Copyright exists the moment you create something, and proving that is a different problem from having the right in the first place. There is no file number, no certificate, and in most of the world no register at all. What decides a dispute is whether you can show what you made, and when, in a form the other side did not produce.
A record made this way exists independently of you and of us. The work is fingerprinted, the fingerprint is timestamped by a party with no stake in the dispute, and the result can be checked by anyone who wants to, without needing our cooperation to do so.
| Record | What it establishes | Where it is challenged |
|---|---|---|
| File metadata and EXIF data | When and on what device a file was created | Set by your own camera or software, and editable by anyone with the right tool |
| Editing history in creative software | How a work developed, in sequence | Held on your own machine or account, and rarely exported in a form a third party can check |
| Correspondence with collaborators or agencies | That a work was discussed or shared by a date | Proves a conversation happened, not what the attached file contained |
| US Copyright Office registration | A public claim of authorship, examined and dated by the Office | Takes months to process, and only records the version deposited on the day you filed |
| Qualified timestamped deposit | That a file with this exact fingerprint existed on this date | Says nothing about who created it, which other evidence must establish |
The gap in the middle of that table is the one creators run into most. Metadata and editing histories are useful, but they were produced by systems the creator controls, and an opponent with something to gain will say so. Formal registration answers a different question well, but not the one that usually decides a dispute: what the work looked like, and when, before the version that got filed or published.
In the United Kingdom and across the European Union, copyright is unregistered. There is no copyright office to file with and no certificate to obtain, because the right depends on nothing beyond the act of creation.
The United States is the exception, and the exception has sharp edges. Registration with the US Copyright Office is not required for copyright to exist, but the Supreme Court settled in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019) that registration must be complete, not merely applied for, before an infringement suit can be filed at all. Processing an application can take months. Separately, under 17 U.S.C. § 412, statutory damages and attorney's fees are only available where registration happened before the infringement began, or within three months of first publication. Miss that window, and a successful claim can still leave the creator to prove actual financial loss instead of relying on the statutory figures that make litigation viable in the first place.
None of that touches the question a dispute usually turns on: not whether you registered, but what the work contained before the version you registered, published, or sent to a client.
A dispute over authorship is rarely about the finished, published piece. It is about an earlier draft, a rejected client submission, a pitch that a collaborator later claims as their own, or a work published without credit that the creator now has to connect back to an earlier version only they held.
That earlier version is the one nobody thought to protect, because at the time it was made there was no dispute to protect it against. By the time one exists, the only record of it is on the creator's own laptop, in a folder with a modification date that means nothing to anyone who was not already inclined to believe them.
Creative work is shown to people before it is finished more often than any other category on this site. Editors, agencies, collaborators, licensees, and platforms all see drafts, and each viewing is a point where a later dispute over what was shared, and when, becomes a matter of memory rather than record.
Provlyn shares from a vault rather than by sending copies. Access runs through a controlled link, every view is logged against a timestamp, and access can be withdrawn. Each recipient can be issued an individually watermarked copy, so a draft that surfaces where it should not identifies who it was given to. Where the work is code rather than a creative file, the same problem takes a specific shape covered on source code, and where it is a design rather than a written or visual work, the relevant rights and terms are different again, covered on designs and fashion.
One automated sequence, each step taking the output of the one before it. The file is hashed with SHA-256. That hash is timestamped under RFC 3161 by an accredited trust service provider. The timestamped hash is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain through OpenTimestamps. Because only the hash travels, the work itself is never published or shared by the act of recording it.
eIDAS qualification is a separate option on top of that sequence. With it, the timestamp comes from a qualified trust service provider and carries the presumption under Article 41(2) that the date and time are accurate and the data intact. Without it the record is still valid and still checkable, but you would have to argue for its accuracy rather than having the burden sit with the party disputing it. The difference is set out in blockchain timestamps compared with qualified timestamps.
Every certificate can be checked without us. Run SHA-256 over your file and compare, verify the timestamp with OpenSSL, check the issuing authority against the European Commission's trusted lists, and confirm the anchor with any OpenTimestamps client. Our timestamp validator is open source and checks any provider's timestamp, not only ours.
Record your first deposit →By creating a dated record of the work before the question arises, held somewhere neither you nor the other side controls. The file is hashed with SHA-256, the hash is timestamped by an accredited trust service provider under RFC 3161, and the timestamped hash is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain. The certificate shows that a file with that exact fingerprint existed on that date. It proves existence and integrity at a point in time, which combined with the fact that copyright arises automatically on creation, is usually the element a dispute turns on.
No, and in most of the world there is nothing to register with. Copyright in the UK and EU arises automatically on creation, without any application or fee. In the United States, registration is not required for the right to exist, but it is required before you can file an infringement suit, following the Supreme Court's decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. Registering early also matters for the damages available: statutory damages and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 412 are only available where registration occurred before the infringement began or within three months of first publication.
Rarely on its own. Metadata such as EXIF data or a file's creation date is set by the device or software that made it, and both can be edited by the person who holds the file. An opponent who raises this is making a technically accurate point. Metadata remains useful as supporting evidence of how a work developed, but it is not a record dated by an independent third party, which is what a serious dispute requires.
It does not prove who created the work, who owns it, or who submitted it for deposit. A timestamp establishes that particular data existed in a particular form at a particular time and has not changed since. Authorship and ownership are separate questions, decided on the wider factual record: correspondence, commissioning agreements, employment contracts, and how the work was held out at the time. Any service claiming a timestamp proves authorship is overstating what the mechanism does.
Whatever a dispute would be about, at the point it is made rather than when it is finished. An early draft, a rejected pitch, a working file before it goes to a client or a publisher, a version sent for feedback. Recording only the final published work leaves every earlier version, which is usually where a dispute starts, without evidence behind it. Each deposit produces its own certificate, so a sequence of them shows how a work developed rather than a single moment in its life.
Share it from a vault rather than by sending a copy. The recipient opens the file through an access-controlled link, every view is logged with a timestamp, and access can be withdrawn. Where a document is the deliverable, each recipient can receive an individually watermarked copy, so a draft that leaks can be traced to the person it was issued to. This is the point in a creative or commercial relationship where records most often go missing, because nobody expects a dispute at the moment a draft is shared.
It depends on where the dispute is heard. In the EU a qualified electronic timestamp carries a presumption under Article 41(2) of Regulation 910/2014 that the date and time are accurate and the data intact. That presumption is rebuttable: it shifts the burden to the party disputing it. It applies across all EU member states, and the EEA states recognise qualified timestamps through the EEA Agreement. The UK retains an equivalent framework including the presumption, and recognition between the two regimes now runs one way: UK law continues to recognise EU qualified trust service providers, while the EU no longer recognises UK-registered ones. The United States has no equivalent statutory presumption, so the record is assessed under ordinary rules of evidence as technical proof.
No, and for US creators it should not be treated as a substitute. Registration remains the only way to bring an infringement suit in the US and the only route to statutory damages and attorney’s fees within the statutory windows. What a dated deposit adds is evidence of what existed before the version that gets registered or published, which registration does not reach back and cover. The two answer different questions, and a creator with valuable US work benefits from both.
This page gives general information about copyright and evidence of authorship. It is not legal advice. For a specific matter, consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction.