I'm a US user, but if I'm understanding the Berne Convention correctly, then most countries in the world make copyright apply automatically without need for registration. Quoting the Wikipedia article on the Berne Convention [1] (disregard the citations in the quotes):
> As of November 2022, the Berne Convention has been ratified by 181 states out of 195 countries in the world, most of which are also parties to the Paris Act of 1971.[4][5]
> The Berne Convention introduced the concept that protection exists the moment a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. A creator need not register or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the convention. It also enforces a requirement that countries recognize rights held by the citizens of all other parties to the convention.
With that said, the US does require the author to have completed the registration process before filing a lawsuit over copyright infringement [2]. I say "completed the registration process" because the US Copyright Office might refuse the registration, but the author will be entitled to sue infringers afterward regardless of the outcome.
This comment is tangential to, but references, my previous comment.
I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding, a copyrightable work is "fixed" (and can be copyrighted) the moment it is first recorded somewhere other than in someone's memory. A computer drive is a physical medium. Even if the record of the work gets destroyed, the copyright on the work continues to exist. Whoever fixes the work is the author.
It's not clear-cut, though. (Copyright is messy in general, but I digress.) Situation A: If you think of a song, never write any of it down, but sing it to me while I record you with your permission, I am the author of the recording. Am I the author of the song? I don't know, though a court might. Situation B: If you write the song down before I do, then I think you would get copyright to the song and hence exclusive rights to any recording I make of it (the recording being a derivative work). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in Situation B you would be able to retroactively prohibit me from distributing the recording or changing it in anyway. If you had written the song down before I started recording your singing then you would be able to prohibit me from making the recording in the first place.
In addition to copyright law, there is also a body of law called "authors' rights" (originally the French term droit d’auteur). Authors' rights have overlap with copyright but apply in additional situations and give authors additional... rights. Authors' rights apply to unrecorded performances, not just to fixed works [1]. In the previous paragraph, you would have authors' rights in both situation A and situation B.
There is also a body of law distinct from copyright law called moral rights. The Berne Convention establishes moral rights in Article 6bis [2]:
> Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
My very US-centric opinion upcoming: The non-physical components of copyrightable works are both non-scarce [3] and non-rival [4]. In my opinion, anything related to non-scarce, non-rival works should not be restricted in copyright-like ways except as a matter of ensuring that the makers of the works had enough financial cushion to be incentivized to make the works in the first place. Moral rights go beyond that purpose. Right of attribution is reasonable (within limits; which people should I grant attribution to if I'm making a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix of a... and so on?). Right to publish anonymously is inherently included in freedom of expression, and I really prefer that the country I live in protect freedom of expression. Right to ban "modification of"? Only as a necessary evil for financial incentivization and only as a privilege, since making a modification (which is making a remix) doesn't destroy the original work. Also, free as in speech software i.e. libre software should get a pass. Right to ban "derogatory action in relation to" is incompatible with freedom of expression.
