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

[safisoft]

So noted. But I have no plans of ever using Corbis materials.

Corbis is acting not out of copyright issues, but for purely political ones. I have used Corbis numerous times, but never again. I make it my practice that whenever leftist whackos feel the need to let me as a customer know their left wing opinions, to never darken their doors again.

Tell Sarah, bu-bye.

[trussell]

Make sure to take a shower before returning to our midst.

[Jambe]

Just my $.02 as I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV!

I believe the reference picture was "fair use" as defined here:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#2 (next to bottom of page)

Fair use. A movie company used a photo of a naked pregnant woman and superimposed the head of actor Leslie Nielsen. The photo was a parody using similar lighting and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Important factors: The movie company's use was transformative because it imitated the photographer's style for comic effect or ridicule. (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998).)

[not_apathetic_anymore]

Well we've recently seen the hard-nosed approach of MS when approaching Mike Roe Soft (the Canadian kid who bought that domain or some such). Instead of making a pleasant request they came with threats and then had to do some backtracking when they got a ton of negative PR. I reconize MS isn' Corbis...but given teh same owner perhaps the operating philosophy is the same.

As an aside MS seems to operate under the "it's better to ask forgiveness the ask permission" philosophy when making their software. Somehow it's not OK for others to operate under the same philosophy?

[gdc61]

"pay me off or i call the cops" .....isn't that embezzlement or something?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

So I need about $150,000 to get out of this mess. Fantastic.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

...such infringements would be subject to statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement...

$150,000? Is there some basis in law for that or is that some arbitrary amount that they would ask for in court. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they would have to prove that their company was damaged in the amount of $150,000 per violation. Good luck, unless it was actually written into a statute somewhere. There are a lot of Hollywood-lobbied people in govt. who are working hard to make it a capital offense to step on the holy toes of wonderful Hollywood and the music industry, but they aren't there yet.

[pabianice]

Watch it, Jim. I'm sure they're cranking-up McCain-Feingold, too, to go after you for making political comments about their Dem darlings...

[NonValueAdded]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, a real Pandora's box. I doubt Jim Robinson wants to be a test case but I think there is a good chance to break new legal ground on this. It will be interesting to track this subject.

[vortigern]

I use quite a few of these on-line photos in my work. Generally, these images would have a visible "watermark" if they were downloaded from the Corbis Web site. These watermarked images are used in mock-ups and layouts for presentations to clients. Corbis would have no problem with that type useage. Web publicaton would be another matter and probably violate their useage guidelines. Two categories of images are normally available: Rights Managed and Royalty Free. Rights Managed images are very restricted (and expensive). The useage fees are based on where and how many times the image will be viewed. Royalty Free is basically an image you buy that can be used in anyway that doesn't conflict with the useage agreement. Depending on the image, it would be very difficult for Corbis to PROVE that the images in question are owned by them. Unless of course, the images that appeared on the Web site contained the Corbis 'watermark".

[NonValueAdded]

I'm sure they're cranking-up McCain-Feingold, too, to go after you for making political comments about their Dem darlings...

But if Corbis' complaint has merit and we are "publishing" the photo by assembling a web page with an embedded hyperlink, then doesn't that make us part of the media instead of a 527 or a PAC? If Jim Robinson is a publisher, then we are all reporters and don't we all have the blanket media exemption to the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Rescission Act?

[ClintonBeGone]

He does not need permission for a parody. The Supreme Court held in the Pretty Woman case that taking for parody purposes is legal.

What the hell do you think my original point was all about? I love it when someone tells me what I just told the original poster, without reading the original post.

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?).

Pointers? I've been here since 1998 too. You think I need you telling me what Jim and this website have been through?

[Torie]

Free Republic is a grey area, because it is really the posters that are arguably violating the copyright, not the site itself. I doubt there is any case which really deals with the matter per se. It is different from the Washington Post case presumably, because the images are not copied and pasted as stand alone "documents," but merely links to the site on which they appear. Still Jim is wise to state that he will remove any and all image links that are brought to his attention. Presumably it was the Fonda-Kerry picture doctoring affair that precipitated all of this.

[dennisw]

Every division of Microsoft is headed up by a mini me Bill Gates with his "crush the enemy" attitude. Gates and Balmer like it that way. Gates so he can relax into being a philosopher king, philanthropist.


Good news per today's Wall Street Journal is that key players in the computer/digital entertainment convergence are shutting out the Windows operating system They don't want to end up like PC makers, slaves to paying the Windows tax. Examples being the Apple Itunes and Ipod. M$ gets no cut out of these devices and services.

[moehoward]

What's to keep a Corbis employee from linking/posting the pictures then claiming "infringement"?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Your Nightmare]

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

[onyx]

Thanks, Torie. Appreciate your imput.

[Torie]

Nothing. Of course, if done so with the intent of creating a "factual" basis for litigation, that would be wrong, and if the perp is caught, that would be a fraud on the court, and perhaps punitive damages would be in store.

Americans love litigation, and as lawyers would say, the best things in life are free fees.

[Humidston]

So Bill Gates owns Corbis/Microsoft?

Ok. Lemme see.... We here at FR number in the hundred(s) of thousands...

I really feel like the Microsoft system I'm using is so flawed that the use of my computer is compromised by threats of various virus attacks... How about everyone else??

Sheesh! And WE were the ones who defended Gates against Clinton!