Copyright on stories

[Handley_Page]

In the 1950s Stanley Kubrick sent himself copies of his own scripts in sealed envelopes, then kept them sealed in a bank vault. The post mark was enough to specify the date, the sealing enough to demonstrate the contents were thus sent on that date. It's safe to say that if Kubrick did it, it was a legit protection.

In England, we have "Stationers Hall" for just such a purpose.
It's extremely handy when the matter goes to trial.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

In the 1950s Stanley Kubrick sent himself copies of his own scripts in sealed envelopes, then kept them sealed in a bank vault. The post mark was enough to specify the date, the sealing enough to demonstrate the contents were thus sent on that date. It's safe to say that if Kubrick did it, it was a legit protection.

Subsequently, he wrote water-tight contracts to protect every thing he did, but in the early years, it was a cheap protection of his copyright. This is the guy who bought rights to books, and then never told people he owned them. He owned the US rights to the novelette that turned into Eyes Wide Shut thirty years before he made the movie.

But, you are not Kubrick and that was before the Berne Convention. I'll bet today, if he were still alive, him or his publisher would register anything he did, even unpublished work, with the copyright office.

 

[ElectricBlue]

But, you are not Kubrick and that was before the Berne Convention. I'll bet today, if he were still alive, him or his publisher would register anything he did, even unpublished work, with the copyright office.

My comment was specific to his practice in the 1950s, pointing out that it wasn't urban myth.

In Australia, copyright is free and automatic upon creation of the work. A copyright notice (©) is not required on a work to gain copyright, but only the copyright owner is entitled to place such a notice.

 

[oggbashan]

My comment was specific to his practice in the 1950s, pointing out that it wasn't urban myth.

In Australia, copyright is free and automatic upon creation of the work. A copyright notice (©) is not required on a work to gain copyright, but only the copyright owner is entitled to place such a notice.

The situation is the same in the UK BUT it is meaningless in the US and that's where Literotica is based.

It is ineffective once a copyright work is posted on the internet. Copyright law only applies in the country of the author. Once on the internet it can be downloaded anywhere and unless the author has the significant resources to chase the thief (several million US dollars to waste!) the only way to stop someone reposting it as their own is a DMCA notice to the site owner.

DMCA won't work for sites based in many countries e.g. some of SE Asia.

 

[sr71plt]

Try it if you like, but the "poor man's copyright"--mailing yourself a sealed copy of the manuscript--has no legal standing in the United States at all. As I recall the last time this was tried--which was before the United States signed the Berne Convention--the judge said, "That shows where the envelope has been, not anything that could have been put in it after it was postmarked." I think the Copyright Law passage has already been quoted here on the one thing that gets you a court date in the United States--holding a formal copyright.

But, if it gives you comfort to think you're covered by a poor man's copyright, go for it. I think we all know you aren't going to pay a lawyer money to try to go to court over a story you've valued at zero by posting it to Literotica in a case against some fly-by-night Web site homed in Serbia.

(P.S., the poor man's copyright does have legal standing in the UK, but I don't know of any case where it has been successfully used--or even tried. Certainly not for a zero-value dirty story posted to Literotica and stolen by a hazy Web site homed in Serbia. Again, if you have dreams of the first one to get this done, by all means go for it.)