Exactly.
Copyrights are ridiculously expansive, and Fair Use defenses steadily narrowed. The reality is that the primary limiter on copyright enforcement has always been the practicality of detection and notice. Secondarily is the fact that in some jurisdictions, most notably the U.S., remedy is limited to an injunction and actual damages (e.g. lost licensing fees) if the work was not registered prior to infringement. (Because for most works, such as a resume, actual damages can't be shown--the standards for calculating damages are pretty strict--all you have is an injunction.)
If such technicalities were to be magically lifted there'd probably be much more pressure to reduce the scope and duration of copyrights. Conversely, that such technicalities exist goes a long way in explaining the wide scope, and to a lesser extent long duration, of copyrights.
However, you don't really need to answer those questions before notifying, say, a recruiter that you're exercising your rights (such as they are) and demanding that they delete your resume. But how can you ensure compliance? For how long are you willing to check? And if they fail to fully comply are you willing to pay the expense to litigate, especially without the prospect of any monetary damages, let alone damages sufficient to cover the costs of litigation?
These limitations to enforcement at the threshold effectively moot the substantive legal questions. Some of the legal questions may not have ever been answered by a court simply because it's never been worth anyone's effort to press them.