dpaterso said:
I won't disagree with anything you're saying. And if saying it got you a good night's sleep, that's great.
I admit I'm basing my opinion on other people's opinions -- many screenwriting articles and newsletters I've read have featured agents and prodco people railing against newbie screenwriters including WGA registration and copyright notices on the title page as if they expect their oh-so-wonderful script to be stolen by whoever they send it to. They already know it's the author's property, they already know it's © Copyright The Author, 2006. That's what I've read anyway, from people working in the industry. Maybe they're just being petty, looking for excuses. Maybe they're not. Who to believe?? That's always the real question, isn't it?
Yes, the question we all have to ask ourselves, and answer ourselves.
However, as you will see in a moment, there's a crucial difference between a registered copyright and an un-registered one.
dpaterso said:
Registration with a neutral third party (WGA or WGAe or any of several other online services) provides proof of ownership tied to a registration date. That third party will, if called upon to do so, provide this information to a court of law. That is the basic purpose of registration. The Library of Congress sounds more official but it's only providing the same service, and nothing more. Yes, the WGA services tie in with Guild signatory companies but the basic registration function still applies. You can try this out yourself! Register your script only with WGA. Get a prodco to steal your script and make it into a mega-blockbuster. Take the prodco to court. Have your lawyer subpoena registration data from WGA even if you or the prodco aren't WGA members. Win your case. Retire. Seems simple enough to me.
Everything is opinion. Nobody knows anything for sure. Also see sigline.
Here's the diff, copyright has a law on the books, the others don't. This has enormous implications.
WGA registration is for one purpose and one only ... to support the deliberations of the Guild's arbitration committee when it adjudicates a credit dispute. That said, a writer may use that registration record in a court of law to help corroborate a case for authorship, but it does not prove authorship, it only helps to corroborate a claim of authorship.
But the real difference is this: If you bring an infringement suit against a party and you possess a registered copyright on the material in question,
and you affixed a notice of copyright on all copies you distributed, you can sue for costs
and for damages, whereas if you only have an unregistered copyright and/or a WGA or private service registration, you can
only sue for costs, you
cannot sue for damages.
The notice covers a key legal question and is required to be affixed ... because the law, in its graceful equinimity, wants any potential thief to see that the material is copyright and hence cannot later make the claim "I didn't know it was copyright material ..." The notice solves this problem, because the court accepts it as being proof the guy knew, whether he did or didn't doesn't matter. The court is simply saying, "You should have seen the notice, it was affixed, and if you didn't see it, well, that's your tough luck" and proceeds on the basis that the guy knew.
And we all know the money in an infringement suit is in damages, costs amount to little more than nil, and if you win the case, your opponent is required to pay your costs anyway.
The difference can be substantial. If you bring an infringement suit without possessing a registered copyright, you'll be compensated for your costs, say $50K for your lawyer and $10K for incidentals. On the other hand, if you bring such a suit with a registered copyright in hand, you'll not only be awarded costs, you'll win damages too, and they may sum to a half million, or more.
This is legal fact, not opinion.
In the course of an infringement suit if you have a registered copyright and can show that the accused had access to your material and expert witnesses testify that yes, the accused used some or all of the subject material, you win in a slam dunk -- because your registered copyright
proves your authorship ...
period. No case can be made against it.
Whereas, if you are using a WGA or private service regisration as the means to "prove" your authorship, it isn't a slam dunk ... all you can do is make a case for authorship, you cannot "prove" it. If you use such registrations a judge or a jury is going to have to accept your case in order for you to prevail, and the other guy's lawyer is going to be giving them hundreds of reasons why they shouldn't accept your case, half of which won't be true but nevertheless until refuted, they become part of the defense case. The jury hears them, and despite the fact they may be later told to disregard them, once heard, things become evidence to most jurors.
But a defense lawyer is hard pressed to argue against a registered copyright, most judges won't even let them make the attempt. If the dates support your case, and you have a documented paper trail that leads to the accused infringer possessing the material ... you've won, even if your paper trail is only a "probable or reasonable conclusion," and not a fact.
My sense is if you're going to do anything, why not use the procedure that allows you to win damages instead of just costs? Damages is where the justice is, it isn't in costs.
As far as what you hear expressed around town well, yes, that's all differing opinions and views, reflecting different experiences and exposures. But, there is absolutely no logical or legal case to be made against a screenwriter registering his or her copyright and affixing the notice to their work. There may be a cultural or social one, it's "taboo," but when you examine the reasons for this you find "taboos" usually have no basis in law, no basis in logic, and no basis in fundamental justice ... and hence offer no moral case. Taboos are merely bias.
In other words, in legal terms, the cultural and social cases are hogwash.
As I indicated, of some goofball producer wants to deny a sale to me because I happened to affix a notice of copyright on my work, well, screw him. He has no case, all he has is an attitude. I'd prefer to not work with that kind of guy anyway. But that's just me, and you are just you, and we do what we do for all the reasons. I would not ever argue that a screenwriter MUST register their copyright and include a notice on their work; I would explain the rationale for doing it, but the choice is up to the individual, not me.
Onward! 
