown artist clause in the copyright law...If a publishing company uses an artist's work, under the proposal (which hasn't been passed and is merely under review) they have to prove they went to a fair and reasonable attempt to ascertain the identity of the original artist or copyright holder in the event they are brought to lawsuit...An example is even given in the senate subcomittee hearing where a work of art is published on an online site and used, they specifically stated that it would be obvious the company hadn't done enough to find the owner...

In other words, even under the proposals, having something published here (or some place like Deviantart) actually helps your copyright case as you can prove exactly when and where you published it previously...this,in turn proves you had a connection to it long before anyone else could have...

Edit: In order to maintain international copyright law, the US government cannot force artists to register every piece of work to keep up copyrights on them...if they tried to do that they would be in violation of international law...That's one reason (along with the strong opposition by artists of all genres) that the proposal keeps coming up and getting shot down...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

As if you didn't know I knew that.

Gotta watch the wording. I said they took that into account--I didn't say that meant all of them lost interest.

Oh I knew you knew that... I just wanted to make sure he knew that! And ya know, like I could resist a plug for eXcessica, right?

 

[sr71plt]

You're misreading a loophole in that law sr71...I'm assuming you're referring to the rules that were recently proposed (again) for the unknown artist clause in the copyright law...If a publishing company uses an artist's work, under the proposal (which hasn't been passed and is merely under review) they have to prove they went to a fair and reasonable attempt to ascertain the identity of the original artist or copyright holder in the event they are brought to lawsuit...An example is even given in the senate subcomittee hearing where a work of art is published on an online site and used, they specifically stated that it would be obvious the company hadn't done enough to find the owner...

In other words, even under the proposals, having something published here (or some place like Deviantart) actually helps your copyright case as you can prove exactly when and where you published it previously...this,in turn proves you had a connection to it long before anyone else could have...

Edit: In order to maintain international copyright law, the US government cannot force artists to register every piece of work to keep up copyrights on them...if they tried to do that they would be in violation of international law...That's one reason (along with the strong opposition by artists of all genres) that the proposal keeps coming up and getting shot down...

No, I'm not referring to anything recent at all. Go to the official U.S. copyright office site and check it out for yourself. A case can't be brought to U.S. court unless a formal copyright document is produced. That being the case, there are no teeth other than filing for copyright or bluff in wrangling with anyone over who owns what.

Can't go into a U.S, court at all. Bottom line. The rest is just wheels spinning. (And the judgment of an international case can't be carried out if it's contrary to U.S. law--which is, once again for the visually impaired--you can't enter a U.S. court with a copyright claim that isn't backed up with a formal copyright document.)

Do I really have to repeat it again?

If you believe otherwise--cite a U.S. court case where it's been successfully done.


Why oh why do we have to go over this every three weeks? Go to the official Web site and check it out for yourself.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

...
Why oh why do we have to go over this every three weeks? Go to the official Web site and check it out for yourself.

Because you like to listen to yourself talk?

 

[sr71plt]

Because you like to listen to yourself talk?

Naw, because I like to see myself post.

 

[deathlynx]

All of thisis directly from the USA.gov copyright pages...

102. Subject matter of copyright: In general28
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

104. Subject matter of copyright: National origin
a) Unpublished Works. — The works specified by sections 102 and 103, while unpublished, are subject to protection under this title without regard to the nationality or domicile of the author.
(b) Published Works. — The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if —
(1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or
(2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party;

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity39
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation

From Word Intelectual Property Organization (of which we are a member)

Article 6
Right of Distribution
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.
(2) Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author.

It is possible that you are thinking about how to copyright and invention or something simmilar, however nowhere in the article on art does it require an author to reigister their work in order to maintain their copyright or intelectual property...To do so would be to violate international copyright law...

While yes, US law takes precidence (in the US) if they broke from the treaty then the US would be without recourse in any international copyright case...given that such businesses as Hollywood are in the US that would not fly...Imagine if no one in the rest of the world felt they had to pay for US music, literature or movies...So no, the US government would notwillingly violate the WIPO treaty...

As the riginal author of a piece, you have the exclusive copyright for that piece...You may relinquish those rights to someone, but the wording there has to be pretty blatant...you do not relinquish either your copyright or author rights by publishing on the web...

You are correct that registration of your work at the copyright office would make you unquestionably the owner of the copyright...However, if you do not you have not lost your rights...you are also correct in that you are not taking them to court so much to prove your ownership of the copyright as to prove your authorship of the piece....generally that is what is in question...Once the original author has been determined, copyright usually aurtomatically follows...

 

[sr71plt]

All of thisis directly from the USA.gov copyright pages...


From Word Intelectual Property Organization (of which we are a member)


It is possible that you are thinking about how to copyright and invention or something simmilar, however nowhere in the article on art does it require an author to reigister their work in order to maintain their copyright or intelectual property...To do so would be to violate international copyright law...

While yes, US law takes precidence (in the US) if they broke from the treaty then the US would be without recourse in any international copyright case...given that such businesses as Hollywood are in the US that would not fly...Imagine if no one in the rest of the world felt they had to pay for US music, literature or movies...So no, the US government would notwillingly violate the WIPO treaty...

As the riginal author of a piece, you have the exclusive copyright for that piece...You may relinquish those rights to someone, but the wording there has to be pretty blatant...you do not relinquish either your copyright or author rights by publishing on the web...

You are correct that registration of your work at the copyright office would make you unquestionably the owner of the copyright...However, if you do not you have not lost your rights...you are also correct in that you are not taking them to court so much to prove your ownership of the copyright as to prove your authorship of the piece....generally that is what is in question...Once the original author has been determined, copyright usually aurtomatically follows...

Nowhere in all of that did I see a court case citation of a copyright case being admitted to a U.S. court where one of the parties didn't hold a formal copyright document.

Either keep looking and don't report back until you find one or keep blowing wishful smoke on copyright protection meaning anything without having filed for formal copyright.

What is this international court that you think a U.S. citizen can be hauled into and forced to comply with on a copyright violation charge?

Smoke, smoke, smoke.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

First one in the google search...
______________________________________________
Authors Are Victorious in Major Copyright Adjudication
by Stephanie C. Ardito
Posted On October 4, 1999

In a stunning ruling, adjudicated on September 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that publishers and database producers may not place a freelance writer's print article into an electronic database without the author's permission. This decision overturns a lower federal district court ruling (http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/September99/97-9181.html).
The original 1993 lawsuit was filed by six freelance writers and the National Writers Union (NWU) (http://www.nwu.org) against The New York Times; Newsday; Time, Inc.; The Atlantic Monthly; Mead Data Central Corp. (the former owner of the LEXIS-NEXIS databases); and University Microfilms. From 1991 to 1993, the freelancers sold articles for publication in the print versions of The New York Times, Newsday, and Sports Illustrated. The publishers licensed the contents of their newspapers and magazines to University Microfilms and Mead for inclusion in various electronic databases. The case was brought against the publishers in an attempt "to determine whether publishers are entitled to place the contents of their periodicals into electronic databases and onto CD-ROMs without first securing the permission of the freelance writers whose contributions are included in those periodicals."

In 1997, the judge presiding over the lower court decision (http://www.igc.org/nwu/tvt/tvtrule.htm) concluded that publishers were permitted to load their printed works on electronic databases and CD-ROMs without seeking permission from the freelancers or making additional payments to the authors. The judge's ruling was based on an interpretation of Section 201(c) in the Copyright Act of 1976, in which she viewed electronic databases as revisions (this Section of the Copyright Act allows publishers to produce revised versions of their collective works without seeking permission from individual copyright holders).

In the new court ruling, the Second Circuit unanimously decided that an electronic collective work is not the same as a printed collective work. Databases are not revised products, as electronic works are not presented in the same selection and arrangement as printed publications. Publishers must seek permission from, and compensate, freelance writers for electronic reuse of printed works.

Rest of the story.

 

[sr71plt]

First one in the google search...
______________________________________________
Authors Are Victorious in Major Copyright Adjudication
by Stephanie C. Ardito
Posted On October 4, 1999

In a stunning ruling, adjudicated on September 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has determined that publishers and database producers may not place a freelance writer's print article into an electronic database without the author's permission. This decision overturns a lower federal district court ruling (http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/September99/97-9181.html).
The original 1993 lawsuit was filed by six freelance writers and the National Writers Union (NWU) (http://www.nwu.org) against The New York Times; Newsday; Time, Inc.; The Atlantic Monthly; Mead Data Central Corp. (the former owner of the LEXIS-NEXIS databases); and University Microfilms. From 1991 to 1993, the freelancers sold articles for publication in the print versions of The New York Times, Newsday, and Sports Illustrated. The publishers licensed the contents of their newspapers and magazines to University Microfilms and Mead for inclusion in various electronic databases. The case was brought against the publishers in an attempt "to determine whether publishers are entitled to place the contents of their periodicals into electronic databases and onto CD-ROMs without first securing the permission of the freelance writers whose contributions are included in those periodicals."

In 1997, the judge presiding over the lower court decision (http://www.igc.org/nwu/tvt/tvtrule.htm) concluded that publishers were permitted to load their printed works on electronic databases and CD-ROMs without seeking permission from the freelancers or making additional payments to the authors. The judge's ruling was based on an interpretation of Section 201(c) in the Copyright Act of 1976, in which she viewed electronic databases as revisions (this Section of the Copyright Act allows publishers to produce revised versions of their collective works without seeking permission from individual copyright holders).

In the new court ruling, the Second Circuit unanimously decided that an electronic collective work is not the same as a printed collective work. Databases are not revised products, as electronic works are not presented in the same selection and arrangement as printed publications. Publishers must seek permission from, and compensate, freelance writers for electronic reuse of printed works.

Rest of the story.

You're sort of missing the point, Zeb--as is, I suspect almost everyone else. Where does it say that the writer didn't hold a formal copyright document in this case? Your posting is irrelevant until/unless it covers that point.

The POINT is that you can't get a court date without holding a formal copyright document. So, it's just spinning wheels talking about copyright protection on a Web site like this unless you have filed for, paid for, and obtained a formal copyright document for the work you "think" is protected.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You're sort of missing the point, Zeb--as is, I suspect almost everyone else. Where does it say that the writer didn't hold a formal copyright document in this case? Your posting is irrelevant until/unless it covers that point.

The POINT is that you can't get a court date without holding a formal copyright document. So, it's just spinning wheels talking about copyright protection on a Web site like this unless you have filed for, paid for, and obtained a formal copyright document for the work you "think" is protected.

The point is that the article didn't mention that they did either. And I really doubt that a freelance writer submits each and every article they write for formal copyright. If they did that it would be old new before it got to print.

And unless you know for sure that this group of writers have collectively or individually submitted each article they have ever written for a formal copyright, if there is such a thing, then what you post about copyright is nothing but drivel.

 

[sr71plt]

The point is that the article didn't mention that they did either. And I really doubt that a freelance writer submits each and every article they write for formal copyright. If they did that it would be old new before it got to print.

And unless you know for sure that this group of writers have collectively or individually submitted each article they have ever written for a formal copyright, if there is such a thing, then what you post about copyright is nothing but drivel.

Yes, I assume the article was covered by formal copyright. Because the case would not have gotten a court date in a U.S. court otherwise. Because courts in the United States will not take a copyright case unless one party has a formal copyright document in hand. See how neatly that works out? It's right there in the U.S. law provisions on the U.S. Copyright Office's official Web site. Go and check it out for yourself.

And, yes, if the article was actually bought and published by a mainstream publication, it automatically would have been submitted for formal copyright in the name of the author (unless it was "work for hire"--then the publication would file for copyright in its own name) and at the publication's expense. It's part of the deal of buying a freelanced article.

Welcome to the world of professional publishing.

It's really quite simple. Why would a writer choose to fool themselves over this? (although that seems to be what's being pushed here.)

A. The only benefit of copyright protection is if you can take a case to court in the country of record and collect damages. In the United States you can't take a copyright case to court without holding formal copyright. And if the case is in the United States, U.S. law trumps international law. And if it's tried in a foreign court and isn't supportable by U.S. law, damages can't be seized if all of the assets are in the United States. (But now I know I'm getting too complicated for many to understand--particularly those who can't get their minds around the basic issue of copyright protection and how it effectively happens).

so,

B. Who's being the fool and just blowing smoke who blusters about what they own when they can't effectively do anything about someone stealing it if they haven't obtained formal copyright?

I'm think Chicken Little here.

 

[Darkniciad]

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

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. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

That's fairly clear. Obviously, that means that you can't sue someone for using your copyrighted work in the U.S. without having filed an official copyright. Civil action is out of the question.

Best as I can tell, people could still face criminal charges for copyright violation without an official, filed copyright, but only if the value of the infringement is over a certain amount. Problem there is, what D.A. would take the case? How do you assign value to a stolen sex story/stories?

More or less, you got bumpkis.

You either file, or you hope you can push someone along the line ( an ISP, a webhost, etc ) enough to make them think that it isn't worth the trouble to keep the infringer around. The good news there is that the general understanding of copyright in the populace works in your favor with smaller entities, and the potential of extreme annoyance and bad publicity can work for you with larger entities.

If somebody understands copyright law and isn't concerned about the local paper reporting that they have porn on their servers, you're screwed

 

[DeeZire]

Here's an example from the music biz: Writer A writes a song, makes a demo but doesn't file a copyright claim. Writer B hears the song and gets it to a recording artist. When the song makes it onto the CD, Writer B files the copyright claim. Shortly thereafter (usually a year or more) the song becomes a hit on the radio.

Writer A hears it and files a copyright claim and sues Writer B for copyright infringement. After paying thousands of dollars in legal fees, Writer A receives all future royalties from the moment he filed his official copyright, but all the money made before that time stays in the hands of Writer B. If Writer A had filed for copyright before he sent out the demo, Writer B would have had to reimburse Writer A for every penny earned by the song.

This scenario was presented at a music biz seminar, so I assume that's the way it works.