Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 23, Issue 2
Share on Social
Public Service Annoucement: No. Mailing Something to Yourself is Not a Substitute for Copyright Registration or a Patent.
A common intellectual property “urban legend” is that mailing something to yourself is legally equivalent to a copyright registration or a patent. This practice is often called the “Poor Man’s Copyright” or “Poor Man’s Patent” and the idea has been around for a long time.
The theory is that mailing a copy of a work or invention to yourself will provide you with certain legal rights akin to a copyright registration or a patent so long as the envelope remains sealed and bears a postmark by the United States Postal Service. Another variation of this theory is that documenting the work or invention and having the document notarized will grant similar legal protection.
There is no provision under U.S. law that supports these theories, and they are not a substitute for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office or obtaining a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A mailed or notarized copy may be evidence that a work or invention was in your possession on a certain date, but it does not prove that you hold the rights to the work or invention.
Thus, if you’re thinking about mailing something to yourself about your work or invention, whatever value might result from such a tactic may not be worth the cost of the stamp.
Kristyn Webb is the Group Leader of Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and is currently earning a Master’s Degree in Copyright Law at King’s College London.
Published January 25, 2023
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
September 19th is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. In terms of intellectual property, “pirating” refers to the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of someone else's creative work without their permission, and often for personal or financial gain.
National Red Wine Day is observed each year on August 28th. This year, to celebrate, we are sharing a fun story about wine, trademarks, and legal battle over the rights to use a family name on wine labels.
Have you ever wondered what was the very first work to receive a copyright registration in the United States?
The words “generative artificial intelligence” or “generative AI” have been crowding headlines for months with stories about the potential benefits and perils to humans. This article breaks down the top questions and answers we encounter regarding AI and intellectual property.
How many ways are there to tape a banana to a wall? Yes, this is a serious legal question. In fact, this was the question presented in a recent copyright infringement lawsuit in Florida.
Under US copyright law, to receive protection, a work must be “fixed” which means that a work must be expressed or embodied in a material medium that lasts for more than a transitory period.
The US Copyright Office recently made headlines for partially revoking a copyright registration it previously issued for an AI-generated graphic novel. Artist Kristina Kashtanova used the Midjourney platform to create images that she included in her graphic novel called Zarya of the Dawn.
Ed Sheeran recently successfully defended against a copyright infringement lawsuit over his 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud.” Songwriter Ed Townsend’s heirs brought the suit alleging Sheeran had infringed Townsend’s copyrights in the 1973 Motown classic, “Let’s Get It On” which Townsend co-authored with Marvin Gaye.
American publishing houses consistently snapped up the works of the famous British author, re-published them in cheap editions, which sold all over the country, and they pocketed the proceeds without any remuneration to Charles Dickens.
For many of us, the term “Easter egg” conjures up memories of dying hard-boiled eggs in bright colors or hunting for treasures and candies stuffed inside plastic orbs hidden around the neighborhood.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
