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

[CobaltBlue]

Hi Jim - I am not an expert in copyright law, but would suggest that if push comes to shove, which I hope it won't, your counsel will take a look at "fair use" doctrine. He/she probably already has, just a thought.

[Congressman Billybob]

Jim,

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.)

If Plan A doesn't work, Plan B should work.\

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[ThreePuttinDude]

What if the picture came from a site, that got it from a site, that took it from a site, that took it from Corbis?

What happens then Hmmmmm???

[Quix]

Greed and selfishness have shredded our constitution about as much as a lot of other things have.

Sigh.

[supercat]

Even a Weird Al Yankovic song parody is practically untouchable; add yet another layer for political free speech.

I wouldn't expect that to be the case, as music and lyrics are in some cases regarded separately at copyright law. As such, because Weird Al uses other people's music essentially verbatum, I'd expect that he'd have to pay for that. If he were to rework the tunes so as to be recognizable parody versions, then he wouldn't have to pay.

[onyx]

FYI and ?

[Ms12Gauge]

You don't understand the double standard syndrome. Democraps suffer a terrible version of it. THEY have an altrusitic NEED for exclusion from the rules. WE, however, are completely without valid reason for existence, much less poetic license. I think this battle COULD be won, but alas, were I Jim, I would choose my battles, and this little geek would be pretty far down the list.

BTW Cripple Creek?? About 40 miles from me! How'd ya end up with THAT handle? Just cuious....*grin*

Ms12Gauge aka Christine in Colorado.

[WayneM]

Dang. I knew i should have saved that picture. I went out to find it tonight and I can't, and my history is set to delete every 3 days.

Tasteful art is SO hard to find.

[Martin Tell]

its whether Shanklin has or NEEDS permission from the creators of the songs he uses in his parodies.

He does not need permission for a parody. The Supreme Court held in the Pretty Woman case that taking for parody purposes is legal. However, given their more recent decision regarding the Campaign Finance Reform Act (political speech is not really entitled to protection) they might rule differently today.

BTW, Jim Rob needs no pointers regarding copyright law and the fair use concept. He's been there, done that and lost. I assume he has no wish to go through that again (why do you think stories from The Washington Post are always excerpted here?).

[onyx]

*ping* and pass it along

[cyncooper]

Memo to self: Do not darken the door of Corbis again.

Ever

[FreedomCalls]

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

[FairOpinion]

Sorry for the problems.

Interestingly enough, the picture is still up at commondreams.com

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

Did they get a license to publish it, from Corvis?

[Political Junkie Too]

Why didn't they throw in a "doctor shopping" charge while they were at it?

Of course, this is political from the Big Boys. The Democrats' quest for the White House is at stake and any excuse to shut you down will be seized upon.

-PJ

[Vision Thing]

Meet the owner of Corbis -

Are you sure Corbis doesn't own this picture? After all, it is a picture of Bill Gates, who happens to be the owner of Corbis.

[irishtenor]

Could you post the offending Corbis pictures so we know what the offence is? :>)

[prairiebreeze]

I wonder if the DUmmies ever posted that image over at that swamp, and if the Corbis edict applies to DUmmyville as well?

Prairie

[Thumper1960]

Some believe the taking of a picture is akin to the stealing of a soul.

Alas, one must have a soul to steal to be affected.

Gates has no soul.

[ElkGroveDan]

Jim I think your replies are all right on.

I will note however that not even Mr. "R" is necessarily vulnerable to a lawsuit. Political parodies tend to have a leg up on copyrights. The Nader/Mastercard case I believe was a recent precedent setting example.

I'm sure you recall the E-Gray web site from the Simon campaign that my friend Chris and I built in the wee hours of the morning after far too many cold Killian's Reds back in September of 2002. (Our last count had over a million hits and links from 17 countries and thousands of other news accounts and blogs).

The nice folks at E-Bay and their oodles of lawyers tried to climb all over us, but I believe we never even replied to their queries.

Political speech is protected in this country (at least until 30 days before a federal election anyway.) I think "R" was stupid to not make the picture more of a parody and less of a forgery, but he would still have a good case if they went after him. As you noted, you are totally in the clear, IMHO.