The Jilted Lover Approach to The Google Author Settlement

Some people are so hurt and perplexed by the Google Author Settlement that they act like needy jilted lovers -- case in point -- the American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, and The North American Nature Photography Association. I don't think these venerable organizations really understood what was happening to them, and what their attorney in turn decided to do . . . it starts out on the right path, and then turns into a victim's plea for more abuse.

In perusing the docket full of objections, oppositions, and amicus briefs available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/ this one caught my eye.

I myself an a writer and a photographer and both my words and images have been stolen by Google, so I was especially interested in what this brief (#218) had to say.

I learned that "Visual Rights Holders" were originally included in the Complaint, then cut out of the deal --

"Having acknowledged the legitimacy of Objectors' copyright interests and their substantial stake in this controversy, and having obtained whatever leverage was gained by the expansion of the plaintiffs' class to include them, class counsel then proceeded to eliminate the Objectors from the scope of the Settlement."

Whoa . . . Ouch!!! Used, and then dumped -- that's gotta hurt.

Well, if I was in that situation . . . and I am, I wouldn't get mad, I would get EVEN!!!

But, no these Objectors plead with Plaintiffs' counsel to take them back -- well sort of, they plead with the judge to MAKE Plaintiffs' counsel take them back -- including them in the settlement, with a totally lame excuse --

"Any suggestion that the Objectors can be adequately compensated for past infringements by filing separate actions or a "new" class action fails to conform to reality. Objectors lack the resources to file multitudes of individual infringement actions and there is no justification for forcing them to resort to a "new" class action and thereby by consumed by years of litigation and negotiation with Google over the terms of a separate deal."


So is this a veiled threat, or on the up and up? The problem is, whenever I ask lawyers direct questions about their intentions, they cage their motives and responses. The lawyer I work for tells me that is what makes a great lawyer. They never give you a straight answer. But if I can take this statement at face value (probably a mistake) the Objectors are really playing the victim.

I really like that "fails to conform to reality" bit. I mean come on, what reality are these lawyers at Dickstein Shapiro (a huge firm) talking about? It doesn't seem like the Objectors lack the resources to me . . . and besides that, litigating or engaging in settlement proceeding for a time is totally worth the payoff of $50 to $100 Million Dollars. But maybe that is just little ole me.

Cue Tammy Wynette -- she wrote amazing songs of strength and vunerability, but she didn't "Stand by her man like a little ole woman baking cookies" like Hillary Clinton eventually did (and falsely accused Tammy of doing), and she always said "The cure to get over a man, is a new man."

So even though I really appreciate this Objection on many levels, the Photographers and Shirley Saed of Dickson Shapiro need to grow a pair and file a "new" class action. Or I will.

Tammy . . . show us how it is done.