I have a cautionary tale for any of you who plan on dealing with the United States Copyright Office, either now or in the future. It is a tale of how pre-conceived notions can color one’s dealings with another person, and of how throwing a monkey wrench into the works can cost you money you may not be prepared to spend. Ready? Then let’s begin.
A while back, I tried to file for copyright protection on my musical work, “3 Short Pieces for Alto Clarinet.” There are various ways one can go about doing this, but the main ones are first, via the “standard” form (PDF link), and another, via a “single work by a single author” application (PDF link). Now, naturally, since I considered the work to be a single multi-movement work by a single author (me), I figured that it would qualify for method 2, which is a good thing since it’s $20 cheaper.
Not so fast, sayeth the Copyright Office.
You see, the Copyright Office took issue with what I’d filed. They responded with the following:
“Our examination of your application confirms there are three separate works within the file uploaded with this application. An applicant can only register one work using the Single Application. Because your application was not submitted in proper form, we must refuse registration.”
Had they never heard of a multiple-movement work before? Well, I figured they determined that multiple-movement works didn’t qualify for the “single work by a single author” discount, so I refiled it using the “standard” form, thinking this would solve my problems.
Not so fast, sayeth the Copyright Office.
You see, the Copyright Office still took issue with what I’d filed. They responded with the following:
“You submitted one application for multiple works…”
Now, wait a minute. Someone’s started off on the wrong foot here. I submitted one application for one work with multiple movements. Have they never heard of this before? This is the root cause of their problem, right here! So, I write back…
“Please understand that the piece that I am trying to register, “3 Short Pieces for Alto Clarinet,” is nothing more than a single multi-movement work. I have simply used a non-standard naming convention for the movements, calling them “pieces” (i.e., “Piece One, “Piece Two,” “Piece Three”) instead of “movements” within the work. I am willing to wager that if I had called the work “3 Short Movements for Alto Clarinet” and called the movements “Movement One,” “Movement Two,” “Movement Three,” we would not be having this discussion today.
This finally seems to get through to them. They reply…
“Thank you for your response and your description of the work, including that the parts are to played together as one work. Everything has gone through with no changes from our side.
We have processed your claim and you should be receiving a certificate in the next few weeks.”
Finally. Now, all I’ve got to do is wait for my copyright certificate on “3 Short Pieces for Alto Clarinet.” Whew. I’m not expecting any problems from this point onward. I hope.
Leave a Reply