The Myth of Poor Man’s Copyright

There are many, many myths people hold about copyright law. However, the most dangerous by far is the myth of poor man's copyright (PMC).

It is the worst kind of myth. It is wasteful, achieves nothing, gives a false sense of protection and can leave good people more vulnerable than if they had done nothing at all. There is simply no way that poor man's copyright is a valid strategy for protecting one's work.

Yet, even today, it is widely preached, especially in comments to blog posts, and the myth has continued to spread. It is time to put it to rest once and for all. Simply put, the myth is so outrageous that it can not withstand even the slightest scrutiny and would crumble like a sand castle in a court of law.

What is Poor Man's Copyright?

The idea is simple. You create a work, be it a written piece, a photograph, a drawing or a CD, and decide that you can't afford or don't want to pay the U.S. Copyright Office fees to register your work formally. So, rather than send your work to Uncle Sam, you put it in a nice, shiny envelope and mail it to yourself. Upon its return it has both your name and a nice date stamp, proof positive that the work belonged to you on that date and was created before that.

You spend less than a dollar and get proof positive of both the date the work was created and who the owner is. All you have to do is keep the envelope in a safe place and never open it up.

The theory from there goes as follows. In the event of a later copyright dispute, you take this sealed envelope with you to court and open it up in front of the jurors, judge and gallery proving that the work is yours. One hopes that there is no way they can lose a copyright case with such solid evidence on their side.

Unfortunately though, both the case and evidence are weaker than thought. In fact, both might turn out to be worth nothing at all.

Unicorns, Leprechauns and Poor Man's Copyright

The problems start early for PMC. Simply placing a work into an envelope and mailing it to yourself does not prove ownership. You sign no forms, make no statements and offer no proof of creation. People mail things that they do not hold the copyright to all of the time and the courts know that.

Second, envelopes can be steamed open and postmarks can be smudged, altered or unreadable. While you can mitigate those by sending the document special delivery, which offers better sealing envelopes and clearer postmarks, it is more expensive and likely can't be done from home.

Then, in the courtroom, things don't get any better. First off, the court room will not be a federal one, but a state one. Since you didn't register your work, you can not sue in federal court and, thus, will only be eligible to receive either the amount the infringement made or the amount you lost, whichever is greater. Sadly, in many, if not most, copyright matters that amount is equal to exactly zero.

However, the worst news is that most copyright cases don't center around issues of authorship. They center around matters of fair use, contract disputes and unauthorized duplication. While plagiarism is rampant, as this site shows, it is generally simple to find out who the original author was and it is unlikely that PMC would be needed to prove that. Furthermore, especially in the Internet age, if a dispute of authorship should arise, the delay in receiving back the envelope would likely make PMC harmful to the case since such infringement happen with a matter of minutes, not days.

In short, your proof would likely arrive and be dated AFTER the infringement took place, providing no aid to your case and, possibly, helping the plagiarist.

In the end, all PMC does is give you weak evidence to take to a smaller courtroom and present a potentially damaged case centering around unrelated issues. Most copyright holders would be better off doing nothing at all than trying to take advantage of PMC.

This is probably why, to date, no case in the history of the U.S. has been aided by PMC and, most likely, none ever will.

Real Protection

If you want to protect your works, there is simply no substitute for the U.S. Copyright Office. Though copyright takes effect once the work has been fixated, registering your work there not only provides you with formal documentation to prove the submission took place, but also with the right to sue in federal court and claim punitive damages for infringement of your work.

The Copyright Office, however, can be slow and carry with it many of the same problems in terms of delay that PMC has with it. That, however, can be mitigated by using Numly to provide instant timestamping and third-party non-repudiation of your work. Even though Numly may not be formal or official, it is many times better than PMC and, in most cases, is free. It's an ideal tool for bloggers while they are waiting for their formal submissions to go through.

Also, don't forget that services such as the Web Archive and Google cache automatically save copies of a Web page, providing some ability to prove dates and times. These archives may or may not work well in a court of law, but are more than adequate in most copyright disputes.

Conclusions

In the end, PMC has no place in the arsenal of copyright holders, especially if they are American. Other countries, depending on the nuances of their copyright statutes, may have some use for it. However, even then, there are much better, cheaper and easier methods available. I seriously doubt that PMC is a good option for anyone, let alone the best.

It is time to crush this myth once and for all. If we, as copyright holders, are going to get serious about protecting our works, we can't let ourselves cave into convenient myths and misguided ideas. PMC is useless and,  no matter how much want it to be a practical solution, it never will be.

Fortunately, very good and reasonable alternatives do exist. All we have to do is stop hanging on to the old ways and be willing to try new things.

tags: , , , ,

31 Responses to The Myth of Poor Man’s Copyright

  1. [...] “There are many, many myths people hold about copyright law. However, the most dangerous by far is the myth of poor man’s copyright (PMC). [...]

    • Eleonore says:

      The right way to do it is to put the original in an envelope and send it to one’s self AND send all the pages taped together side by side, initialed, with the initials overlapping each seam and then taped over until all the pages are taped and initialed. Then the cover/title page is taped on and initialed in such a way that the printing is inward. Finally this “train” of pages is accordion/fan folded and then folded once more if possible (sometimes several bundles are necessary) and then, using clear packaging tape the last page is wrapped around the folded pages SO THAT THE PAGES HAVE NO ENVELOPE AT ALL. The last pages ARE the envelope, thus proving that they were sent on that day. BOTH registered packages should be sent on the same day at the same time.

  2. Thanks for the Numly plug! For additional information on the PMC and how Numly helps solve your copyright needs check out Numly’s PMC post:

    http://numly.blogspot.com/2006/05/poor-mans-copyright-20.html

    Cheers,
    Chris Matthieu, Founder
    Numly, inc.

  3. [...] Plagiarism Today rubbishes a long told falsehood of copyright (and gives real options, such a great site). Here [...]

  4. Waffle says:

    Doing my bid to stamp out the myth of the Poor Man’s Copyright…

    Every once in a while, the issue of how to copyright your artistic work comes up in a blog or forum. When that happens, chances are someone will bring up the neat trick of sending a copy of your work……

  5. Waffle says:

    Doing my bid to stamp out the myth of the Poor Man’s Copyright…

    Every once in a while, the issue of how to copyright your artistic work comes up in a blog or forum. When that happens, chances are someone will bring up the neat trick of sending a copy of your work……

  6. Matthew Jansky says:

    Be warned: The US Copyright Website does NOT has very serious problems as of 7/9/08, at least not for Firefox. It is, in fact, the worst website I have ever seen, and I have been writing software documentation on and off for over 20 years. It is an excellent example of the dark side of the Internet.

    If you decide to register your work, print it out and send it in.

    –Matt

  7. Matthew Jansky says:

    Be warned: The US Copyright Website does NOT has very serious problems as of 7/9/08, at least not for Firefox. It is, in fact, the worst website I have ever seen, and I have been writing software documentation on and off for over 20 years. It is an excellent example of the dark side of the Internet.

    If you decide to register your work, print it out and send it in.

    –Matt

  8. It would also be harder to use in court. You would need to depose someone from one or both services to testify about how the timestamps are created. Also, depending on how agressive the other party is, your email records would be subpeoned, along with your Internet access records (to show that you uploaded it) and, even after all of that, it might be thrown out if there were any irregularities in the chain. Like Numly and other services, it might be fine for disputes in the public forum and provide some backup in court, but it would be difficult to use in the latter.The problem is that, with this kind of evidence, you have to prove that it is authentic. With a USCO registration, it is prima facie evidence, meaning that they have to disprove it.Since it is only $35 to file, I would do so if the work might be worth it, it is that simple…

  9. Shanda says:

    Can you not just email yourself? Maybe even use two different services (e.g. emailing from your Yahoo account to your GMail account) since that would leave a copy in two places. This seems like it'd be a lot harder to fabricate. And it's free.

  10. [...] an unsealed envelop and then, way after the fact, clog it up with your alleged original work. I’m pretty sure that won’t hold up in court; so I won’t waste my time, or money (it can cost a small fortune to print up a manuscript), [...]

  11. It would also be harder to use in court. You would need to depose someone from one or both services to testify about how the timestamps are created. Also, depending on how agressive the other party is, your email records would be subpeoned, along with your Internet access records (to show that you uploaded it) and, even after all of that, it might be thrown out if there were any irregularities in the chain.

    Like Numly and other services, it might be fine for disputes in the public forum and provide some backup in court, but it would be difficult to use in the latter.

    The problem is that, with this kind of evidence, you have to prove that it is authentic. With a USCO registration, it is prima facie evidence, meaning that they have to disprove it.

    Since it is only $35 to file, I would do so if the work might be worth it, it is that simple…

  12. [...] approach is basically useless. No cases I’m familiar with have endorsed this technique and, as others have pointed out, it is easy to forge. At most, this technique purports to establish ownership of a work, but as [...]

  13. [...] and there was no registration to provide. Though Rosenstock had used Poor Man’s Copyright, it does not work for proving ownership, leaving him with no means to prove he wrote and recorded his own music to his [...]

  14. [...] open it. Is the book a work of fiction, or a non-fiction book about fiction? Known as the "poor man’s copyright" mailing a copy to yourself doesn’t always work. A few other copyright myths. One of the [...]

  15. [...] does neither. This is a myth that has been covered on this site many times and needs to die. However, it is kept alive by tons of people, mostly on the Web, who [...]

  16. [...] Today had extensive post on how unreliable that approach is (at least in context of US laws). http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/…ans-copyright/ Rarst.net – cynical thoughts on software and web (and sometimes WP) | [...]

  17. Marc says:

    A copyright is merely one form of proof that one party had the document (or whatever) prior to the other party. It does not protect you in any way, and there are lots of ways to proove that you had the document first. However, court cases are rarely so simple that the only issue is the dispute of ownership.Most cases are much gayer than that. eg. "This 10 notes of a popular song are exactly like my 10 notes". With this scenario it's important to prove that the party who is accused of stealing the song had access to it. If there is no reasonable proof that he/she had access, then it really doesn't matter if you had a copyright. You're simply not going to win.So, Mailing it to yourself… you can do it, and it may work in court, but for $30 – just get the damn thing copyrighted. You'll probably loose anyway, so you might as well not make it easier for the judge to throw out your case.

  18. Cheat-master30 says:

    It does however seem to be a legal possibility in the UK and the Netherlands from Wikipedia, and the UK Intellectual Property Office does say this:

    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.
    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-auto.h

    Is it possible it works outside the USA? Because that's at least two regions that have recommended this practice on official government websites, although I apologise if this site is generally assuming US copyright law rather than that of another country.

    Sorry for the late comment.

    • blinks says:

      Dude Wikipedia can be changed by any old food. Why do you think most colleges won't let you use it for your essays?

  19. bren says:

    It works in Ireland aswell. Interesting read though, thanks :)

  20. [...] enduring myth that mailing your work to yourself gives you protection.  This is often called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not [...]

  21. [...] “There are many, many myths people hold about copyright law. However, the most dangerous by far is the myth of poor man’s copyright ” [from "Plagarism Today"] [...]

  22. [...] Plagiarism Today: The Myth of the Poor Man’s Copyright [...]

  23. [...] The Myth of Poor Man’s Copyright – Plagiarism Today [...]

  24. pars says:

    I wonder why “modern poor man’s copyright” using e-mail is not more secure than US copyright office.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_man's_copyright#Modern_poor_man.27s_copyright

    • stopthe says:

      Email timestamps can be faked too. All you need to do is bribe someone at Google, hack the system, or etc. I wouldn’t rely on this for anything important.

  25. […] Advertising rates are more expensive than copyright registrations. At that point, just pay the fee and not sit around hoping your ad helps prove ownership. This article pretty much sums up the PMS myth… The Myth of Poor Man's Copyright – Plagiarism Today […]

Leave a Reply

STAY CONNECTED