Copyright complaint from Corbis

email | Feb 3, 2004 | Corbis

[Jim Robinson]

Subject: Kerry/Fonda image

February 23, 2004

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Jim Robinson www.freerepublic.com P.O. Box 9771 Fresno, CA 93794 USA

RE: www.freerepublic.com

Matter ID: 14-0486/John Kerry/Jane Fonda Image

Dear Jim Robinson:

Corbis is one of the largest digital image licensing companies in the world. All of the images in Corbis’ collection are subject to federal and international copyright protection. Indeed, all of the works found on the www.corbis.com web site bear appropriate copyright notices. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to our photographers to protect their intellectual property and pursue any possible cases of improper use.

It has recently come to Corbis’ attention that your company’s web site, www.freerepublic.com, through the web pages:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1080321/posts, http://www.berkeleydaily.org/photos/02-17-04/DoctoredKerry03%2Ejpg, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074196/posts, http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1080321/posts, http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/fonda_ker_vf.jpg, directly reproduces, adapts, displays, and distributes an unauthorized and altered version of Corbis images

#DWF15-563704 and #OF016339. This directly violates Corbis’ and the photographers’ exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, display, distribute, and create derivative works.

Given the nature of the apparent copying and altering of this image, such infringements would be subject to statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement, in addition to costs and attorney’s fees.

Corbis hereby demands that you immediately provide the following information and assurances by no later than 3 p.m. Pacific Time, March 1, 2004:

(a.) Disclose to Corbis how the image was obtained and reproduced, including all use types, quantity or circulation as applicable, length of your use, and territory.

(b.) Disclose to Corbis all other uses or unintended uses of images.

(c.) Immediately cease and desist from any current or pending uses of Corbis images, including but not limited to displaying these images on your website and other printed materials.

(d.) Investigate the apparent use of Corbis’ materials on your web site and instruct all of your employees and independent contractors to immediately cease copying, distributing, modifying, displaying, or otherwise using any and all copies of Corbis materials. Please note that Corbis reserves the sole right to provide you with license for your use, and any license granted shall not waive any rights or remedies Corbis has relating to your unauthorized use, or claims by third parties arising out of your use.

(e.) Corbis asks that you provide written assurances that www.freerepublic.com has removed from its web site the materials identified above. Please confirm no later than March 1, 2004 that your company has taken the required action, and that it will refrain from any and all such actions in the future. You may contact me at (206) 373-6295, Sarah.Patsula@Corbis.com, or 720 Second Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle WA 98104-1742 USA.

Although Corbis is hopeful that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably, if you have not complied with the above-noted demands, Corbis will take the additional measures necessary to protect its valuable intellectual property rights. Corbis is committed to protecting the rights of our photographers and to ensure the quality and integrity of their materials. Corbis reserves all rights and remedies.

We look forward to your prompt compliance.

Very truly yours,

Sarah Patsula Copyright Compliance Manager

Sarah.Patsula@corbis.com wrote:

> <> >

> Name: CD letter.pdf > CD letter.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64

[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!