Though none of these services are replacements for an official registration with the U.S. Copyright Office, which comes with it certain legal benefits in the U.S. they can provide a way to prove exactly when a work was created and who did so. This can prevent others from laying claim to it later.

However, the stiff competition has not stopped others from trying to find a niche within it. One service, DepotCode (Note: This link is to the beta page, going to depotcode.com will not work), hopes to break into the field with a new set of features and an easier-to-use interface that may be better for the casual user.

But does DepotCode hold up? I decided to give it a shot and see what I found.

What is DepotCode

The idea behind DepotCode is similar to other non-repudiation services. The user uploads a file and that file is registered on DepotCode’s servers. DepotCode then records the date, time and a hash of the file and then creates a page where others can then verify the work as long as the registration is active.

Unlike it’s competitors, registration is not required to use DepotCode, you simply click the button to sign your document, fill out your name, company and email information and then upload your document. DepotCode can accept text, images, PDFs and various programming/formatting languages, including Javascript, Ruby, PHP, Java, C#, HTML, XML, and CSS. Other documents can be signed but the signature will not appear on the document.

DepotCode’s most unique feature is that it automatically adds a QR code to PDFs and images that are uploaded. See below for an example (see note below):

The idea being that, if you want to share the image or the PDF, you simply send the one marked with the code (it’s marked on every page of a PDF) instead of a plain one. That way, others who get it can verify who owns/created it.

A free DepotCode registration lasts one week through a paid registration costs $ 3.49 (increasing to $6.99 after the beta period) and holds the registration for two years.

So should you be using DepotCode to protection your work? The answer depends on your situation and what you’re wanting to use it for.

The Good and Bad of DepotCode

On the surface, there’s a great deal to like about DepotCode. The ability to add QR codes to documents is interesting and, with QR codes readers becoming more common place, it might be a good idea for protecting content moving forward.

Also, the lack of a registration requirement is great for those who just want to register a file very quickly. It makes it easy to jump in and get started without worrying about setting up an account.

However, that lack of registration is also a bit of a hindrance. The beta version doesn’t have the ability to set up an account. So, every time you want to register something, you have to enter the same information over and over again. Other services make it easier to register works in bulk by storing that information.

Likewise, even the price is a bit odd. Other services provide free accounts with registrations that don’t expire (many free Numly registrations are still valid after five years or more), however, even a paid registration will expire after two years. While most works won’t need this kind of protection after two years, especially with the statute of limitations for copyright infringement being what it is, there are situations where a paid registration could expire before the dispute surfaces.

Finally, though the QR code feature is useful and interesting, other services offer it as well. Safe Creative offers a series of barcodes for each of its registrations, including QR codes and has done so for years. Numly has offered barcodes on all of its registrations for over five years now.

In short, the features that make DepotCode unique are that it applies the QR codes automatically, that it is designed to work with programming code and that there is no registration requirement. While certainly an interesting set of features, it may not be enough to overcome its bizarre pricing structure and the difficulties in registering large numbers of works.

Bottom Line

All of this begs the question of who is DepotCode for? Clearly the pricing and lack of registration makes it inappropriate for casual use. Services like Safe Creative and Myows are much better for bloggers who want to register all of their posts or photographers that want to upload every image they take.

The structure, right now, is best suited for anyone who wants to register just one or two things and would benefit from having the QR code placed directly on it. An author, for example, registering a PDF before sending it to potential publishers, might want to register through DepotCode as it could be worth a few dollars to save the time of applying the QR code themselves. The same could be true for programmers turning in a big project.

Outside of that though, the other systems out there are simply cheaper and offer less friction to registering large numbers of works. The QR code feature is interesting, but similar features never took off so it will probably remain a niche product, at least for the time being.

All in all, most people will benefit more from other services, but that could change if the use of QR codes for this purpose catches on and others fail to replicate the feature successfully.

The odds of that, unfortunately, are very slim.

Disclosure: I have done paid consulting for both Safe Creative and Myows.

Note: All of the registrations for this review were done using the free version, meaning the QR codes will cease to work in one week.

The copyright-verification service Myows has launched a new petition aimed at the Internet’s largest search engine. The petition, entitled “Dear Google” aims to compel the search giant to make changes to how it operates to promote original content downplay plagiarist and pirate sites.

Specifically, the petition has three parts:

1. Penalize Pirate Sites: The first element seeks to expand on the existing DMCA procedure by allowing the public to report pirate sites for demotion only after remaining on the list for some time and being verified by Google.
2. Penalize Content Scrapers: Original content creators could flag their content and mark unlawful copies for demotion. Meant to be an expansion of the DMCA procedure that doesn’t require content be removed.
3. Display Additional Metadata: Finally, the petition seeks to encourage Google to display copyright-related metadata in their search results.

Personally, I agree with the broad message of the petition. Google does a good job overall in promoting original works and sites, but it is far from perfect and there is more that they can do both to help content creators and to make its results more useful.

That being said, I’m unsure about the specific suggestions as they seem to both add a great deal of overhead for Google and would likely be prone to abuse. I worry these systems would be costly, ineffective and may be used more as a means of derailing competitors or demoting controversial sites.

However, I do like the overall idea of finding ways for content creators to mark their work, possibly through some date/time stamping process (such as what Myows does). Also, I find the idea of crowdsourcing ways of spotting and demoting sites that promote unlawful content interesting, especially since it would also encourage a transparent and fair process for dealing with such cases and remove the need to completely ban the specific pages or deal with DMCA takedowns for every copyright infringement.

Though these specific ideas may not work out, but they are more of conversation starters.

I do, however, agree with the third suggestion. Google can and should display copyright-related metadata when possible. This is a win-win for everyone, including those who wish to encourage reuse of their content and those who wish to block it. Since at least a basic standard exists, it should be trivial to implement, at least from a technical standpoint.

All in all, Google is unlikely to change its ways due to this or any other petition but the discussion that comes from it may be even more valuable.

So what would you propose Google do to promote original content? How do you feel about the suggestions in the petition? Leave a comment below to help continue the conversation.

Disclosure: I have done paid consulting for Myows.

If you are a WordPress or Drupal user and want an easy way to verify ownership of your creations, you may be in luck. The same also goes for designers, Web and shirt, as new Myows applications may help streamline the process.

Last month, Myows, the copyright non-repudiation service, introduced its API to help make it easier for developers to build applications around the platform. At the time they also announced an API challenge with prizes, including two Apple iPads, for the developers who came up with the best apps in hopes of encouraging development and fostering the creation of some new tools for creators to use.

With the deadline for submission passed the voting has begun for the public participation part of the contest.

There are five applications competing for the prize including the following:

1. Owit: A WordPress plugin that can upload blog files, such as images and audio, to Myows for submission.
2. ShirtSafe: A Web-based service that connects with both Myows and Printfection to allow designers to submit shirt designs to Myows before having them printed.
3. Capow: A web-based service that takes a screenshot of a Web site and submits the image to Myows for protection. Ideal for Web designers to protect their creations.
4. Myows Drupal Module: A module for the Drupal CMS that makes it easy to submit images and content to Myows. A demo site is available.
5. Myows for WordPress: An additional WordPress plugin that can protect both media files and blog posts in WordPress.

I’m unfortunately a bit late in posting this so you only have through the 31st to post your vote. To vote, simply register for an account and leave a comment to this forum thread with your favorite application.

In addition to the public voting, the applications will also be eligible for a Jury Prize, which will be voted on by experts in the field.

So, if you use Myows or wish to dabble with it, now might be a great time to test and see how these applications work for you.

Disclosure: I am a paid consultant for Myows.

Copyright non-repudiation service Myows announced an API challenge for developers last week. The idea is that the developer who generates the best plug-in, add-on or standalone application for their API, meeting the criteria in the announcement, will a prize, namely an Apple iPad.

The runner up will also receive an iPad and all of the applications will also be put before a jury of “industry heavyweights” to award a jury’s prize of $1,000.

Specifically, any submitted application or plugin must do the following three things:

1. Use the new Myows API to develop a plug-in, add-on or stand alone application that assists other Myows members in registering, protecting and/or managing their rights
2. Develop this solution in a way that allow users to access key functionality in 4 steps or less
3. Implement your code and design with integrity, simplicity and elegance

If you are interested in competing, Nettuts+ has two videos to help you along. The first shows you how to register a new application and the second how to build a very basic app.

For those interested in competing, the deadline is May 15. One can submit an application by posting to the API category in the Myows forum. Public voting will take place between the 15th and the 31st and the jury award sometime after that.

I look forward to seeing what interesting applications people come up with for this challenge. Personally, I am hoping for a good WordPress plugin.

Disclosure: I am a paid consultant for Myows.

covered a new startup in the copyright verification field

However, Myows is far from the only service that that is providing instant, unofficial verification of ownership of created works. The non-repudiation field has exploded in recent years. Gone are the days of expensive registries that rivaled the Copyright Office in price (while still being unofficial in nature) as now we have fast, cheap, services that offer to preserve your work and your claim on it.

But even there these services have grown, no longer merely providing a certificate of ownership, but branching out to provide help with licensing and even with infringement resolution.

So which service should you use? It’s a tough question that depends heavily upon what your specific needs and wants are. To help make the process a little bit easier, I’ve created a chart, which I’ve embedded and linked to below, to help you decide which of the services are right for you.

The Companies

Specifically, I decided to compare the services provided by five different sites. Myows, SafeCreative, Numly, MyFreeCopyright and Registered Commons. They are five of the biggest and best-known services in this field and all have been covered on this site in the past.

A notable omission is C-Registry.us, which is more of an orphan works protection service than a non-repudiation one, though it has some functionality as such. Also, since C-Registry is targeted almost entirely at artists and photographers, making it much less useful to bloggers and other types of creators.

However, if you are a visual artist, it is likely a service that is well worth looking into, especially if you sell stock photos.

I then took a look at the companies based up on some of the most popular and requested features. The results are embedded below.

The Chart

Click for Full Size

Link to Google Doc

*Extension is out of date.

Definitions

Very quickly, I want to clarify the meaning of the elements in the chart and what they mean.

1. Cost: The cost of the service.
2. Types of Work: The kinds of files/content that can be uploaded. If a service allows “files” there is no separation between different content types.
3. Works Fingerprinted: Refers to creating a hash of a file that can be compared against later. This is often how works are verified or identified at a later date. It does not involve any visual mark on the work (watermarking) or additional tag. It’s just a unique hash of the file or work’s content that will match other copies of the work.
4. Works Stored: Are the works themselves stored on the service for backup and/or later viewing.
5. Certificate Provided: Whether or not the service provides a printable certificate for easy verification.
6. Barcode Provided: Refers to a machine-readable barcode, commonly used on physical objects.
7. Public Verification: Refers to the ability of someone unsure of the ownership of a work to submit a copy of it (or other known information about it) and see who owns or created the work.
8. Custom License/License to Individuals: A custom license is your ability to draft your own license or set new restrictions on use. The ability to license to individuals is the ability to give a person or company a license to use the work and track that license in the system.
9. Creative Commons Compatible: Whether or not users can select CC licenses.
10. Contact Author: A means to contact the author within the system, not just a profile used by the author.
11. Detection/Resolution Assistance: A Means to detect copies of the work and assistance in bringing about a resolution.
12. API Available: A means for programmers and other service providers to interact with the service, including submitting works. Some may be in private beta at this time.
13. Firefox/WordPress Extensions: Add-ons for the Firefox browser and WordPress blogging platform.
14. RSS Integration: The ability to read content from a site’s RSS and automatically register it, very useful for bloggers.

Beyond the Chart

Though the chart does an overall decent job at comparing the various features to one another, there are a few things that aren’t displayed on the chart that are worth mentioning.

1. Myows is a clear winner on the ease-of-use front, having designed a system that is both attractive and easy to use. Great for those who aren’t familiar with these kinds of services.
2. Safe Creative has a robust API and, through it, has partnered with music sharing site Jamendo to protect the works uploaded to the site.
3. Registered Commons is extremely difficult to use and is targeted mostly at creators of larger, more involved works, as the pricing strategy indicates. It also has a very powerful system for verifying author identities to provide further proof of ownership.

In the end, all of the services have their separate strengths and weaknesses. Myows, for example, is the only service to provide resolution assistance and has great handling of licenses. However, there is no public verification of works. Safe Creative is extremely feature-rich, having at least some capability on all fronts but can be confusing and intimidating to use.

Numly, on the other hand, focuses on speed and simplicity though some of its best features, its extensions, are dated and it does cost money to use it with an account large enough for most creators. MyFreeCopyright is the only one with RSS integration, which makes it invaluable for bloggers, but only has minimal licensing features and doesn’t provide certificates for content other than Web-based ones.

Finally, Registered Commons has a very robust hashing system and very powerful user identification service but all of it comes at a high cost and with a very difficult interface.

All in all, it seems every service has a great deal to offer users and a great deal to learn from others.

Bottom Line

So it all comes back to the question of which service should you use. The answer is obvious: It depends.

From where I’m sitting, both Myows and Safe Creative are clear leaders in this field. Myows is well-aimed at novices and those interested in copyright enforcement where Safe Creative is more aimed at veteran users and those who need public verification and in battling the orphan works problem.

However, I use MyFreeCopyright on this site due to its RSS integration (no reason not to) and have used Numly in the past through its WordPress plugin. Finally, Registered Commons would likely be best used by those creating works that may be considered valuable financially as their identity verification program and strong hashing may provide greater security, but at a price that isn’t practical for most.

On that front though, I am interested in your thoughts. Which do you think is the best and why?

Disclosure: Chris Matthieu, the owner of Numly, is a long-time friend and former co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

In short, this is a video that goes over some of the basic functionality of the Myows system, how to use it and what its designed to do. It’s about 12 minutes long though I am going to prepare a truncated version for YouTube (under ten minutes).

If you’re curious about Myows or recently signed up, this should give you a pretty good primer on how it works and some of the major features of the system.

On a related note, I’m hoping to make this video part of a lengthy screencast series on copyright issues, perhaps a video every 1-2 weeks, if the interest is there. I would appreciate your thoughts on that and how to improve future videos.

Disclosure: Chris Matthieu, the founder of Numly, which is a competitor of Myows, is a former co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show with me. Also, I am using my referral code for Myows in this article though there are no rewards for doing so. This is mainly for tracking purposes.

The third-party non-repudiation market seems to be exploding. New companies such as C-Registry are getting involved in the market and established players, such as Picscout, are adding such services to their existing lineup. Combine this with other players such as Safe Creative, MyFreeCopyright, Registered Commons and Numly and the market for free/low-cost non-repudiation seems to be booming.

All of these sites attempt to help with the same problem, helping copyright holders verify that a work is theirs by having them “register” the work before or immediately after publication. Though not a replacement for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office (if you are a U.S. citizien) it can provide important verification in the event of a dispute.

However, a new site, co-founded by Max Guedy, hopes to make a place for itself in this expanding field. Myows, which stands for “MY Own WorkS”, seeks to not only make the process of verifying works as attractive and efficient as possible, but to add in tools that will help rightsholders deal with cases of infringement, making it a more complete rights-management tool.

On that front, Myows seems to succeed very well. Though only in a public beta phase right now, the product itself is very attractive and effective. The site seems to just work and it makes the process of registering a claim on a work as straightforward and it provides a pretty robust package that is a virtual one-stop shop for rights protection. However, much of Myows promise is, by its creator’s admission, yet to be realized. As holes in the system limit its usefulness right now, but are likely to be fixed in the coming weeks and months.

So how does it work and what does it have to offer? Below we take a closer look.

Using Myows

Registering an account at Myows is free and provides up to 200 MB of storage space. Once you’ve created an account, you can then log in and are immediately greeted with a screen inviting you to upload a work to the site. Through that screen, you can either upload a file, such as an image, movie, or Word file, or paste clear text into a box and submit that.

Once you have done that, you are then required to add additional information to the work including giving it a title, adding it to a category (Myows begins with about a dozen to choose from but you can easily add your own), choosing a client, if any, and adding a description. If you do not hit “save” and add this information, your work, or “OW” as the site calls them, is not saved.

Once Myows is done processing, you are then taken to the OWs page, where you can see the work as well as any others you have uploaded.

The OWs page is something of a command center for your works. It allows you to view them at a glance, search through them, open/view cases of copyright infringements, license works and make needed edits. You will also see a thumbnail of the work if it is an image.

Licensing a work allows you to either grant a license to a specific person, such as a client, or offer a CC license, thus granting a universal one.

However, it’s the copyright enforcement process that will likely garter the most attention. Myows is somewhat unique in this field in that it has built in copyright case management that is designed to both simplify the process of dealing with infringements and help build up a record of the case.

In the event you find an infringement of your work (Note: Myows does not provide any detection of its own currently), you simply locate the OW involved and click on “Create Case”. There you will be asked to fill in the details of the infringement including whether it is online or offline, the URL where you saw the infringement, if applicable, where they might have gotten the infringement from and any notes you wish to make. You can also have Myows capture a screenshot of the page automatically for your records.

You then insert any information you have about the infringer, including their name, email and other contact information. You can also perform a whois search to see if it provides any additional clues.

Once that is done, the next step is to send a cease and desist letter to the infringer (if possible). Myows provides you with a filled-in letter that you can just copy and send yourself. Once you’ve done that, you’re prompted to wait 72 hours before taking any action.

If the infringer responds, you can record the response in Myows. If the work is removed, you can mark the case as “solved” to close it. If the response isn’t favorable, or there is no reply at all, you can then send the infringer a copy of your Myows certificate.

If that fails, you are then encouraged to seek out the Web host, however, due to a bug that is being worked on, Myows does not provide any help with that beyond its forums.

All in all, the process of using Myows is fairly straightforward and the designers have done a great job building an application that looks good, is easy to use and is relatively complete.

The Good

With all of that being said, there is a lot to like about Myows, including the following:

1. User-Friendliness: Myows is probably the most user-friendly of the non-repudiation services I’ve used. If anything, it’s guilty of too much hand-holding. The next step is almost always very clear and, other than the use of “OWs” the terminology is always in plain language. There is no reason why users should be intimidated using this service.
2. Looks: Appearance isn’t everything, but there is no denying that Myows is extremely well-designed. Not only is it easy on the eyes, but it keeps the interface clean and puts most of the information you need just a glance away.
3. Enforcement Assistance: Though Myows does most of the things we expect from a non-repudiation service, it also adds in help with copyright enforcement and does so in a way that someone with no previous experience in the matter should be able to handle most situations.

The easiest way to summarize the benefit of Myows is that it broadens the definition of what a non-repudiation service can do and manages to get it all done with a maximum amount of speed and reliability while also having the minimum amount of fuss.

This isn’t to say that Myows is perfect though, there are problems with it, most of which will hopefully be sorted out before the product leaves beta.

The Bad

A many good things as there are to say about Myows, it feels a bit like a puzzle with missing pieces. Though the promised end result is gorgeous, it’s clear we are not at that point yet as there are several gaps that need to be filled, including the following:

1. No Orphan Works Protection: Myows does not have much of a public-facing element to it and that limits its usefulness in prevent orphan works. There is no way for someone who found an image to punch it into Myows and get potential matches. This gives C-Registry and PicScout a leg up in this area and limits Myows to protection in traditional copyright disputes, which seems to be what it is targeting. However, this may be something they are working on in the near future.
2. No Infringement Detection: Though Myows copyright enforcement assistance is unique in this field, it is incomplete and doesn’t provide any means to detect infringements within the system itself. Instead, it relies on users to use services such as Tineye, FairShare, Copyscape, etc. to detect infringements and bring those into the Myows system.
3. No API: Currently there is no API for the system, which is a big selling point for Safe Creative, and the only way to upload works is through the Myows site. As such, there are no plugins, extensions, etc. to automatically upload content. This is a big loss for WordPress users who would find it most useful to have posts automatically submitted. Fortunately though, the API is being worked on and the team is hoping to have this gap fixed soon.

A more minor issue is that the hand-holding during the dispute resolution may annoy some. Though those who are new to enforcement will find it useful, veterans will be annoyed, especially with the mandatory 72 hour wait period after sending a C&D, that remains in effect no matter what correspondence you get back.

It is also worth noting that the company is based in Singapore and many of its key staff members are from South Africa. Though this isn’t necessarily a problem, as with Safe Creative, which is based in Spain, it could have implications in terms of using the service in an actual court battle and may cause users in other countries to want to double-check the applicability of their legal letters, including their cease and desist notice. However, it should be noted that the C&D notice used on the site is actually a variation of my own, used under my CC license.

Still, the process itself is very solid and I do like the way it builds the case file as you go, eliminating the need for you to keep separate records.

The good news, however, is that none of these annoyances should discourage you from at least trying the service out, all of the major issues are either scheduled to be fixed soon or will likely be fixed with time. Myows is currently just a beta product and impressive one at that.

Bottom Line

Overall, Myows is an effective service. It’s fast, free, easy to use and relatively feature-rich. Though there are some gaps in what it can do, most of them will be resolved with future updates and/or partnerships with other companies. There is definitely a lot to like with Myows and a lot of potential to go even farther.

As such, I recommend that, if you’re interested in non-repudiation, you give it a try. Bloggers may want to wait until the WordPress plugin is released for it, hopefully by year’s end, but photographers, musicians and other artists will likely get a great deal out of it as is.

Though there are some bugs and hiccups still to be found in the system, which should be reported, it is overall very solid and manages to make something that has the potential to be very confusing, namely copyright verification and enforcement, and make it extremely non-intimidating.

It’s a great service for beginners but still powerful enough that most veterans will get at least some use out of the system as well.

Disclosure: Chris Matthieu, the founder of Numly, is a former co-host of the Copyright 2.0 Show with me. Also, I am using my referral code for Myows in this article though there are no rewards for doing so. This is mainly for tracking purposes.