I don't think you own the copyright in that circumstance. Not in the US or the countries of most of the other signators of the Berne Convention of 1986,
because you didn't commit your comments to a tangible medium.
Copyright protects original works of authorship that are
fixed in a tangible form of expression.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
If you dictate to a recording and your secretary subsequently transposes it, you own the copyright because you put your words on a tangible medium, the recording.
With all respect, but you think wrong. You clearly lack understanding of copyright law, just like anyone else I've seen posting here. Tangible form does not mean material form, which you can by the way find in the Berne convention:
art. 2 (2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form.
The principle is that you get protection for fixed form and non-fixed from creations, the
exception is that countries can decide to not protect work that hasn't some material form. (deja-vu, copy-paste from another discussion with a wannabe lawyer overhere) In Belgium I'll own the copyright of an article dictated to my secretary (and if you'd understand Dutch I could give references to case law). In the US it'll depend on how you have the Berne convention implemented but if I'm not mistaken your Copyright Act requires a material form. But that's not the rule of the Berne convention, it's the exception.
Copyright is so much more then just reading a copyright act. Just like reading a book about photography doesn't make you a decent wedding photographer, reading an act or law about copyright doesn't make you an IP lawyer.
KmH, you're in my opinion a great photographer and your knowledge on the subject is amazing, but please stick to your business.
