Why Large Law Firms Need Editors — A Fine Example
Here’s a fine example of why large law firms need editors. Written by “one of the country’s most well-known art lawyers,” it discusses orphan works, copyrighted works whose owners cannot be reached:
In short what the amendment provides if a user can not find the work’s creator and they tweak the work they have cart blanc to use an artist’s work without any fees being paid even when the creating artist identifies themselves they do not even have to stop infringing.
From the same article:
The copyright office sought comments to address this issue they laid out the issue as they saw it as follows (their complete statement can be found in the Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 or at, http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr3739.html).
Now when you catch an infringer, they know they are caught, have exposure and they will generally negotiate a settlement, if this amendment becomes law you can be sure every infringer caught will claim the work they copied had no name on it so it is an “Orphan Work” so they are not liable. Instead of coming to a compromise it will be “so sue me.”
While we strongly encourage registering you copyright for many reasons having a registration might be of little help if your name has been removed by the infringer (or earlier) because you can not search the copyright office for images.
Why run the risk of having a client ask you to explain why she’s paying big bucks for someone who is so careless about his work?
5 February 2008 at 10:44
[...] or this: In short what the amendment provides if a user can not find the work’s creator and they tweak the work they have cart blanc to use an artist’s work without any fees being paid even when the creating artist identifies themselves they do not even have to stop infringing. [...]