When an author or programmer creates an original work (something new), copyright is automatically established and he/she becomes the copyright holder.
It's not necessary to specifically register the copyright, although it's a good idea where there's a possibility of disputes over ownership arising in the future.
Copyright is similar to personal property in that it can be transfered to anyone else at will.
Although it's not a requirement, when transferring copyright from one owner to another it's a good idea to note the transfer in writing, especially for purposes of legal proof. You can also register transfers at the Copyright Office of your country for additional security (unnecessary for most people).
In additon, the creator of an original work can choose to license the use of that work to someone else according to specific conditions, without relinquishing copyright.
PLR Copyright Issues
When it comes to PLR products there is no specific standard.
Take as an example an ebook written by a freelance author / ghost writer for a client who will sell the ebook as PLR. The creation of the ebook would usually be considered as "work for hire" – in receipt of payment for the work carried out, the author would relinquish all claims to copyright in favour of the client.
The client then takes the ebook and sells it with a Private Label Rights license.
Whether or not copyright is transfered to the PLR purchaser is often unclear from reading the terms of the license, which is usually little more that a list of things you can do with the product. But if transfer of copyright is not explicitly stated in the PLR license, it's safe to assume it isn't transfered.
Legally you cannot copyright material for which someone else owns the copyright, unless they transfer the copyright to you.
Some sellers of private label products clearly state that purchasers may not claim copyright. Others say that you may only claim copyright if you make substantial changes to the original private label content, without clarifying what qualfies as substantial changes in their eyes.
What The U.S. Copyright Office Says
A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship."
Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a derivative work or new version.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.
Compilations and abridgments may also be copyrightable if they contain new work of authorship. When the collecting of the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a purely mechanical task with no element of editorial selection, or when only a few minor deletions constitute an abridgment, copyright protection for the compilation or abridgment as a new version is not available.
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work.
The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material.
PLR Copyright And You
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, but I think a court of law would rule that having been explicitly granted permission to modify the original and create derivative works from it, you have the right to claim copyright of that derivative if your own original content constitutes more than half of it – quite possibly even less than that.
It's probably a mute point anyway where a book is concerned – once you've changed that much of the content, unless you've retained entire paragraphs verbatim from the original, it would be nigh on impossible to prove that your work was derived from a particular PLR product (unless the original content was something truly unique, like a revolutionary new way to treat cancer or something).
In practice, where PLR products are concerned I think it's fair to say that most of the time few would know, or care to know, who is claiming copyright for what.
PLR sellers aren't in the business of spending their free time checking every article, ebook, software or whatever on the market to see if it too closely resembles a product they produced so they can sue. I suspect that most PLR sellers, having created content specifically to grant others the right to modify it, view the issue of copyyright claims on PLR material as something not worth bothering about unless it causes problems.
The main reasons people producing derivative works want to claim copyright are to discourage blatent copying of the work by others and the benefits ownership of copyright confers on their own professional image. Few are likely to consider court action even if the work is copied or stolen. The copyright symbol is a bit like a sign warning of dogs – strangers don't know if there are really dogs there or not, and are likely to err on the side of caution. Claiming copyright on PLR material only really becomes a problem if one buyer of a PLR product attempts to sue other buyers for copyright infringement – something I don't think would wash in court anyway.
