Even Lawyers Don't Understand the Google Author Settlement

This is what really scares me about the Google Author Settlement -- even lawyers don't understand it -- Intellectual Property lawyers who make a living interpreting this stuff and advising clients, are incredibly clueless when it comes to this settlement. And to make matters worse . . . they write about it!

Sure, it is all right there in the fine print, if you care to read the 33 pages of the class notice, or if you a real glutton for punishment, the 383 pages of the Settlement agreement -- so a lawyer, who went to law school, and passed the bar, makes a living with this stuff, teaches law, and has the nerve to blog his educated opinions, should be able to decipher it, right?

Wrong . . . case in point . . . Michael Ratoza, Esq.

Last week I binged "Google Author Settlement" and this blog entry popped up.

http://www.bullivant.com/Opt-Out-of-Google Should an Author, or Author's Heir, Opt Out of the Google Book Settlement?

Hmmm, should I or shouldn't I, Mr. Ratoza - lawyer/blogger/educator/all around great guy?

He begins "The time to fish or cut bait regarding opting out of the proposed Google book settlement is fast approaching. This right of a copyright owner to be excluded from the Google class action settlement should be approached carefully and cautiously by authors and their heirs."

Okay, I like a folksy metaphor as much as the next gal, and the time to fish or cut bait IS fast approaching. I read on. . .

"Staying in the settlement may be financially beneficial to an author by increasing circulation of an author's work. But opting out of the Google settlement by an author or an author's heirs may make sense in certain instances. First, failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work."

Wow!!! That last sentence really nailed it, didn't it? It bears repeating -- "Failure to opt out may void the protection from seizure of a copyrighted work." Weighty stuff, it is sinking in.

Then, he brings the IRS into it!!! "The Copyright Act prevents a government body (other than a bankruptcy trustee) from taking action to seize, expropriate, transfer or exercise ownership over a copyright interest that has not previously been transferred. If an author has not previously transferred an interest in the author's great American novel, song, or other work, then the IRS (plus any other government body, plus any general creditor) is prevented from seizing and exercising ownership over the work.

The protection from seizure only applies if the rights to the work have not been transferred voluntarily by the author. If the author fails to opt out of the Google book settlement, then it may be the case that the Court's approval of the book settlement is deemed to constitute a voluntary transfer of the author's distribution right to Google. In such an event, the protection from seizure may be lost. Is the IRS licking its chops right about now?"

The IRS angle is complete news to me, and I was opting - out anyways, but I got to give it to Mr. Ratoza (yes, RAToza) to frighten me even more.

He goes on for another paragraph or two, but at this point, I decide to call him up. Maybe, just maybe he might like to represent the opt-outs. From the information on his blog, he certainly seems to understand the gist of the settlement, and lean on the side of protecting writers' rights.

So, he answers his phone, and of course wants to know how I got his number. I said I binged him, and his blog popped up, and this of course totally throws him for a loop. "You mean people really read that stuff?!" is his response. Yeah, well, miracles never cease to amaze. . .

I get right to the point and tell him that I am looking for representation and again I catch him off guard. You see, even though lawyers are supposed to wait around until clients call them, it is a rare occurrence, and when it happens they don't really know what to do.

As our conversation continues, I tell him that I am aware that I can not opt-out and object, as I would like to do both. This is where things get weird. He tells me that I can opt-out and object. I say, no, I don't think that is possible, but if it were I would be thrilled to do so.

He insists, that yes, I can opt-out and object. I know this to be false, but I side step it out of decorum, and again ask him if he would consider representing the opt-outs. At this point he says something about having to get a letter out, and asks if he can return my call later. I say yes, absolutely, and naturally, four days later, I have yet to hear from him.

So, here is the very clear language from the class action notice regarding opting out and objecting "Once you opt out, you lose any right to object to the Settlement, because the Settlement will no longer affect you."

Understood? Okay, you are now officially smarter than a lawyer.