Poor man’s copyright’s been around for years - you can tell that from the gender-bias in the name alone! The reason it’s still with us today is mainly due to a mixture of urban myth and practical necessity.
The myth lives on because there are always some people who believe in the possible legal protection afforded by claiming “poor man’s copyright.” What they’re hoping for is to demonstrate physical proof that the created work was in their possession on a specific date. For many people this means sending the original work by registered mail to their own address - so that the official date stamp on the received package becomes a kind of ‘official’ witness.
At first glance this seems like a smart, inexpensive and hassle-free move. As long as you don’t open the package (and remember that registered mail has a confirmed date of receipt) then surely there’s now a strong case for when exactly the work first existed?
The problem is, that in the beady eyes of the copyright lawyers, sending something to yourself doesn’t definitely prove when (or even if) YOU created the work in the first place. A rival may claim to have created the actual work long before you - but simply kept it unpublished. In that case, which one of you is the true copyright holder?
We mentioned in a previous post that copyright protection exists from the instant your work is created. (This applies to most works but you should always check the copyright laws in your country of jurisdiction for exceptions.)
However, in cases of alleged copyright infringement (think: “he stole my script”) the legal eagles are often most interested in when exactly the copyright was officially registered with… you guessed it, the relevant copyright authority in each country!
Step forward the US Copyright office and this quote from a FAQ list on their website:
“I’ve heard about “poor man’s copyright. What is it?”
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.”
(Source: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html)
As you can see, the US government’s is implying that poor man’s copyright is exactly that - a poor choice over formal registration of copyright. It’s also a weak link in your legal armor if you have someday had to use the copyright laws to try and defend your copyright in court.
For readers in America this may seem to downplay the relevance of poor man’s copyright. As always, do your own due diligence before deciding whether to use it or not.
Just to add an alternative and international flavor to the discussion, here’s what the UK Copyright office had to say about poor man’s copyright (although they avoid using the term in this quote.)
“Additionally, a creator could send himself or herself a copy by special delivery post (which gives a clear date stamp on the envelope), leaving the envelope unopened on its return (ensuring you also know what is inside each envelope in case you do this more than once). Alternatively you could lodge your work with a bank or solicitor. It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you. But it may be useful to be able to show the court that the work was in your possession at a particular date.”
(Source: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.htm)
To summarize, we would say this about the subject of poor man’s copyright.
- Using it is not a replacement for formal copyright registration.
- Using it as part of a strategy to document ALL aspects of the creative process (drafts, memos, faxes, emails, beta versions etc) is probably a wise approach. Somehow we doubt that Steven Spielsberg goes down this path but for aspiring newcomers it might be worth considering.
Watch out for an upcoming post where we’ll discuss some of the alternative or complementary offerings to formal copyright registration.
GollyGoose Team
