Acoustica User Forums

I would like to register a song with the Copyright Office. I know I don't need to, but it makes it much easier to make copyright claims if you do. I am the sole author of the melody, composition, production and lyrics and it's much cheaper to register as a sole author than a standard registration but I'm unclear if I can register as a sole author if I've used Mixcraft to play the music. Does anybody know? Other services can help out with that but they charge a lot of money.

Thanks,
Skydancer (The First)

but I'm unclear if I can register as a sole author if I've used Mixcraft to play the music.

This part isn't clear to me. "Play the music"?
Unless there's an additional meaning, this isn't an issue.

Skydancer wrote:I would like to register a song with the Copyright Office. I know I don't need to, but it makes it much easier to make copyright claims if you do. I am the sole author of the melody, composition, production and lyrics and it's much cheaper to register as a sole author than a standard registration but I'm unclear if I can register as a sole author if I've used Mixcraft to play the music. Does anybody know? Other services can help out with that but they charge a lot of money.

Thanks,
Skydancer (The First)

Using a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) like Mixcraft doesn't prevent you from filing for copyright with the US Copyright Office.

Yes, you can register it. The question is if you can use the single author form or have to use the standard form which is more expensive than single author.

I know if you play a guitar or something and record yourself, it's single author. I believe, if you have any help at all, such as somebody else holding the microphone while you sing, its not single author. Even if somebody just rearranged some of the lyrics or adjusted the reverb in substantial ways, it might not qualify for single author. Since Mixcraft 8 is copyrighted, it might qualify as substantial assistance but I'm not sure.

Thanks,
Skydancer.

Well if you have to claim the DAW, you might also have to claim the guitar, Piano, Mic manufacturer, cord manufacturer, the assistant who brought coffee...…

Seriously. No. No one ever had to credit the mixing board, tape machine...…

But then copyright protection means little in this little bubble anyway as far as I can tell. most cases involve more drama than creative rights, and in the end, the person who can finance the biggest farce "wins"

As far as I can tell, what is successful, profitable, or whatever, has nothing whatsoever to do with originality anyway. The people who did the most creative work are often the unknown and unrecognized.

Name me one major hit where the general listening public can name the producer who pulled it all together and made it happen.

IMO, "copyright protection" (in this setting) is a farce. And those trying to capitalize on its necessity are most likely ripping you off.

But if you send me $100 I will assure your protection. Promise!

Mark Bliss wrote:Well if you have to claim the DAW, you might also have to claim the guitar, Piano, Mic manufacturer, cord manufacturer, the assistant who brought coffee...…

Seriously. No. No one ever had to credit the mixing board, tape machine...…

But then copyright protection means little in this little bubble anyway as far as I can tell. most cases involve more drama than creative rights, and in the end, the person who can finance the biggest farce "wins"

As far as I can tell, what is successful, profitable, or whatever, has nothing whatsoever to do with originality anyway. The people who did the most creative work are often the unknown and unrecognized.

Name me one major hit where the general listening public can name the producer who pulled it all together and made it happen.

IMO, "copyright protection" (in this setting) is a farce. And those trying to capitalize on its necessity are most likely ripping you off.

But if you send me $100 I will assure your protection. Promise!

Perfectly put Mark

Mark Bliss wrote:...IMO, "copyright protection" (in this setting) is a farce. And those trying to capitalize on its necessity are most likely ripping you off.

But if you send me $100 I will assure your protection. Promise!

You clearly have little or no experience in this field, so I will explain. It is not so much about about copyright protection, as claim to ownership.

If you own a song you can claim publishing royalties whenever it is played, even if you are playing it yourself. Similarly if you own the copyright to the recording itself you can exploit it in any way you chose, including selling it or licensing it to a record label.

You don't register a song with the express intent of suing people who breach the protection that the service provides (although this does happen of course), you register so that you can claim what is rightfully yours when the song or recording is exploited in any way.

? Not getting the diff in the 2 things you're comparing.

From what I gather, yeah pretty much what Mark said, if someone really likes your work and wants to rip you off and has the financial backing, they probably can...(even if they don't have the financial backing they could get away with it) and it will cost you more in court/lawyer/whatever fees (and time, and stress, and) than you would likely lose to the scumbag who pretended it was theirs. Which is a joke, but then again our legal system has been a joke for a long time (OJ, need I say more). But some people like to do it for that warm fuzzy and the hope of some protection anyway, and it's still pretty inexpensive ($35 I think and you can do that for an entire body of work).

Checkout this link: https://www.copyright.gov/

mixyguy2 wrote:? Not getting the diff in the 2 things you're comparing...

1. You write a song and record it. You play that song live in a gig. You can claim and collect publishing royalties for that.

1(a). Someone else performs your song live. You can claim and collect publishing royalties for that.

2. You get some interest from a label who consequently 'signs' you up. What you have done is signed away (either permanently or on a time-limited basis) your rights to the recording (as opposed to the song itself). In return, the label will: a)promote your recording, b)exploit (i.e. sell) it however they see fit. They will give you money in return for this, perhaps as an advance, or a percentage of sales, or both.

2(a) As part of the above deal, the label gives you (or sells to you at a preferential rate) hard copies (CDs and vinyl) which you can sell to generate profit.

None of the above entails protecting your song or your recording against being illegally exploited. (Although of course you are covered for these scenarios in the unlikely event that they arise.) All of the above entails you earning money from your intellectual property.

FWIW: I wish I wrote a song worthy enough for an artist to steal it from me and make a boatload of money from it, lol.