Copyright complaint from Corbis

email | Feb 3, 2004 | Corbis

[onyx]

Innocent? You? First time for everything. :)

[HAL9000]

The courts have also ruled that reduced resolution thumbnail images are entitled to the fair use exception. The Berkeley Daily article contained a reduced-sized representation of the image, and I think the courts would say it is fair use, especially with the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research" factors.

See http://www.tfaoi.com/articles/andres/aa6.htm for more info.

[NonValueAdded]

Sounds like ole AlGore got some 'splainin to do about that Internet thingee of his. Or maybe the folks at Corbis can invite Bill Gates over for a briefing.

This will open an interesting can of worms, however. With the possible exception of a browser-cached copy of the image, which I'll get to shortly, the image appears no where on Free Republic's servers. At the most, you have a slice of HTML with a link to the image source. You simply have a pointer at where the image is stored.

OK, so what about the poster's responsibility? Well, they didn't save the image either, all they did is create a pointer at a web address. They have no control over how that image is served up. In fact, the only place the image is "assembled" for viewing is on the personal computer of the person observing the image. And who might that be? Well, Corbis for one because they typed your URL information in their letter. Do you have a counterclaim against them for "publishing" as web address?

The real culprit here is the web site that serves up the image. Chances are that berkeleydaily.org is a licensee of Corbis but most likely not VVAJFK - duck and cover, guys. So the berk is the one serving up the image and therefore the proper target for Corbis. If the berk doesn't place access controls on their servers, that is no fault of FR, of the poster, or even of the viewer.

OK, about that browser cache. Anyone who views any web page is going to have cache files on their computer which are part and parcel of the viewing process. But no one else can see our cache file content. It is akin to having a hard copy of a newspaper with a Corbis-licensed photo on page one. It is a single copy integral to the viewing of that paper. That has to fall under a fair use exemption or someone needs to either nuke the 'net or change the law.

The kicker is the potential chilling effect on Internet journalism.

Meanwhile, get a lawyer to explain this to Corbis so you can counterclaim harassment if they pursue you further. In the end you would probably get reimbursed your legal fees, but IANAL.

[dennisw]

I knew they would raise a stink when their images appeared here. Still, I don't like her rude tone of voice. Must be how she gets her rocks off via verbal assault, threats and one upsmanship. Not a profession for a real woman.

[ElkGroveDan]

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

Hey now careful there. Some wiseguy (or two or three) might be liable to register at DU and engage in whole-scale posting of Corbis materials there just to make a point. And we wouldn't want THAT to happen (snicker).

[MeekOneGOP]

Copyright complaint from Corbis

*ping* and pass it along

Oh, yeah. The Kerry-Fonda pics. Yikes!

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[NonValueAdded]

continuing to flog the horse ... dennisw, where is the "here" where you say the image appears? Answer, it is in your own home. FR provided you an annotated index of information including images present and served up elsewhere for your own education and enjoyment. Why, we are like a public library card catalog.

So let's be crystal clear with Corbis: we don't have your images. We have a cross reference that tells people where to find and view the images. Go talk to the people that have the images. It isn't us.

[Brad’s Gramma]

The altered picture I saw did not have the "Corbis" logo on it, and I have seen the unaltered pic without their logo on it as well.

If I'm not mistaken, the original ones did NOT have Corbis on them...it was not till later in the game, that they somehow copyrighted it.

[X-FID]

AKAIK, FR put Corbis on the map anyway , but hey, some people are full of themselves, HAHA.

[glock rocks]

corbis?

I think I remember that from college.

just continue to apply the salve for a week and it should go away.

[prairiebreeze]

I for one, never go over to DUmmyville. I don't want to get warts.

:^D

Prairie

[ThreePuttinDude]

The picture that I posted was from the website,
"VietNamVetsagainstkerry."
Why would that not be allowed?
Did that website take it illegally?

[Sabertooth]

I think I'd heard somewhere that Corbis was pretty hard-nosed about their copyrighted pictures. Hope this is the end of

Here.

"A word of warning about how you use Corbis photos: they're controlled by Bill Gates, have massive legal resources, and aggressively protect their photo copyrights, because it's the foundation of their entire business."

[Jim Robinson]

Apparently. Ir's one of the ones referenced in their letter above.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/fonda_ker_vf.jpg

[ThreePuttinDude]

"Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

Damn, busted......I'm not a virgin any longer....8^)

[Vision Thing]

Still, I don't like her rude tone of voice. Must be how she gets her rocks off via verbal assault, threats and one upsmanship. Not a profession for a real woman.

Figure it out. Bill Gates owns Corbis. She works for Corbis. In other words, she works for Bill Gates.

[JoJo Gunn]

You can remind Fraulein Patsula that some of us have tried to be on the up and up with their images, an example being this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077134/posts

And I also posted a parody, protected, I assumed, by the Flynt versus Falwell case.

We all know that no Freeper is making any money from their precious Corbis images. I wouldn't doubt in the least Kerry is behind this somehow.

[dennisw]

Technically you are correct and make a good courtroom argument. Her case would be much stronger if the Corbis images were on a Free Republic server. None the less, the "colloquial understanding" of an internet page is that what you see there is due to the server that hosts the web page. It matters not to Joe how/why the image appears on his computer screen. Nor what server the image originates from. Were it not for the coding of the actual website, the reader would be unaware of the photo

(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.

This demand is consistent with the average person's understanding of what a web page is. And for sure this rude compliance manager has shown she has little understanding of how an image can be hosted on another server

[ApplegateRanch]

Please accept my intention to link as effectively accomplishing the link.

A virtual hyperlink...is that legal?