The rights holders of the original work have a copyright interest in the derivative work -- they can demand a share of any proceeds from it, and can even, in some cases, halt further reproduction and distribution.
If I publish a book that has your photo in it without your permission, you can collect damages and require that I remove it from future editions; if I cannot publish a new edition without the photo, then I cannot publish a new edition at all.
If Snopes HAS a fair use, then so would FR. Only FR was hounded by Corbis and the photographer.
Do you know what discussions Snopes had with Corbis? I don't. Maybe they worked out a deal, or maybe they simply stood firm and threatened to go ahead and take it to court. But in any case, whethe FR has a legal fair use claim and whether it chooses to assert that claim -- up to and including fighting it out in court -- are two different questions.
So why is it “newsworthy” to have them on Snopes but not newsworthy for FR to also show them in a discussion of the content?
Who says it isn't newsworthy on FR? That is a legal argument, one that isn't settled until a judge says so.
The vast majority of claimed copyright infringements, especially online, are settled by a lawyer sending a nastygram and the "offender" removing the allegedly infringing material. A lawyer's letter is not legally binding, and the decision of FR or any other party not to fight it is not precedent.
Again, we don't know what kind of arrangement Snopes may have reached with Corbis. We do not know if they decided to negotiate with Corbis where FR simply decided it wasn't worth attempting to do so.
It is possible, though far from certain, that what you claim is correct; that Corbis made one set of demands of FR and a wholly different one of Snopes. If they thought that Snopes debunked the false claim and that FR perpetuated the false claim -- whether their belief is justified or not -- they have every right to treat different folks who want to use their images differently.
This is the element missed os often in the threads claiming that FR is not "allowed" to use certain material while other outlets are. If you choose not to fight a legal claim that doesn't mean you've lost, and your decision isn't any sort of precedent.
The copyright owners must appeal through court and attain victory or out of court settlement.
This has not happened. The parody may have been derivative but it no more belongs to the photographer than the numerous parodies of Reuters’ daily photos belong to that agency.
I seriously doubt ALL of these offenders are paying Corbis or even negotiated waivers. DUmmies tipped them off to cause havoc. Mission “accomplished”.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=kerry+fonda&gbv=2
And in the case of AP, they reserve the right to deny licensed excerpts if it (pointing out fraud, bias, and error for example) could hold them up to public ridicule. Where does the First Amendment say anything about that? It definitely violates “fair use”.