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

[Your Nightmare]

Everyone needs to realize that Corbis is not being overly litigious or singling out FR. Protecting the rights of their photographer's images is what Corbis does. This was a very high profile abuse of their copyright. They really have no choice but to pursue it. If for nothing else, to show the photographers in the stock photo world that they aggressively defend their copyrights.

And I am sure they came to FR first because several of the news articles about this image stated that this is where the image originated from. I would bet that most other sites that Corbis is aware of will be getting a letter from a lawyer.

[MeekOneGOP]

Honest to goodness. Can someone PLEASE define in layman's terms what 'Free Use' concept means ?

I thought that if you are a public figure, a picture that is LEGIT would be fine to use.

Corbis claiming copyright on such a pic ? I bet they didn't even TAKE the picture.

I may be all wet. Of course, Bill Gates is very likely supporting Kerry, too, I bet !

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

And you know this how? If what you said is true, it would conflict with every supreme court case I've read on the issue of parody. How do you think these parody cases get to the supreme court? They involve someone's copyrighted work.

[MeekOneGOP]

I got the image from Iconoclast.com, and posted it here, at several Kerry threads. Iconoclast was posting an altered photo, with a copyrighted parody below it.

I wonder if Iconoclast.com got the same atty. letter?

Very interesting ! Thanks.

I see no answer to your inquiry there. If the answer comes, I'd like to see it too, please. ;^)

[AppyPappy]

Sounds like Corbis was hosting the image. Maybe they should sue themselves

[MeekOneGOP]

I like it ! ;^)

[Petronski]

Am I the only one here who thinks Free Republic could be in trouble here? At least in for a long and expensive battle.

I don't think Free Republic would ultimately lose a court case based on this, but a long and expensive legal battle of attrition is itself a loss.

[adam_az]

"Your answer to Corbis is excellent. If they have any sense, they will back off FreeRepublic after receiving it. In the event that they do not back off, here is a Plan B. Two years ago the US Supreme Court decided, in Roy Acuff Music v. U-2, that any use of copyrighted matter for a "parody or social commentary" is protected by the First Amendment. (U-2 had done a parody of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman" without asking permission.)"

Ironic, considering U-2's linfringement lawsuit against Negativland.

[ShandaLear]

"It would serve the geek bastard right if Kerry got in and broke up microsoft."

Sheesh, that's a little harsh don't you think?

[hgro]

I hope that pic of Bill Gates isn't the property of Corbis.

Oops, probably not, its owned by the Albuquerque, New Mexico police department.

[Your Nightmare]

I think it was 2 Live Crew who parodied "Pretty Woman", not U2.

[Your Nightmare]

And you know this how? If what you said is true, it would conflict with every supreme court case I've read on the issue of parody. How do you think these parody cases get to the supreme court? They involve someone's copyrighted work.

And the copyrighted work is the one being parodied. Can you point me to a SC case that involves a third party's copyrighted material.

[OXENinFLA]

And it doesn't help that the guy that took the original pic of Kerry is a prof. at UC Berkley.

[So Cal Rocket]

I may be all wet. Of course, Bill Gates is very likely supporting Kerry, too, I bet !

Gates is actually supporting GWB:

     

The Basics

Big Picture

Who Gives

Who Gets

News

Get Local!

HOME  |  DONATE  |  SEARCH   

2004 Election Overview   |   Industries   |   Top All-time Donors   |   Donor Lookup   |   PACs   |   Soft Money   |   Lobbyists

THE CENTER
FOR RESPONSIVE
POLITICS

Results:

7 records found in 1.1563 seconds.
 

Search Criteria: Donor name: gates Donor occupation: microsoft Donor State: WA Cycle(s) selected: 2004 Start another search

Sort by Name Sort by Date Sort by Amount

Total for this search: $12,000

Contributor	Occupation	Date	Amount	Recipient
GATES, WILLIAM REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT	9/22/2003	$2,000	Murray, Patty
GATES, WILLIAM H III REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT	9/26/2003	$2,000	Reid, Harry
GATES, WILLIAM H III REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT CORPORATION	9/30/2003	$2,000	McCain, John
GATES, WILLIAM H MR III REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT CORP.	9/3/2003	$2,000	Bush, George W
GATES, WILLIAM III REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT/CHAIRMAN & CEO	10/17/2003	$1,000	Tauscher, Ellen
GATES, WILLIAM III REDMOND,WA 98502	MICROSOFT/CHAIRMAN	9/25/2003	$1,000	Wisconsin Leadership PAC
GATES, WILLIAM MR III REDMOND,WA 98052	MICROSOFT/CEO	9/27/2003	$2,000	Dunn, Jennifer

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks. He gave $2k to Bush.

Amazing ! And then 19 days later, he gives $2k to Patty Murray !
(What a basket case SHE is!)

[FBD]

check the disclaimer at another site that posted the pic:

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

Their disclaimer:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Fair use" (should) apply at non-profit discussion websites, such as FR... :)

[AppyPappy]

Do you think that someone should be able to take John Robinson's FR code for free as long as they are a non-profit? Same thing.

[FBD]

No, it's not. Posting a picture (for discussion) at a non-profit site is not the same as posting a logo. (I assume that's what you meant by "FR code"?

[AppyPappy]

I'm talking about articles. Cutting and pasting articles is the same as cutting and pasting computer code. In other words, someone could copy FR's computer code and put up a site that looks exactly like FR. And they could claim fair use because they aren't doing it for a profit.

[FBD]

Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 (Copyright law)

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use



Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)

the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.