I think it bothers a fair number of them because I see it mentioned quite a lot. Or maybe it's friendly don't-mark-yourself-out-as-an-amateur advice rather than don't-do-this-or-you'll-irritate-me advice.
Yes, I've definitely seem comments by some editors who are insulted by it - as though rather than the author being unprofessional, they're just assuming the editor is unprofessional.
I've been a bit pissed off by people who asked me to read their work and then sent it with a big long warning about copyright and whatever. I've got my own crappy drafts to deal with, I'm not going to steal anyone else's. And if you don't trust me to not steal your stuff, why would you trust me to give you an honest opinion about it? Also, if you don't trust the publishers or agents you work with in terms of stealing your MS, you're going to have a HELL of a time accepting their word about sales, royalties, etc. It's really hard to get independent confirmation of sales--you pretty much just have to trust your publisher to tell you truth. And all your income is sent to your agent first, then your share is forwarded on to you. If I didn't trust my agent to not steal my MS, why the hell would I trust her to not steal my cash? Don't do business with shady people, and then you don't need to worry about them doing shady things.
God, you ask @BayView to sign one document in her own blood and she acts like you were out of line...
Because people with experience in the field know it isn't necessary, and people who lack experience in the field don't often realize that it isn't necessary.
Why would someone care if they seemed 'amateurish', when they were in fact, just getting started? Is it really going to harelip everyone on Cripple Creek if I copyright my novel? Does it make any extra work for the publisher? What if you self-publish?
You're not understanding - we are talking about applying the notice to submissions. Your novel is already "copyrighted" when you write it. Why put the notice on, even if only a small number of editors or agents are bothered, since it has no legal significance.
You should absolutely do what you want, and if you self-publish it won't matter at all. I mean, you did ask how people here handle their copyright... so... this is how we handle it. (different ways, but based on similar understandings)
Why not? First, if you're a writer you'll be able to make more anyway. Second, you'll have the complete work, and anyone stealing a sample won't be able to complete it in the same way or they wouldn't need to steal it. Third, you can show evolution of writing, drafts etc, while they will not. Fourth, if they can monetize it, they can be sued, so it really isn't worth their risk. Fifth, if they can't monetize it, who cares?
You shouldn't worry because, in the end, what happens? So some kid rips you off and enters it into a school comp and wins? Big deal. Some writer rips it off and gets published and gets an award: you make the publisher aware, you get compensation of some sort, the 'cheat' loses any chance of a career, ever. And if in the worst case, not likely scenario of getting ripped off, which doesn't actually happen, you can still write another story. It sucks, but you won't die. So yeah, no need to be paranoid. Because one thing I've learned over the years, is that over protective writers go nowhere. fast.
Sooo, by your logic, someone who doesn't actually have the copyright can't put the symbol on the manuscript and lie? It's like carving your name on a piece of someone's cheese to 'prove' you own it. The symbol is, quite literally, useless. Copyright, by law, is implied on submission. If they publish and later find out you don't have the copyright they'll sue the living shit out of you, symbol or not.
Because they know it isn't needed, and they know pro writers know this too. Publishers use the symbol in finished books because they have purchased the copyright--establishing that it is not inherent in creation and has been acquired by contract--and they have copyright of that printing and all associated art they paid for. But it's just a note, really. Trademark symbols are different. R establishes that a trademark certification is in place, but is more legally required when registered, while arts copyright is implied on creation. Edit: I'm looking at my desktop picture of a McLaren MP4-31 and it has a copyright symbol next to 'McLaren'. They do this because they are establishing that McLaren, not the photographer, has the copyright. A photographer often wants credit, but does not need to confirm copyright with a symbol when displaying their own images because it's implied.
No, I'm not claiming someone can't put the symbol on the manuscript and lie. And I don't think it matters what's printed on the document, the copyright is registered, so anything anyone else claims is null and void.
I think that you may be overestimating the protection provided by registering your copyright, and underestimating the automatic protection that you get just by creating the work.
Yup. Registration can help in a court case, simply as a time stamp, if you get that far, but likely you won't need it if you can prove you were the original author. I once registered a script with the Writer's Guild of America East when I was doing the rounds getting my script read by the studios. The big 4 feel more comfortable with guild registration to assure them you do in fact own the work, but that was a waste of money as far as my protection was concerned. Studios don't steal scripts. They steal ideas, sometimes, which are not protected, but not scripts.
