Copyright is one one of many laws over which corporate lawyers obsess. This, coupled with the fact that they work with boilerplate and the fact that they need to demonstrate to their corporate clients that they are “really, really” looking out for them, virtually ensures that what should and could be done in a fraction of one hour of attorney time is expanded to days, weeks, or even months.

For example, “but we might be sued for defamation”, “we might be sued for legal rights presently unknown and want to make sure we are protected from the unknown”, “we are a large company with deep pockets, so we want to ensure that are deep pockets are zipped up tightly”, “we need to make sure that we do really have rights that are irrevocable”, etc., etc., at infinitum.

Simply posting the original content with a “have at it notice” will be met with the rejoinder “but there has to be an exchange of consideration, because without it we are getting nothing more than an at-will license that can be withdrawn at any time”. Again, etc., etc., etc.

And, yes, you are absolutely correct that “Stepford Wives” lawyers working solely from boilerplate do every in their power to make sure they receive everything free and clear of any legal liability by making sure that all liability is shifted to you. Actually, it is all quite pathetic, but what do you expect from people obsessed with boilerplate and almost certainly divorced from any understanding of what the actual business deal really entails. You could sell a company a rock taken from a creek bed, and the company’s internal or outside counsel would probably insist that it is free from any and all trademark, patent, copyright, unfair competition, defamation, product liability, etc. claims” that come to their fertile minds.

Frankly, at some point in time a light bulb should go on that a formal, signed contract is to much of a hassle and drop the matter.

Whenever faced with boilerplate contracts such as you talk about, I have always taken perverse pleasure in using a red pen to “X” out virtually all of the boilerplate and say “here it is…take it or leave it”. While there have been a few exceptions, they usually take it. Of course, it helps when one on the business side of the issue talks with his/her counterpart at the other company and lets him/her know what the heck is going on. This generally results in the business person telling the lawyers to knock it off, quite stalling, and approve the darn thing…NOW!

I happen to upload photographs to a royalty-free website that makes my photos available for use by others. Of course, the site has terms of use that place limits on what downloaders can do with photos, limits that I view as just plain silly. Hence, I have unilaterally modified the terms associated with my photos to render the terms of use irrelevant. In my case I have provided the following terms:

“Please feel free to modify and/or use these uploads for any purpose whatsoever (commercial or personal, for-profit or not-for-profit, for print, for web, for “print on demand”, for web templates for sale or distribution, for “whatever”, etc.) You do not need to contact me before or after using an image, though a note is always appreciated if you have the opportunity to do so. Similarly, attribution is nice, but not necessary.”

Is the language legally perfect? Not really, but it seems to do the trick. Users like it so much that they quit worrying about all the boilerplate BS that would appear if it was a formal, official looking contract. Even large, nationat retailers have felt comfortable enough that they have used my photos in national campaign ads. Why, because they felt comfortable enough with the statement that they did not even bother to send it out to lawyers to review.

Bottom line, if you make it simple enough lawyers are never even consulted. Keep them out and things get done. Bring them in and you soon discover it is not work the effort.

And to think, all this is coming from someone who is continually called here an “IP maximist”, which has never been the case and never will be.