Author: Leslie Burns

Posted on

Money is Not a Bad Word

I have been helping photographers and other creative pros with their businesses since even before I launched Burns Auto Parts as a photographers’ rep company back in 1999. The whole reason I got into the creative world was because I could use the logical side of my brain to help creative pros, whom I loved and had mad respect for (still do!). I went to law school to be able to help them more, but the underlying idea of helping creative pros be successful in their businesses lies at the root of it all. In short, I’ve been trying to figure out ways for you folk to be successful for (sigh) decades now.

There has been one thing I’ve had to fight in the creative community itself, all that time: the cultural myth, especially in artists’ own heads, that making money somehow makes art less, well, art. That is, artists make art (and writers write and musicians make music–all of which I’m short-handing to art/artists from here on) because they are driven to do it–they are passionate about their art–and many of them would make their art even if they didn’t make money from it. That’s fine, great in fact, but if you want to be a professional artist of any kind, you have to make money. It’s not filthy lucre, it’s the fundamental necessity in our capitalistic system. You can’t pay rent or buy supplies with “likes” or credit lines. Try telling the electric company that you’ll trade a credit line in your next work for a month of free power and tell me how that works for you.

The myth of the starving artist as somehow a better or more noble (hurl!) artist than a profit making one is, in my opinion, nothing more than sour grapes or an excuse not to try harder. Poverty isn’t success, no matter how you slice it. And buying into the guilt offered by some who know artists have this myth etched in the brain, those who encourage artists like you to think that, somehow, standing up for your rights and insisting on getting paid for your work taints the artistic value of your work, well that isn’t being noble, it’s being a sucker.

Don’t get me wrong–I don’t believe that an untalented hack who makes a lot of money is a better artist than a talented one (thinking that the converse of something is true is a logical fallacy, by the way). This past weekend I was at a charity event where a financially successful “artist” “performed” his so-called art, and it was all I could do not to stand up and tell the crowd it was being buffaloed (in his defense, at least it appeared he licensed the art he was copying). But a talented artist who doesn’t do what s/he can to be a financially successful one, well, that just makes me sad and frustrated. It doesn’t have to be that way.

My favorite excuse is “the business isn’t what it used to be.” Y’know what? You’re right, it’s not; but that just means you need to be playing on today’s field, not yesterday’s. You need to ask yourself: what can you do today to make money with your art? In my opinion, the answer comes down to doing two things:

  1. Make the best art you can–the stuff that moves you and that you really love to make–and market it to the right clients who use work like yours. This is how you get assignment work in your field as well as requests for secondary licensing of your existing work (stock photos/illos or republishing of writings).
  2. Register your copyrights as soon as possible, then go after the infringers who steal your work; and they will, because it’s fabulous work (see #1) so people will want it. If they don’t pay for a license before using it (again, see #1), then hold their feet to the legal fire. It is your right. More importantly in this context, it’s good business.

That second part gives many artists pause, but there is nothing wrong with standing up for your rights and there is nothing wrong with making money in the process. The laws were created to do exactly that: to protect the value of your art! But you have to do your part to make those remedies available.

I have anecdotal evidence from more than a couple of artist-friends (and clients) that they are not only making up for “lost” stock/relicensing sales through pursuing infringers, they are making more. Contrary to another popular myth, it doesn’t always (or even usually, in my experience) cost a ton of money to file an infringement suit but even if it did, most infringements are settled long before suit is filed.

Now, as I have to say (and it is true), past results are not predictive of future outcomes and every case is its own set of facts so no one, certainly not me, can guarantee any result. But I can say, with a high level of certainty, this: you aren’t going to improve your bottom line by wringing your hands, bemoaning the new business world, and cursing the necessity of making money.

Posted on

Artists At The Forefront

The New York Times Magazinelast week included an article about how artists are exposing the internet-related privacy issues most people have been oblivious to. I think it is a must-read for everyone, but particularly for creative pros. Why creatives? Because sometimes y’all need a reminder of your power.

Artists of all stripes look more deeply at the world around them; those who inform themselves the most tend to make very strong art. Strong art is, in my opinion, that which challenges the observer in some way. The projects discussed in this article are great examples of that; they expose how the internet has become (mostly) a corporate space and how the “service providers” are taking much more than they give.

You, as an artist (regardless of your medium), havethe power to confront authority and the complacency of the masses. You can make us see the things we have been blind to. You can challenge us to do better, to be better. You can find ways to do that which, perhaps, on the surface appear pleasing and gentle; once past the surface, though, we see the harsherreality and, maybe, you show usa way to change it.

As we move into what may be very dark days indeed for many people, especially those on the margins, including creatives, remember your power. Use it to help shape our cultural future and, in the doing, you will help write a better history.

Posted on

2017 Planning Ideas

The end of the year brings out the compulsion to make lists and I am no exception to that. It is a good time, now, in the days before the new year, to make some plans and changes to your business. Hopefully, the list below will give you some ideas of things you can do in 2017 to have a happier, more productive and lucrative, and more legally prepped (think, preventive) creative business.

  1. Register your copyrights regularly and often. If you are a photographer, register your copyrights in newly (first) published work every month; you can do this as a group published registration for one fee ($55). For all artists (not just photographers), here are some helpful links to the USCO about how you can register your works: https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-registration-steps.html, https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-type.html, https://www.copyright.gov/eco/eco-tutorial-standard.pdf, https://www.copyright.gov/eco/eco-tutorial-single.pdf.
    This is the cheapest insurance you can get–remember that a the minimum statutory damages for an already registered work is $750, more than the cost of your registrations.
  2. Stay aware of changes in copyright law and registration procedures. Things change and keeping up will make your life easier (like there will probably be a new way to register group unpublished photographs, soon). To stay informed, read this blog and others like my mentors (photoattorney.com) and copyrightalliance.org.
  3. If you havent yet (and dont feel bad–many of you havent), get separate business banking accounts, credit card(s), insurance, and software to track it all (like Quickbooks, Xero, etc.).
  4. Run your business like a business, including: get things in writing, including (especially!) your licenses and contracts (and invoices, etc.); have strict policies about payment schedules (like 50% up-front) and stick to them; and, pursue infringements so that you protect your rights and dont let people rip you off.
  5. If you do work for free or on a discount, from now on, do it right. First, only do it because you want to (like you get total creative freedom or its a charity you want to help). Second, invoice the client, even if the total due is $0. How? Like this:
    Creative Fee: $2000
    License Fee: $8000
    Total Fees: $10,000
    One-time Discount: -$10,000
    Total Due: $0
    This shows the value of your work and for the license; if anything goes wrong later, the invoice can be used as evidence for those values (this will make your lawyer happy; note also that the license fee is greater than the creative fee which will make your lawyer extra happy, see here for more).
  6. Plan time off. Im just as bad as most small businesspeople on this one so dont beat yourself up over it, just make it a priority this year. If you lose one project for a vacation, it is totally worth it as all the science shows you will be more creative and productive after the vacation.
  7. Work a reasonable schedule. Especially if you work from home, its vital that you have work time and not work time. Schedule a reasonable number of hours per week (like 40) and if you need to work more sometimes, then work less another. Relatedly, when you are working, you are working, so no kid interruptions or the like. If at all possible, have a separate space (room) for your work (the IRS will like you better for that, too).
  8. Pay others on time. This is just good to do, even when your clients string you on. Others behaving badly does not excuse you doing the same, so knock off that excuse. Also, in California, you must pay your crew and talent in full on the final day of any project. No exceptions (except for motion pictures, sort of). See https://burnstheattorney.com/2016/08/pay-your-people-now/
  9. Plan for the future: marriage, divorce, and death. As a creative professional, these life events have an extra impact because the copyrights you create are very seriously affected. See https://burnstheattorney.com/2016/08/i-do-what-did-i-do/ and https://burnstheattorney.com/2016/09/thinking-long/
  10. Make archival prints of your best work (at least) and back up everything connected with your business in multiple ways. This is really imprtant for many reasons. First, I think having tangible work is great. There is a big difference between opening a file on your Mac and opening a file in a drawer and finding the work there. See (from my old blog) http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog/2014/01/09/tangible-matters/. But more importantly, if you keep your job files in print, you wont lose the contract due to some digital hiccup. Think about it–how many of you have a zip drive now? At least, do the 3-2-1 system. This guy has it right.

 

Posted on

Thank you

Every year I’m thankful for what I get to do. Usually, I express that at the holidays by buying toys for Toys for Tots, in the names of my clients. This year I was motivated to do something a bit different.

The photo above isof kits I have put together for the homeless here in San Diego. San Diego has a huge problem with homelessness, for many reasons including that it is damn expensive to live here, and many of them live in Balboa Park and nearby areas. I see these people often (my boyfriend lives near the park) and each time I’m reminded of how fortunate I am not to be one of them. I could have and, if the statistics were predictive, one could say I should have, but somehow I managed instead to not end up on the streets; in fact, I’ve done okay.

Obviously, I can’t fix things for these people. I can’t even come close. But I thought that maybe some fresh basic necessities would make a fewlives a little less difficult. So, I purchased a bunch of things like socks and soap and microfiber cloths and chapstick (and other stuff). For the women, I bought a ton of tampons, as the only thing worse than being homeless has got to be being homeless on your period. I got really big ziplock bags to hold each kit and, the otherevening, I put them together (which is a bit of a stunt with a little kitten in the house). In the next few days, with the help of my boyfriend, I’ll be handing these out.

I could have sent my clients individual gifts but, really, I think most of them have the things they need and can buy most of the things they want, andthe money will do these other people more good.

[UPDATE: We handed them out yesterday (Sunday the 18th) morning and the recipients were happily surprised and gracious. All save one (who said nothing but noddded) said things like “Thank you!” and “God bless you!” so I’m passing their thoughts on to you.]

What I want to say, though, is that I couldn’t do this if it weren’t for each one of you, my clients. Thank you for a successful first six months of this practice and for trusting me with your legal needs. I appreciate every one of you more than I can say.

May you have the happiest of holidays with whomever you love, and in 2017 may you be healthy, happy, at ease, and free from suffering.

 

Posted on

New Rules (probably)

The US Copyright Office is proposing new rules for registering photographs and it is asking for comments on these rules. There are three main categories with proposed changes: supplemental registrations, group registration of contributions to periodicals, and group registration of photographs.

The last one is likely the most important one for most photographers, so I want to talk about it, mostly, in this post. You can go here to read the official information(pdf), but I suspect most of you would rather poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick as it’s written in governmental legalese. Here’re the basics you might want to know before wading into the Federal Register.

First, all group registrations of published photos (designated GRPPH) will have to be submitted electronically (no more paper options) with digital images submitted as deposit copies. Second, the maximum number of photos permitted in a single registration will be 750. Third, photographers would have to submit a separate list of all the photos being submitted as a part of the group “with a title, file name (matching the file name of the corresponding deposit copy), and in the case of GRPPH, the month and year of publication 29 (e.g., January 2016, February 2016, etc.) for each photograph in the group.” Finally, the deposit copies must be submitted in electronic form but you can send them on a disk or flash drive or upload them (with a 500MB limit per file uploaded).

Importantly, the last significant changeis that they are proposing a new category of Group Unpublished Photographs (designated GRUPH); before one could do an “unpublished collection” but this new category would replace that and have all the same requirements as the Group Published Photographs, including the 750 photos limitation and the list (but without publication dates, of course).

The only major difference between the two groups is that for published photos, the photos have to have been published within the same calendar year but the unpublished ones are not limited by time. Besides that, the groups must be only photographs and the photographs must be created by the same photographer–no mixing like 25 photos by Photo Bob and 32 photos by Photo Betty. Both the Group Published Photographs and the Group Unpublished Photographs registrations will be $55 per registration.

As always, you still may not mix published and unpublished in a single registration. That isn’t going to change with these rules chages, although I suspect that these changes may be a step in that eventual direction (maybe).

The Copyright Office is proposing to eliminate the pilot program for the Group Published registrations and to change the application process, to streamline it more. The Unpublished and the Published processes will be very much the same. Photographers will be encouraged to list the titles (and publication dates for published works) on the application itself as that will put them on the Certificate and that gives you advantages legally (I’m not going into that here, though–just do it) but, at a minimum, you’ll have to submit the list with all that information with the deposit copies (still, take the time to list the titles, it will be worth it).

Most importantly, the proposed rule would clarify that the single registration of a group confers full protection for each individual photograph in the group. That would eliminate the arguments that defendants use to try and limit the damages (or argue fair use) we see in court sometimes, like that using one image out of a registration of 500 items is de minimis since it’s only 1/500th of the whole. This is a very good thing.

To submit comments on these new proposed rules, first read the details in the pdf linked to above, then you can comment by going here. Note that comments are due by January 3, 2017.

The Supplementary Registration is used to correct errors or make changes to an existing registration. Hopefully, you’ll never need to file one, but if you do you’re very likely going to have to do it electronically in the future. For more information on the proposed changes or to make comments, go here.

If you make contributions to periodicals, you may use that form of registration (GRCP) and there are changes there as well. Mostly, it is about making the registrations electronic, much like the Group Photo options I described above (are you seeing a theme here?). Notably, the Copyright Office notes in the Group Registrations proposed changes that it encourages photographers to use those options instead of the GRCP as there are fewer limitations. Still, if you use this form of registration (and this applies to text as well as photos, by the way), you should go here to read about the changes and to submit comments.

Posted on

It’s not new if it’s the same

Here is yet another sad story of the timing ofregistrationbiting creatives in the butt. The short answer is that tattoo artists didn’t register the design in tats made on NBA players (including LeBron James) when theymade them, but instead after the first infringement of the tattoosby a video game company. That is, when the players were reproduced in video games, the tats were also reproduced, and since they weren’t licensed by the tattoo artists, the copyrights in the tats wereinfringed. In 2015, after the 2013 infringements (in NBA 2K14), the artists registered the work and when the same video game used the players (with tats) again but in the NBA 2K16game, theybrought suit seeking attorneys’ fees and statutory damages of up to $1.2 million.

The court said the “new”infringements weren’t actually new but rather the game was an iterationof the original one, with the original infringements. Sincethose started before the registrations, boom, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees were barred.

Ouch.

The artists are claiming the actual damages (still available under the law) are still significant, but they’regoing to have to prove up those damages; that is going to be a bear.

Posted on

Lift & Separate

(updated 12/2020)

Long before I became a lawyer, I advocated for two things when it came to photographers fees: raise them (particularly the license fee) and separate the creative fee from the license fee. The big push-back was often that buyers don’t like it. Well, the buyer has its self-interests but you must respect your own.

I bring this up because I’ve seen it repeatedly in my practice: a photographer comes to me with a possible infringement and, not having timely registered the copyright in the work (grrr!), leaves me no option but to see if there are sufficient actual damages in the form of lost licensing fees to make the case worth my efforts. When asked what her/his usual and customary license rate is for a similar use, the photographer will respond with something like, “Well, I would have asked $2000.”

My next question is, “Do you have invoices to back up this rate?” And the responses are either “No, but that is what I would have charged,” (ugh) or I am presented with an invoice for the creation of the work with a combined creative/license fee of $2000 (ick), or, worst of all, I get the invoice for the creation and licensing of the work where the photographer only charged $500 on some sort of mega-discount but it only shows as a $500 total fee (hurl!).

Obviously, none of these are good answers to a lawyer’s ears.

In the first case, no history of licenses, it could be worse. I can at least argue for the fair market value of a license and then, using common metrics like Fotoquote and online calculators for stock license rates, get a number. Sadly, as we all know, those numbers are likely to be low, particularly since there are more and more cheap stock sites out there. But still, at least I’ve got nothing the other side can use against my client.

In the last case, you’ve just set you price, forever. You are never going to get anyone to believe that a license similar to the original one is worth anything more than a few dollars because you have told the word that you’ll make and license it for so little! Now, if you are going to offer a super-mega-discount (and that’s totally cool, sometimes), make sure that you spell it out on the invoice like:

Creative fee: $2500
One-time Discount: -$2300
License Fee: $4500
One-time Discount: -$4200
Total Fees: $500

That way you are saying “my usual price for this license is $4500” and that can be used as evidence later of your actual fees. That’s great! But, if you just list the discounted price, you’ve only got your word that you normally would have charged more. That won’t hold up.

In case #2 above, all bets are off. The other side can argue that $500 was the license fee and $1500 was the creative fee, or worse. It is almost impossible to argue successfully that the majority of a combined fee is for the license and not the creation of the work, unless it is spelled out in the paperwork. I’m good, but I can’t make butter with a toothpick and there are plenty of good attorneys on the other side who can present evidence that the fair market value of the license is only $200. If you’ve got nothing in your records to show otherwise, then it’s quite possible that all you can get for actual damages will be that $200. At the very least, in court, it would cost a hell of a lot more in expert testimony to try and prove up your damages, and the other side knows it, so they can stonewall in pre-suit negotiations. You got no bat, as they say. Go home.

The best business practice, both for now and to protect your values in the future, is to separate out your fees on your paperwork and, very importantly, to make your license fee the higher portion of those fees. Later on, you can use those higher numbers to support getting higher actual damages. Also, if you do timely register your work, the courts will often look to the actual damages in setting statutory ones (like maybe doing a multiple of actual damages). If you can prove up substantial actual damages (a high license fee), you are more likely to get higher statutory ones. Proof of higher fees will make it easier for your attorney to argue for higher pre-suit settlements as well.

As for the argument that your clients want combined fees, well duh–and you’d like a million bucks for the shoot. They don’t get to tell you how to run your business–they are not doing you a favor by hiring you. They’re hiring you because you are good at your job; moreover, you have to run your business your way, not how they want it. Besides, they can’t complain if you do as in the example above: that is, you can give a final number that is combined, just make sure that the line items are separate. If they argue for a higher creative fee and lower licensing one, you know they are thinking of the future when they want to re-license; so should you and a higher license fee now means higher re-license fee later.

Run your business like a business. That includes thinking about future value and long term effects.

It’s not hard, it just takes some guts. You can do this.

Posted on

Song? Dance? Seltzer in the Pants?

What do I have to do to get you people to register your copyrights?!?! Look, I love you creative types, but I’m getting a dent in my head from the repeated headdesking caused by cases that would be as close to perfect as you can get, except that the work was not timely registered and thus are either essentially worth nothing or proving up the damages would be a nightmare.

I want to be able to help you and this firm will take smaller cases than many other firms, but I can’t take cases for a contingency fee where actual damages are the only option and those are the lost license fee for use on social media which you’ve either never actually licensed or you have for almost no money. Proving up the damages, even if possible, won’t be worth the time and effort.

However, if the work is timely registered then I have a much larger stick to wield on your behalf: statutory damages of between $750 and $30,000 (for non-willful infringement) plus a good shot at attorneys’ fees if the matter is litigated.

Timely registration isn’t that complicated. A registration is timely only when one of the following is true:

  1. the effective date of the registration is before the infringement starts; or
  2. for published work only, the effective date of the registration is within three calendar months of the first publication of the work, and that could very likely be the date you provided the work to your client rather than the date when your client used the work.

Thats it. Thats all. Those are the law’s only options. You’ve got to register your work and the registration has to fit either #1 or #2 for you to be able to have access to awards of statutory damages and the potential for winning attorneys’ fees and costs in litigation.

So how can you make those rules work for you? First, for any new work that is likely going to be published in the sense the Copyright Act uses the term (and how I mean it throughout this post, which includes work you’re going to provide to your client for their consideration and possible use, as well as work you offer for license on your own website or elsewhere) either register it as unpublished before doing anything with it, or, provide it to your client or post it on your stock site (etc.) and then register your work as published within that three-calendar-month window.

I prefer the second option for photographers for a bunch of reasons, some of which are very nit-picky technical legal ones that I’m not going to bore you with here. Mostly, I prefer the register-as-published option because, these days, almost everything posted anywhere is published. So, I suggest a photographer should, for everything created AND in any way released to the world in any one month, register it all (as published) on the last day of that month, and that way you don’t have to worry about missing the three-month window*. For best protection be sure to remove any images you know weren’t published and register those separately as unpublished at any time before you publish them. Mixing published and unpublished is like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters, that is, bad.

If you’re a photographer, you can do group published photo registrations online for one fee ($55). Following the once a month plan above, for a year that would be 12 x $55, or $660. Group published photo registrations are slightly more complicated to do but, after you have done it once, youll see it isn’t that bad and, best part for now, is that your first time you will be supervised by the Copyright Office itself as a part of its pilot program, so theyll help you through it.

If you are creating other non-photo works, like illustrations, you should not let the work out into the world at all and, instead, register your pile of works as a “collection of unpublished works” once a month, for the same fee (then you can let the work out). Sadly, there isn’t yet a simple group option for multiple published works as there is for photographs.

Now, before you start whining about that cost, let me point out, again, that the minimum statutory damages award for a single infringement is $750. The math is totally in your favor.

So please, register your work. I beg you. I’ll do anything to get you folks to register your work. Someone get me a new seltzer bottle (mine is an empty antique as you can see above) and I’ll prove it.

(The subject line of this post is a reference to Chuckles the Clown’s philosophy)

 

*It also helps you avoid another rule that for a group published photo registration the work must be published within the same calendar year so, if you do it on the last day of each month, you won’t screw that up.

 

Posted on

Thinking Long

It’s been a couple of weeks since I’ve posted, mostly because my personal life has recently taken a large chunk of my time. I have an elderly parent who is dealing with some significant medical issues plus I had to say goodbye to my longtime furball companion (and imaginary law partner) Benito T. Katz-Burns.

I bring up these personal things because they’ve made me think about impermanence, my practice, and serving my clients. Basically, it all made me think that the best thing I can do for my clients it to encourage them to think long.

Thinking long means looking long term and taking small steps that can have a big outcome. For example, compound interest is a cornerstone of thinking long: a little put away early in life can be a lot later.

As the saying goes, none of us gets out alive. What you do as a creative professional, however, will live beyond you. The assets you create, the copyrights, will pass on to your heirs after your demise and they may be much more valuable than you think. Thinking long means planing for them.

Actually, those assets may be much more valuable than you think now, too. Let me give an example…
Imagine a photographer who has a ton of copyrights, because this photographer has created a ton of photos[1]. One of these photos is being infringed often; by often, let’s say at least 100 times (so far). This photo isn’t the photographer’s best work (it’s a fine photo, but the photographer has much better ones); if you had to pick out from a pile of 1000 of this person’s photos which one would be the oft-infringed one, you’d probably guess wrong, like, 990+ times. Nonetheless, this one photo gets ripped off more often than bikini wax in Hollywood.

The photographer has registered the copyright to this photograph, so that means the minimum award for an infringement (assuming the defendant cannot prove innocent infringement, which is very hard to prove)[2] would be $750. This photographer has a history of licensing and can prove up damages of more than that, but for the sake of space and time, lets just assume that the photographer settles, over some time, 100 infringements for an average, each, after legal fees, of $1000.[3]

For those of you playing along at home, thats $100,000.
Not small beans!

Now, if this photographer suddenly died (heaven forbid!) before settling those cases, the photographer’s heir(s) would get ownership of that copyright and, assuming they pursued the infringements, get the money. And that’s just the cases that exist now–that photo will likely continued to be infringed.

In other words, you could be sitting on at least one good-but-not-great creative work that, in the long run, could pay for your kids college (or a big chunk of that); or help pay off your mortgage; or provide for your loved ones after you’re gone. And don’t forget,that math is for just that one photo (and its copyright)–any creative pro has easily thousands.

This is the time for thinking long. Do the small things now that will enable you to reap rewards, long into the future.

Thinking long is why I nag at you to register your copyrights–so that you have the right to statutory damages of no less than $750. Little numbers add up over time. It’s also why I keep bringing up having an estate plan. Your work is worth more than you might think and you don’t want that going to your fundy brother instead of your beloved non-spouse.

Thinking long is also a big part ofwhat I do and the way that I do it–so that creative professionals (you) can have legal representation in a cost-effective way.

Thinking long can makea big difference in your business and your life (and your loved ones’); give it some thought.

__________

[1] While this hypothetical is based on a real client and photo, please remember that it is a hypothetical and that you should never rely on a hypothetical or any previous results when it comes to your own case(s).

[2] See, e.g., National Football League v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 131 F. Supp. 2d 458, 476 (SDNY 2001) (noting that a defendants burden to prove innocent infringement is a heavy one).

[3] Yes, this is not scientific but rather a very rough estimate based on a bunch of facts I’m not going to go into here. Also, some matters never settle, some settle for more and others less; I’m doing some whopping generalizations to make a point. In other words, just go with it.

Posted on

How to Work With Your Lawyer: Trust

Creative professionals are usuallyvery smart people. Whether formally educated or not, your brains tend to fire pretty well (even if some people think they fire, um, differently). This is generally a good thing (especially the differently bit) and can definitely make for better art, no matter what your medium. The downside is that sometimes some of you think you know more than you really do*, especially abouta very technically precise field like the law. That attitude can bite you in the ass.

When I was in law school, I wrotea post on my Burns Auto Parts Super Premium Blog about how, before law school, I thought I knew copyright law pretty welland how wrong I was. See, I learned that while I knew more than the average person, what I knew was actually very, very little, especially compared to, say, a copyright lawyer. There is so much more to copyrightlaw (and law in general) than I ever could have imagined without having gone through all of law school. There is the interplay between the statutory scheme and constitutional issues, and how it works in day-to-day business, and how the courts interpret all of it, and more.Unless you immerse yourself for three years in intensive, undistractedstudy (hello,law school) and then get out there in the trenches, you just can’t know. I sure didn’t. Even after all that, you still have to do what I do: spend a ridiculous amount of time reading cases and highly technical academic articles to learn more, every day, just to keep up.

But I was one of you before law schoolone of those who even debated the woman who would become my mentor, Carolyn Wright, on legal questions that appeared in places like the old APA Forums. I look back on those debates with more than a little embarrassment. I thought I knew the law well enough to challenge her opinions when, really, I knew just enough to probably frustrate the hell out of her when she was trying to help by teaching the community the (actual) best practices (I will always appreciate her grace–not once did she later say “Do you remember…?”).

Now, after practicing for years, I know what itfeels like to be challenged by people who think they know more than they do. I have the headdesk-induced scars to prove it.

The most frustrating thing that happens in my practice isnt when the opposition pulls some chicanery or even when I get called names by defendants. Nope, the worst is when someone comes to me with a question which I answer based on my expertise (and often I do additional research to make sure my info on that particular issueis current), and then s/he doesnt like the answer, saying, Well, I feel that youre wrong.

First, you dontfeelthat Im wrong, youthinkI am (language matters!); and second, if you arent going to trust my opinion, then you shouldnt ask for it. Thats not me being petty, thats me knowing that I cant do the bestfor you unless you trust me when it comes to legal issues. My job is to fight for you and to have your back, but I cant do any of that if you dont trust that what I am telling you is the best, most accurate answer and advice based inthe law that I can give you. I’m not making stuff up or telling you what I think you want to hear–I’m being 100% straight with you. Im happy to talk to you and explain what I can, but in the end, you just have to trust me.

There are ethics rules that say we have to do what is best for you, sure, but I think most lawyers actively want to do what is best for our clients; that means telling you the truth, even the hard truth. None of us lawyers likes having to tell a (potential) client bad news. We know its unfair that a screwed-up copyright registration can scuttle an otherwise beautiful case and that the Copyright Office makes it damn easy to screw up (especially the published/unpublished thing). It sucksthat if we cant get you statutory damages (register, please) or documentthe value of yourlicenseis $10K we cant get $10K for you. It’s frustrating as hell that while any normal human can see your work has been knocked off, stylistically, proving its actually an infringement isn’t so clear and itwould cost gods own wallet to litigate and we could still lose, so we cant take the case on a contingency fee basis. And it’s not easy to tell you that you cant not do X now (without repercussions) because you agreed in your contract to do X.

Lawyerswant to be able to help people; thats why Ido what Ido (honestly, I think all good lawyers still hold that as their first principle). We look for ways to sayyesto whatever it is that you want, to enable you to achieve your goal, to fix the wrongs, promote the good, and to defend your rights, but sometimes we have to saynoornot like that you cantorwell, you can try it, but heres what youre risking, orit just isnt worth that much, or even,it sucks, but justwrite the check and move on. Your job, then, is to trust your lawyer; s/he is offering you the best advice possible.

I (and others) have describedlaw school like military bootcamp for the brain: a law student is stripped of her old way of thinking and taught a new way in her first year, then trained to use that new way to alevel of competence in the next two years. Then, we go out and apply it all in the real world, honing our knowledge and skills as we go. Maybe the Vulcan Science Academy is a better analogy, actually, because we learn toprocess a ton of data with dispassionate logic. But the best of us also reintroduce humanity to the practice and become weird hybrids of logic and compassion. That’s what I shoot for (and I know others that do the same).

The result of this training is that lawyers think strategically as well as tactically about each of your issues and formulate a plan to achieve yourobjectives, if at all possible; or to minimizethe bad stuff, if not. There is balance and judgment involved. Its tough work that requires more time and energy than you know. And that’s not me being egocentric–it’s just like howyour work is much more complicated and subtle than any outsider ever understands. Your work is pretty miraculous to me, even whenI don’t care for it aesthetically.

So, to have the best relationship with your lawyer, you dont have to like what you hear, but you do have to trust that it isseriously considered, bestadvice, with your best interests in first position.

Oh, and if you don’t think it really is, then don’t hesitate to get a second opinion from another lawyer.
But don’t be surprised ifthe answer is pretty much the same.

_______________

*This is true for all of us–we all have those areaswhere we think we know more than we really do.

Terms of Service Proudly powered by WordPress