Copyright complaint from Corbis

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.

(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.

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

..."take a family picture from a professional photographer into a Freddie self service photo center. Then ask a clerk to help you make a copy. Inspite you paying for that photo of your family, you can't legally copy it."

I know that, Dave. But in doing that, I would be trying to make personal gain, ( by getting a free photo of my family). The same does not apply here, for the picture of Kerry, as it does for myself, trying to make personal gain, IE; my getting a free family photo.
I'm not a public figure running for POTUS, and this is a thirty year old picture, taken on public property, at a public event, documenting Kerry's presence there.

This is a legitimate news story. "Fair use" covers the discussion of copyrighted material, for the purposes of discussion, provided it's not for profit.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=public+access+fair+use+copyrighted+material&btnG=Google+Search

That picture was already posted on the web at many sites, and never on FR's server. It was merely linked to other sites, who were hosting the image.

However, I'm not going to post anything by Corbis. This argument is just for the sake of discussing the merits of "fair use".

It appears that parody is totally fair game, and that would include registered's doctored photos. Check out this court decision, in favor of Comedy Central, hardly a non-profit venture:

USE OF UNLICENSED CLIP IN COMEDY CENTRAL PROGRAM IS FAIR USE

..."The Daily Show" appears nightly on Comedy Central, a national cable television network. A clip from Plaintiff's Program was used to introduce a segment of "The Daily Show" called "Public Excess" which mocks various public access programs by presenting and commenting on clips from those shows. The "Public Excess" segment opens with a full-screen image from Plaintiff's Program, showing plaintiff dancing in a bikini. The title of the show can be seen in the background of the clip as it originally appeared….

…Before turning to an examination of the four fair use factors applicable in a copyright infringement claim, the Court notes that an advertisement which uses a copyrighted work does not necessarily infringe that copyright if the product that it advertises constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted work. Further, an advertisement itself may itself constitute a fair use.

…The Court then examines defendants' claim that the use of plaintiff's material was a fair use under the Copyright Act. The Act provides that the reproduction of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright if it is used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. In determining whether the work has been used for such a purpose, the statute lists four non-exclusive factors to consider: (i) the purpose and character of the use, (ii) the nature of the copyrighted work, (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (iv) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work….

…The decision considers two elements in its analysis of the first factor: whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes and whether such use is transformative in nature….

As to the former, although the Court notes that, in general, commercial use of a work will weigh against a finding of fair use, the Supreme Court in the often-cited decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.2 discounted the force of commerciality in applying a fair use analysis, noting that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."

According to the Court, more important to an analysis of the first factor than whether the use is of a commercial nature is whether the use of the original work is "transformative" in nature, i.e. whether the copying work merely supplants the original or, instead, adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.

One such transformative use that typically is found to be fair use is a parody, characterized in Campbell as an attempt to mimic an original, expressive and usually famous work. Defendants argue that the use of clips from Plaintiff's Program is properly analyzed as a parody merely because of the underlying format of "The Daily Show" which mimics news programs. The Court notes that, unlike a parody, the use in this case of plaintiff's clips did not involve an altered imitation of a famous work, but the presentation of an obscure original work in a mocking context. The only similarity between a parody and the work here at issue is the element of ridicule.

Nevertheless, it is precisely this common element of ridicule that matters to an analysis of the first factor of the fair use inquiry. The only significance in deeming a work as a parody is the concomitant determination that is contains elements of commentary and criticism..."

RE: the Judicial Accountability Conference in Littleton CO, Sun, 2/22/04
How did it go? AWESOME!

Two things I wish I had interrupted earlier to say: (There were so many other people who wanted to speak, I kept waiting, not wanting to interrupt THEM and interested in what THEY were saying...before I knew it, people were leaving, and I still hadn't spoken up. DUH.. )
1) On my web site, www.COAFRA.org, there is a link for a "Hall of SHAME". Although people are listing their judges there, it was really intended for the OTHER people, the social workers, worthless court appointed counsel, GAL and CASA reps who don't do the job properly, tax collection agents of the state, any public official who has abused the power of the job, and the power of other supportive officials to obstruct or violate the civil rights of a tax payer. the EJFI.org site has the Judicial criminals and cases covered, with a considerable effort to list the cases, specifics of the case, and the abuses from the judge. No sense to re invent the wheel and I plan to just link to EJFI site for judicial cases. I wanted to ask people to put the information of THEIR other officials/criminals on that Hall of Shame page, because we are building a database for Colorado out of that information. It doesn't look it, but it is feeding into a pre-built and searchable database. We will take input from all states, and then will be able to isolate by state, county, by name of official, by position of official (ie: bad GALs in Colorado Springs.) WE need to gather input for this database. WARNING: all posts which will be counted and included in the database MUST include the names on the case, the case number, and specific information. IF we can't verify the validity of the claim, we can't use it. Personal information can be protected, but we must be able to contact you, and must be able to see actual documents to validate the information we post. Any wrong information posted to the database would invalidate the entire project and we cannot compromise that.
2) I cannot emphasize enough two important, no two VITAL things for people who intend to take up or join us in this fight:
a) the best defense is an affirmative, agressive and RELENTLESS offense!
b) There IS no division. There are two classes of people in this effort:
1. People who see the socialist encroachment, and the incremental erosion of our Constitution, and who are willing and able to fight tooth and nail to DEMAND that our courts, judges, legislators, and other public officials be accountable directly to US, and that the constitution be THE rule of law, unabridgable by any single entity.
2. Those who realize the problem, but insist on keeping alive the divisions.. ie: the DADS who are accused by MOMS in divorce courts, the MOMS who wish to keep DADS from visitation, the RICH who think the poor folk are draggin us down, the poor who hate the rich for having more. .. the Democraps who think the Reptilians are all greedy , Reptilians who think the Democraps are all socialists (I sort of fit this one) Libertarians who distrust ALL politicians, (I fit this one exactly) ..all of them are divisive and we don't need it. The fact is that I believe in the libertarian philosophy, for the most part, but that is SECONDARY to my belief that I am AMERICAN first and foremost, and that ridding us of the immunities of officials, and returning the accountability to the people is FIRST. If a candidate can't convince me that HIS priority is the same as mine, he is not going to get my vote. This is not a partisan matter, not a matter of gay or straight, poor or rich, male of female, black or white or brown or red, or yellow, it is a matter of the PEOPLE vs the GOVERNMENT... and if we don't absolutely reject any division of our power, and band together, regardless of our religion or political belief, we lose.
In another generation, our payroll, for doing the job we are ASSIGNED, will be given directly to the IRS who will then dishonestly deduct every penny they can justify, determine what amount we MUST have to feed ourselves, with no hope for improving our living standard, EVER, and we will be given our subsistence pay monthly. We are almost there now. Our children already belong to the state, and we are simply the breeders and caretakers for the state. If they can vilify our methods of care, they can get huge awards for keeping us from damaging government property. If we don't fight this mess now, there will BE no later opportunity.
The Conference went GREAT, and the standing room only crowd was all in agreement that our personal little spats are trivial when measured against the fight to control the machine that is trying to consume us. THAT sort of alliance is very encouraging to me, and makes me feel sure that we CAN win. Thanks for putting it together, Linda, and for allowing me to help.
Christine in Penrose, CO.

CHRISTINE in COLORADO
www.CoAFRA.org

www.familyrightsassociation.com

www.amatterofjustice.org
www.judgewatch.com
www.profane-justice.org
www.restoremyfreedom.com
www.wbflegalreform.com
www.Jail4Judges.org
www.parentsforchildren.net
http://revolution2.us
www.massoutrage.com
www.falseallegation.com
www.cpswatch.com
www.judicialwatch.org
www.ejfi.org
www.loislaw.com
www.hope4kidz.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.