Copyright complaint from Corbis

email | Feb 3, 2004 | Corbis

[onyx]

Singled out Jim Rob and FR because FR is the biggest and the best. Gets more hits per day than any other forum.

[Cacique]

btt

[Torie]

I don't know much about copyright law really. But copyright is about just taking the text as written. Altering text can be viewed as an original work, if it is more than adding a comma or two. It doesn't take much to avoid the copyright charge. Just write the same thing, in somewhat different words. Whether the principles concerning texts apply to images, I don't know. But one is on more solid ground doctoring the photo than just using it as is. Frankly I don't know a thing about the case law on copyrights as it pertains to images. Absolutely nothing, nada, null set.

[dennisw]

I'm pretty sure the original unspoofed photo was bought up by Corbis and is their property. Corbis will be sending the same rude and crude letter to the boys at Scrappleface

[LRS]

*LOL* From the bottom of the site you linked (commondreams.com):

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[onyx]

Ok, thanks.

FBD --- see #124

[onyx]

Thanks Torie. The others I used to ping are no longer with us. And I miss them.

[Ichneumon]

Even if there is some obligation on your part for pictures linked to your site (and I don't think there is) the fact that these are political parodies allows for a fair use.

Yes and no. It's allowable to make a parody *of* almost anything, but that's not the same as being allowed to make a parody *using* someone's copyrighted material as a foundation.

[FBD]

Good point.

Also, I made the error of saying ScrappleFace.com "copyrighted" the picture. They merely stamped ScrappleFace.com on it.

I am curious as to how a picture can be legaly parodied, but the original can't be merely posted. Especially since 'right clicking' on mouse, and clicking on the properties will indicate to the user where the image is stored.

It should have been obvious to Corbin that none of the images were stored at FR, merely posted or linked.

[onyx]

Right.

You know, sometimes I go to google/images, and some of the photos or graphics say "subject to copyright law" or "this photo may be copyrighted" --- and I do not post those photos here.

Very confusing.

[SkyPilot]

I love the way that in your reply you have repeat yourself over and over---it highlights how petty and childish their complaint was.

[FairOpinion]

"FAIR USE NOTICE"


===

This is good -- I missed it, but I am glad you noticed.

Maybe Jim (see post 125 & 53) could post something similar on FR, which would make us exempt as well -- after all this site should be considered 'fair use" as well.

[FBD]

well, I've learned a lesson. I've posted quite a few photos here, from various sites. Didn't think it was a problem. Guess I was wrong!

[FairOpinion]

Commondreams.com also has that same doctored picture up.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-12.htm

(see my post 53 and an astute FReeper's find of the disclaimer posted at commondreams, in post 125:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084067/posts?page=125#125

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mightn't the key be as to whether a transformative use was made of the work. It could be argued that the context in which it was placed (the FR page) made a transformative use of it, imparting a meaning it could never have on its own. In that wise it would be like parody. Unfortunately FR does not have anywhere near enough money to go up in court against the likes of Bill Gates, who has made energetic efforts to subvert other laws that would protect from a lesser funded litigant. Seems that it's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

[RightWingAtheist]

Actually, he doesn't have to pay anything, but he always asks the original artist's permission before he does the parody, and his band records a new accompanying music track (if he sampled the original music, then he would probably have to pay). A running Weird Al joke is that he continually takes shots at Prince for never giving him permission to parody his songs.

[FBD]

Thanks Fair Opinion!

From: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-12.htm

---

"We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes...

---

It seems to me, that "fair use" would apply at a non-profit discussion website, such as FR... :)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Surely this is simply to keep Yank and scandal from being ever mentioned together in the news, as well as saving some bucks. He could do Prince and Prince would probably sue and Prince would almost certainly lose. But Yank would be poorer (unless awarded expenses) and associated with scandal.

[FairOpinion]

Kudos have to go to LRS too!

I found the commondreams, but he/she had the eagle eye and discovered the disclaimer.

Teamwork! :)

[LRS]

High fivin' back atcha!