Forum: Author Hangout

Patterson himself calls his shorties 'BookShots' - stories with the boring bits left out.

I believe it was my local library that called them (and similar) as novel-pocketbooks on a display rack, even though some were full-sized hardbacks except for the depth.

AJ

Works, which may be a significant piece of pop culture, but no one has the right to republish them or create derivative works based on them and no one knows who would be legally able to grant permission.

By and large, the 'accepted' usage of the entire 'abandoned works' category is that, as long as you make the effort to contact the original source, and acknowledge where it came from, you're free to publish the material. That may not hold up in court, but the assumption is, IF anyone contests the material, you'll pull it from your work, so it becomes essentially 'no harm/no foul'.

I run into this all the time with alternate fonts on the various font sites. The original creators go missing all the time, or someone posts 'new fonts' they've discovered online, but aren't the owners of, and it's up to each user to determine whether it's 'legal' or not. The sheer fact that so many people publicly seek information about the owners on the online forums documents that they're NOT trying to steal the work, and are actively seeking to pay someone for it.

This is also a common problem for many of the online pictures floating around the internet, where photographers simply never check their feedback on the sites (that only offer feedback on each individual photo, rather than direct email to the photographer).

In short, there's a legal way to handle these issues (and Lazeez seems to be in the clear, in this regard), and then there's the illegal method (simply grabbing it and using it without investing the research to establish the works aren't abandoned). The distinction is something that all authors need to be aware of when they include material in their stories.

All generally true, but if someone claiming the copyright does pop up and sue, your run the risk that a court won't accept the "I'll pull it so 'no harm/no foul' and make you pay damages/back royalties.

The 'no harm/no foul' doesn't protect you, but the fact (that you can document) that you made every effort to legitimately contact the original creators, listing the efforts when you posted/published the work, is likely to be accepted by most courts. Granted, it's not a guarantee you'll be protected, but it substantially increases your chances if anyone ever sues you. However, the fact no one has sued the thousands of people on these sites, freely posting these works, clearly indicated that no one remains to claim ownership, meaning ANY lawsuit is highly unlikely. (I would never suggest you try this when there's a large publishing house involved, as they will file charges whether the original authors lives or not!)

Note: This is a limited exception to the 'abandoned works', which doesn't apply to any other works, and was intended as a guideline for working around the few cases where you're unable to identify who owns a given work. Please, don't use this as a license to publish whatever the hell you want!

True, but on the other hand, with a truly orphaned work, the odds that you will ever need to defend it in court are very low.

Again, the cases I'm discussing, the works were clearly abandoned, as users had been posting the works for years, while readers kept searching for any clue as to who owns it so they CAN pay them. Clearly, if the owner was still around, they'd have objected or filed charges years ago. Somehow, I doubt they're suddenly going to pick the one individual with the least ability to pay, or even that there's anyone who even knew the original author created the piece (otherwise some distant relative or ex-wife would file a claim as his last-remaining relative).

Thus, the risks are essentially nil, regardless of the potential worst-case costs (just consider how many family members know an SOL author is writing online porn).

Again, I was outlining the currently accepted procedure on handling unknown, abandoned copyrights, rather than how to guarantee you'll NEVER EVER be sued by anyone in your entire life.

The short answer, do you due-diligence, demonstrate you made every effort to find the original creator, mention in your work that you tried to find him for proper approval but were unable to (with the implied assumption you'll yank the work if the rightful owner objects).

Legally, there's little a court would ever object to with such diligence. The author, in that case, did everything right, other than conducting a seance. At worst, the case would be extremely short, with the judge deciding 'either remove the usage or pay the agreed upon fee'. In short, there's NO malicious theft of someone else's work. So unless the original creator has been in a comma for the past decade, and woke up with a instant desire to sue anyone he can find, the odds of a suit of any kind are ridiculous.

Beyond that, even if they DID sue, there's little they COULD claim. Not only would they have to ask for monetary damages based upon your earnings, they'd then have to determine what influence a single font on the cover had for the limited profits you earned.

True, there ARE penalties if they ever filed an official copyright (something few individuals file for), but they aren't as likely to initiate a lawsuit when facing financial losses (lawsuits AREN'T cheap for either party, so they're unlikely to sue anyone without the means to pay for the lawsuit itself).

Once again, I find your complaints spurious. I'm not saying that you don't have a point (about your legal risk), I just think you're taking the my arguments out of context (as is your want).

Or at least have general-purpose safe harbor provisions (possibly combined with a standardized pool fees to cover late claims).

Last one in the pool has to pay the rest of us a buck!

No,you are are misconstruing my argument. I agree with you that if you've done the due diligence, the odds you will end up in court are slim to none.

However, there is no way to predict how the courts will rule if it ever did happen. The risk is low but unquantifiable.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd thought you were just attacking the principal as not being a perfect solution, rather than being one to deal with an awkward legal solution.

Once again, I never suggested that anyone SHOULD seek to use abandoned resources, but I have, following the guidelines (fonts) I've laid out.