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

[supercat]

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.

If someone wanted to re-record a Weird Al song, would the eight cents per copy go to Weird Al, or would four go to the original composer?

Obviously Weird Al would only have to pay if the original composer demanded payment, but if the original composer refused Weird Al would not be allowed to use the music at all (unless the music were rewritten and parodied).

[HiTech RedNeck]

All to Al.

[supercat]

All to Al.

I find that surprising. If I'd written a song, I might be willing to grant permission for Weird Al to parody it, possibly even for free, but I can't imagine giving permission for him to sublicense it without paying me my cut of the sublicensing fees.

[McGavin999]

Yeah, and the Washington Post has lost big time from it too. Our people very rarely bother to go there, and most Freepers never bother to follow their links. As a result, the WP reporters are not at all well known here. Little fishies in a little pond.

[LisaMalia]

If "Corbis" wants to be picky, I can direct them to a couple of other message boards where their pictures are posted. I would suggest they not take on FR unless they address the other sites.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The asking permission stuff is a courtesy. I suppose if Al wanted he could grant the original owner an interest in his parody, but Al doesn't legally NEED it any more than U-2 needed it from Roy Acuff Music. Fair use needs no license.

[supercat]

I suppose if Al wanted he could grant the original owner an interest in his parody, but Al doesn't legally NEED it any more than U-2 needed it from Roy Acuff Music.

If I remember right, in the case to which you refer, the parody song borrowed the familar d d f# a C F# E D riff of the original, but was melodically quite different. Courts have held in some other cases that a parody which rewrites words but not the melody (as is the case with Weird Al's) must obtain copyright clearance for the melody. A compulsory license is not sufficient--the license must be negotiated and the composer has the right to refuse (in which case the person doing the parody has to come up with original parodied music).

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well if this is so, you have answered your own original question. It would be the same issue as who gets the compulsory licensing royalties for the re-recording of any song with multiple copyright owners. If an ordinarily authored song has two copyright owners, they don't collectively get 16 cents a minute if a one-owner song gets 8 cents.

[onyx]

Yes, thank you F O. You are one smart guy.

[onyx]

Whoops, thank you too.

[weegee]

FR is only in trouble of "damages" in a case like this if a trial lawyer like Edwards becomes president.

[weegee]

Next the Vietnamese will tell us that those photos of Jane Fonda on the antiaircraft cannon are being used in violation of copyright...

[weegee]

The lefties at Snopes post the image. May ask Corbis if they are paying for the image. I am using a limited computer at a hotel; it does not permit me to view HTML source or right click on images so I cannot verify where they are hosting the image. They also have a separate post that has the hoaxed image.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

[fuzlim]

When a photographer takes a picture, the photographer owns that image for as long as it exists.

Even if I were to commission a photographer to take a picture of my face, I could never own the picture, nor the rights to reproduce it.

This is just very normal copyright law. If you dont' like copyright, just say so.

[HiTech RedNeck]

When a photographer takes a picture, the photographer owns that image for as long as it exists.

For the duration specified by copyright law, if not assigned to someone else. Currently in the USA 95 years, or lifetime +

Even if I were to commission a photographer to take a picture of my face, I could never own the picture, nor the rights to reproduce it.

If the photographer transferred rights to you, either afterwards or as a condition of a contract under which he took the picture (work for hire) you could.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The point being that Corbis seems to be playing favorites. Lefties take its photos without permission, OK! Righties do the same, SUE EM!

[KneelBeforeZod]

A lot of the pictures I saw on threads had the corbis watermark.

I even posted a clean COLOR images on a thread where everyone was gloating over having "discovered" the B&W corbis watermarked picture.

it wasn't a good idea to use those watermarked images.

People LOVE to say "can you get sued for ______?" I dont know why people still dont understand you can sue anyone for anything...regardless of how lame it is. it would be better not to have to deal with a (the risk of a) lawsuit at all

[KneelBeforeZod]

I'm guessing the pictures that corbis is complaining about are all the images (that were)on FR that had "corbis" watermarked on them. The picture on commondreams doesn't have that.

[FairOpinion]

The Kerry-Fonda fake picture didn't have the Corbis watermarks either. It was identical to the one at commondreams.

[MeekOneGOP]

;^)