DISQUS

That Burial album is killer. Thanks for the tip on the mix.

Ugh, thank you for validating my Wordpress thoughts. We recently had our site redone in Wordpress, and I can't tell you how many times I've banged my head against the keyboard trying to understand why what should be so simple is apparently so hard. So hard, in fact, our web developer doesn't know what to do either. Maddening.

I generally agree with your analysis, particularly with respect to the types of websites that might benefit from registration.

However, you said this: "copyright law does not consider merely posting a work to the Web publication." While the Copyright Office (rather frustratingly) doesn't appear to take a position on this, there is some case law that holds that posting a work to the web does in fact constitute publication. Getaped.com, Inc. v. Cangemi, 188 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), is the most frequently cited example. Here's a relevant portion:

"By accessing a webpage, the user not only views the page but can also view -- and copy -- the code used to create it. In other words, merely by accessing a webpage, an Internet user acquires the ability to make a copy of that webpage, a copy that is, in fact, indistinguishable in every part from the original. Consequently, when a website goes live, the creator loses the ability to control either duplication or further distribution of his or her work. A webpage in this respect is indistinguishable from photographs, music files or software posted on the web -- all can be freely copied. Thus, when a webpage goes live on
the Internet, it is distributed and ''published'' in the same way the music files in Napster or the photographs in the various Playboy decisions were distributed and ''published.'""

As you might expect, the argument regarding whether the website in question was published was raised in the context of whether statutory damages were available or not. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this holding, as I don't see the logical connection between losing the ability to control duplication and publication. However, it is worth keeping in mind.

Now that I've read the full email, I notice USCR repeatedly refers to the USPTO, not the US Copyright Office. For example...

"Protecting a website is the responsibility of the owner of the website and must be registered through the United States Patent and Trademark office."

"Domain name and trademark registration does not register your website for copyright registration and it is the responsibility of the website owner to register with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to complete registration."

"If you fail to reply to this notice this website will NOT be registered through UCR to the United States Patent and Trademark Office."

As you and your readers likely well know, the USPTO has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright registration. So not only is USCR offering services most don't need, they don't appear to know exactly what they're talking about.

We see a lot of these types of communications sent to our trademark clients. Once a federal trademark application is filed, it's public record, and there are loads of unscrupulous entities who take the opportunity to send very official-looking mailings to the applicant. These usually offer monitoring services, or offer to place the mark on some other privately-held register, all for inflated prices and using names and logos designed to look governmental. We tell our trademark clients to ignore anything like this that comes their way, as we are the sole contact for communications from the PTO.

USCR operates in a different manner, of course. And if they can convince a site owner that the (mostly unnecessary) services they're offering are worth the price, more power to them. That line you've quoted from their email certainly has the whiff of an intent to deceive, however.