Does emailing a manuscript to yourself copyright it?

kill me pete

"Kill me, Pete"

wow

This. Before being posted the post is just an idea and you cannot protect ideas.

Because ideas are bulletproof.

"Kill me, Pete"

Eh, depends on what you mean by "fixed."

Any caselaw on that? (Don't bother looking it up unless you're interested; I don't care.)

If you really are a lawfag, you should know that your original expression needs to be fixed in a tangible medium before it has any copyright. Therefore, until you pressed 'post' and it was written into Veeky Forums's server's data storage devices, it wasn't fixed in anything, and therefore had no copyright.

see

>Therefore, until you pressed 'post' it wasn't fixed

This is why you have to mail it to yourself (or someone else).

Mailing it is the irl form of pressing "post."

yes, that's all there is to copyyurighting--you email something yo yourself and it's 'yours''
one time I emailed myself the whole world. it's all mine. all mine.

>until you pressed 'post' and it was written into Veeky Forums's server's data storage devices, it wasn't fixed in anything

But the NSA permanently saves everything via keyloggers as it's typed, therefore if it's typed it's "fixed" even if you don't hit post.

And if you're writing something by hand you can photocopy what you wrote in order to fix it in a "tangible" medium of expression. Or take a selfie holding the document (which can also register the copyright via the Copyright Office's facial recognition software, if your face is registered with the Office).

"Kill me, Pete"

pic related because threads keep getting pruned whenever I write big posts for them

fuck

what is a guess, though?

take a guess

no, no, Ii'm asking you

>tfw accidentally looked at immunity dog once, and pete will never take me

Please post the caselaw. I am interested.

"Kill me, Pete"

>implying the nsa doesnt take and store screenshots of your monitor every second

>implying me and one billion screaming Chinamen aren't taking screenshots every thread for dossier purposes

Hey, I'm , and I don't think you're correct. I think that a copyright exists, it's just unenforceable, because in an infringement case you have to demonstrate that defendant [at least plausibly] had access to the source material.

there is effectively no difference between me not pressing 'post', and me scribbling something down on a piece of paper and locking it in a drawer (because I could have just written it later), but nobody would dispute that the second work is 'copyrighted'.

The thing is, if you wrote something good nobody else is going to duplicate it unless you've publicized it, so we're arguing a bit of a moot point. I guess this could be an issue if you gave a public speech of which there are no recordings, but the search terms for such a case are so nebulous (public speech copyright) that i can't find any caselaw

Hey, I'm
In an infringement case you have to demonstrate that defendant [at least plausibly] had access to the source material. there is effectively no difference between me not pressing 'post', and me scribbling something down on a piece of paper and locking it in a drawer (because I could have just written it later), but nobody would dispute that the second work is 'copyrighted'. If somebody 'copied' my post that I never posted, I could easily write it down on a piece of paper and pretend I did it years ago.

The thing is, if you wrote something good nobody else is going to duplicate it unless you've publicized it, so although you're probably technically correct (at least under the wording of the relevant statute, which the court could always strike down), it's a moot point. I guess it would be an issue if you give a public speech but didnt make any recording.

Hmm, so if I take friends manuscript I can create evidence I own his?

No.

bumping for caselaw

>This post was copyrighted as soon as I typed it, irrespective of whether I pressed 'Post', because it is my original expression pls no stealerino

>t. lawfag

Fuck the police

not for profit, it's fair use
also, Veeky Forums ToS probably seizes all of your IP anyways

>Please post the caselaw. I am interested.

If you feel like digging in (I don't, particularly), this article looks like it would have some decent leads; it's all about the fixation and 'tangibility' requirements, and how they're being interpreted by courts in the digital age:

The Evolving Contours of the Fixation Requirement in Copyright Law
>digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1388/10wjlta017.pdf?sequence=4

I don't even understand why did you write 90% of your post only to admit that the other user was correct unless we enter some hypothetical scenarios in which the court strikes down the statute, which the court is extremely unlikely to do. As far as the last sentence, a public speech that was not recorded in any way or form is not a subject of copyright. The unrecorded speech will be considered to have an improvisational character and you cannot claim copyright over improvisation because this would mean seeking to protect the words, phrases and linguistic structures used in creating the improvisation.

To clarify, an improvisation can be copyrighted if recorded.

>Say I go to a jazz concert and listen to a soloist's improvisation. If I have the musical equivalent of a photographic memory, I may be able to reproduce that improvised solo in my own concert on the following night.
>If that solo exists nowhere but my memory (i.e. the original concert was not recorded) I may play it with impunity, because it is not "fixed" and therefore not copyrightable.
>BUT, if the original concert was recorded (e.g. taped, videoed), I am barred from playing my version of the solo.
cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/copyprimer.html

underrated boast

True. I remember studying a UK case dealing with an improvised solo in an album.

Kek'd

Could you record yourself performing an artist's improvisation, and then sue the original artist if he tries to make money from his improvisation?

because copyright and enforceable copyright arent the same thing. if a copyright is the 'expression of an idea' the medium of the expression doesnt matter, except insofar as it is presently considered actionable at law.

it's an ontological question more than a legal one.

This.

I've got a half-dozen unopened envelopes with drafts in small print on them mailed to myself from months or years before publication date.

They call it the poor man's copyright but it works well enough in the end.

You know actual copywriting costs like $40 and can be done online?

I've got like $5 to my name and if I wasn't mooching off some gullible fucks who tolerate me out of guilt, I'd be living under a bridge.

$40 is fucking expensive.