Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Corbis Copyright Complaint
Corbis email | 04/16/04 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 04/16/2004 2:03:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

Dear FReepers,

As most of you know, there was some recent media and internet excitement regarding some photos and images of Jane Fonda and John Kerry, some real, and some parodied. Some of these photos and images were copyrighted material controlled by Corbis or derivatives of Corbis copyrighted material. We received a copyright complaint some time back from Corbis and immediately removed all posts we could find containing links to these images.

We've now received another complaint. Apparently, we missed a few, so now we've done another search a found and deleted all we could find. Corbis is also complaining about posted links of these images that are hosted on newsmax.com, indymedia.com and totallysweetpixels.com.

John wrote a script to search our database of posts and removed all of these he could find.

We want to cooperate and fully comply with Corbis's wishes not to have any of their copyrighted material linked from Free Republic, even if it is linked from a third party server.

Please do not post links to any Corbis photos or images, regardless of where they may be hosted. Please let us know through the abuse reporting system if you see or know of any Corbis material that has been posted or linked to Free Republic.

Thanks very much.

Regards,

Jim Robinson


TOPICS: Announcements; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: complaint; copyright; corbis; freerepubliczotted; zot; zotfreerepublic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 04/16/2004 2:03:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
As you wish, Jim... But I think some folks need to realized it is a brave new web-based world!
2 posted on 04/16/2004 2:07:20 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (John F-ing Kerry??? NO... F-ING... WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I believe that their claim is in direct violation of "Fair Use" laws. What Freepers need to do with all imagery is to post proper credit notices.
3 posted on 04/16/2004 2:08:05 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Just a bit sensitive, aren't they?

sorry you have to go through this crap!
4 posted on 04/16/2004 2:08:32 PM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Once "Registered" has worked on a picture, I would think Corbis would want to pretend they'd never had anything to do with it :-0>
5 posted on 04/16/2004 2:09:03 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Some people say that Life is the thing, but I prefer reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Hmmmm.
FR can't even LINK to a Corbis image on a NewsMax server.
Are we supposed to investigate the source of any image before posting links to it?
6 posted on 04/16/2004 2:09:14 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I know you're just trying to avoid legal problems, but there's no way anyone can force you to not link to another web site -- it's a different story with so-called "deep linking", where another site's content is displayed on your page, but to prohibit standard linking is inappropriate.
7 posted on 04/16/2004 2:11:15 PM PDT by kevkrom (The John Kerry Songbook: www.imakrom.com/kerrysongs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
I believe that their claim is in direct violation of "Fair Use" laws. What Freepers need to do with all imagery is to post proper credit notices.

JimRob and FR did their part to try and establish fair use in the Internet world. We'll have to let someone with deeper pockets win this war, IMO.

8 posted on 04/16/2004 2:12:38 PM PDT by dirtboy (John Kerry - Hillary without the fat ankles and the FBI files...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
This is ridiculous. The Corbis people are insane.

AP and many other wire services and newspapers often use Corbis for file photos and historical references. I know they still own the copyrights, but how the heck are we supposed to know that when we simply link to something that someone else has paid to use.
9 posted on 04/16/2004 2:14:15 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm sure that Kerry has all FBI files by now!
10 posted on 04/16/2004 2:16:30 PM PDT by Dan Walsh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
This is ridiculous. The Corbis people are insane. AP and many other wire services and newspapers often use Corbis for file photos and historical references

Of course, the real underlying question here is, would Corbis be going after us for posting pictures of Kerry if we were supporting his candidacy?

11 posted on 04/16/2004 2:17:52 PM PDT by SpyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I recall that most, if not all of those pix had CORBIS transparent tags across them, so at least they were being attributed.
12 posted on 04/16/2004 2:18:00 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
The Corbis people are insane.

Or have alot of time on their hands. Or else they are afraid of what is being accomplished on this site. I vote for the latter.

13 posted on 04/16/2004 2:18:30 PM PDT by LisaMalia (In Memory of Sgt. James W."Billy" Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim get your lawyer on the phone. If you do a search on Corbis of the term FreeRepublic, you will find an image of a Freeper event in front of the Clintons' home.

CAPTION:

"Democratic Fundraiser
Protestors near the home of former US President Bill Clinton and US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- New York) during a Democratic fundraiser. The protestors, from Freerepublic.com rallied each Saturday in front of the White House during the Clinton years and moved their protests to the Clinton's home after the President left office. --- Photo by Ron Sachs/Corbis Sygma "

I see whole bunch of copyright infringment possibilities here, including the faces and signs of the Freepers pictured. Unfortunately we can't post the photo. But lets all go have a look and see if we can have those Freepers weigh in on Corbis using their faces and artwork.

14 posted on 04/16/2004 2:23:04 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
The Corbis people are insane.

Agreed. But Corbis is really just one person. One with really, really deep pockets and that person is Bill Gates.

J

15 posted on 04/16/2004 2:23:20 PM PDT by J. L. Chamberlain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
A bit more definition, if you please.

Is it okay of one types "http://www.corbis.com" into a message?

Is it okay to type a page URL, where the page has a link to a Corbis image?

Is it okay to have an "href" link like this -> http://www.corbis.com <-- Link (this does not load unless the user clicks on it)

Is it okay to have an "href" link to a URL, where the page has a link to a Corbis image?

16 posted on 04/16/2004 2:28:44 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I believe Corbis has no leg to stand on here. They cannot hold Free Republic responsible for another hosting site holding copies of their copyrighted images. In such an instance, any lawyer will tell you that it's the site that hosts the image that is in violation of copyright and should be given notice, not anyone who links to it.

For any attorney to suggest otherwise is to argue that any Free Republic link to a pro-Kerry URL is an endorsement of Kerry. It flies in the face of logic and common sense.

I know that your resources are not infinite, but I seriously think you should take this matter to a copyright lawyer. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding copyright law, they will agree with my assessment of this matter.

17 posted on 04/16/2004 2:28:54 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Leftists claim Bush is a terrorist. So why aren't they trying to appease him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LisaMalia
Actually what it comes down to is this. A couple of months ago some skilled FReeper created (or found) an old looking, early 1970's photo of Jane Fonda and Kerry sitting at a table before a war protest of some kind. Everyone thought it was a "smoking gun", but it wasn't real. It was two separate Corbis pictures photoshoped together.

Anyway, this picture started making the rounds, it even got up to Fox News. Later Corbis found out about it and blew a gasket. Who knows, maybe the Kerry campaign staff told them they'd sue them. So now JimRob is on Corbis's shiite list. We need to keep JimRob's blood pressure down and his servers up by not posting their crap. However, you're right that the fact that Free Republic is a CONSERVATIVE web site and politically the "Artiste" community is fired up about that, too.

18 posted on 04/16/2004 2:30:00 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
Of course, the real underlying question here is, would Corbis be going after us for posting pictures of Kerry if we were supporting his candidacy?

That is a fair question, but -- in terms of the legal situation -- irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Linking to a copyrighted image is not copyright infringement. Hosting a copy of a copyrighted image that is not utilized under the Fair Use exemption of 17 United States Code 107 is. Thus, even in such a case, it is not Free Republic that is violating copyright; it is the site that hosts said image.

I believe Corbis is using the threat of legal action when they know full well they have no leg on which to stand in any court of law.

19 posted on 04/16/2004 2:33:20 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Leftists claim Bush is a terrorist. So why aren't they trying to appease him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Good questions. A ban on linking is simply absurd. They might as well say, "We insist that you refrain from using the Internet in the future."
20 posted on 04/16/2004 2:34:08 PM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Seems to me the easy answer is, just link to pictures.

That way, there is no worry. And it is nice for the people who have dialups.

21 posted on 04/16/2004 2:35:02 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
You weren't here when the LA Times/Wash Post sued Free Republic (and therefore JimRob). Anyway, we all thought we had a great case. It was "Fair Use" all the way. (I personally still think it does.) FReeper lawyers gave pro bono time to represent us. We still lost, in the eyes of the Clinton-appointed liberal judge. The judgement sucked. It was appealed, IIRC, and we still lost. Jim doesn't have the funds to take it all the way to the Supremes, so he settled.

Anyway, what is JimRob to do? The LA Times/Wash Post settlement could have cost him a fortune that he doesn't have. JimRob doesn't need the heartache of that all over again.

22 posted on 04/16/2004 2:37:36 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
I wouldn't advise getting into a deep pockets contest with Bill Gates.
23 posted on 04/16/2004 2:38:09 PM PDT by gogeo (Short and non offensive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I simply do not want to have anything to do with Corbis. There is no need for their images or links to appear on FR.
Thanks,
Jim
24 posted on 04/16/2004 2:38:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (FReepers are the greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Read the message above again. They say we can't even link.
25 posted on 04/16/2004 2:38:58 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sloth; Jim Robinson
Good questions. A ban on linking is simply absurd.

I read Jim's request more closely, and probably, more narrowly read, the request is to not do either of the following, where the URL is a CORBIS image:

Type http:/www.somesite.somewhere.com/folder/corbis-image.jpg

Make an href link of the above.

Note that each of those is a reference to an image, not a reference to a page that may or may not have a link to a Corbis-controlled image.

26 posted on 04/16/2004 2:39:18 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Just take your photos and email them around the country. It would be impossible to tell where they originated.
27 posted on 04/16/2004 2:43:01 PM PDT by chainsaw (http://www.hanoijohnkerry.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Yes, but it still requires some magical knowledge of where the 3rd-party site acquired the image. We're only going to know it's from Corbis if it's overtly attributed or if the watermark is still shown.
28 posted on 04/16/2004 2:44:39 PM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
You weren't here when the LA Times/Wash Post sued Free Republic (and therefore JimRob). Anyway, we all thought we had a great case. It was "Fair Use" all the way.

Reprinting articles in full is not protected by Fair Use. Excerpting and quoting is. That's why we can still link to the articles and post the opening paragraph or two.

This case is different. The infringing material is not hosted on Free Republic (as was the case when full articles were reproduced here). It is another matter entirely.

29 posted on 04/16/2004 2:45:53 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Leftists claim Bush is a terrorist. So why aren't they trying to appease him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
I never knew that merely hyperlinking to an image was a copyright infringement.......Can websites also keep someone from publishing hyperlinks to them?
30 posted on 04/16/2004 2:48:30 PM PDT by hispanarepublicana (Mr. Fox, give us our water!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Yes, but it still requires some magical knowledge of where the 3rd-party site acquired the image. We're only going to know it's from Corbis if it's overtly attributed or if the watermark is still shown.

True, but it's alot easier to refrain from posting references to image URL's (except where one knows the copyrights that pertain to the image), than it is to refrain from posting any URL that might, in turn, link to a Corbis-controlled image.

I notice I left out one method of reference to an image URL in my previous, and that is the <img= > method.

31 posted on 04/16/2004 2:50:38 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
We should do exactly as Jim asks. Check here
http://pro.corbis.com/creative/services/media/ (hope I can post a page link!) "Metadata" and "Digital Asset Management" are real stinkers!! These guys are GOOD at this, let's leave 'em alone.
32 posted on 04/16/2004 2:53:23 PM PDT by ProfoundMan (It's NOT a scandal, It's a WAR !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Tell them to shove it.
33 posted on 04/16/2004 2:57:51 PM PDT by Enduring Freedom (Thomas Kean - Useful Idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enduring Freedom
I would like to ask them the following:

WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR? ANSWER THE QUESTION! ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT? ARE YOU? ANSWER!
34 posted on 04/16/2004 2:59:35 PM PDT by Enduring Freedom (Thomas Kean - Useful Idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Is it okay of one types "http://www.corbis.com" into a message?

That may become the defacto compromise at some point. That way, the address is provided but it is not a hot link. The reader will have to copy the address and paste it into the address field of their browser and click go. If the choose not to, then it is just freeform text.

-PJ

35 posted on 04/16/2004 3:00:19 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Some case law of interest.

Ford Motor Company v. 26000 Enterprises, Case No 01'CV'71685'DT (EDMI Dec. 20, 2001) Mere link from 2600 website, critical of Ford Motor Company, to Ford Motor Company, is not actionable.
http://www.2600.com/news/122201-files/ford-dec.html

Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com , No 99-07654 (CD Cal 1999) (deep linking does not equal unfair competition) http://www.gigalaw.com/library/ticketmaster-tickets-2000-08-10-p1.html

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 FSuoo2d 1290 (D Utah 1999) Knowingly linking to infringing content constitutes contributory infringement.
(Comment: Thus, the issue goes not against FR, but the poster. And even then, Corbis would have to prove that the poster knowingly linked to copyrighted material. If argued otherwise, then the DUmmie brigade could easily get FR in hot water by creating loads of accounts and going Corbis link-happy.)
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html

36 posted on 04/16/2004 3:02:34 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Leftists claim Bush is a terrorist. So why aren't they trying to appease him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. L. Chamberlain
BILL GATES OWNS CORBIS?

That ungrateful pr#ck - perhaps his Socialist parasite friends want another shot at his fortune.

He is lucky Bush won - he would be a maggot salesman by now.

How can someone with so much money be so stupid?
37 posted on 04/16/2004 3:03:27 PM PDT by Enduring Freedom (Thomas Kean - Useful Idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ProfoundMan
If it were simply a matter of linking to stuff on the Corbis site, then it'd be easily remedied. But Corbis is now holding FR's feet to the fire if some third party abuses Corbis's copyright and some FR poster links to it.

This alone places undue and unreasonable prior restraint on both FR management (with respect to and including FR users) who may link to a non-Corbis site which may (or may not) have Corbis-derived images that are not thus marked.

This isn't just about copyright. This is actionable infringement on the First Amendment.
38 posted on 04/16/2004 3:06:45 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Leftists claim Bush is a terrorist. So why aren't they trying to appease him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The scrubbing and purging of an the FR news archive continues. Given time, we will be reduced to excerpts only.
39 posted on 04/16/2004 3:10:37 PM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Crybaby Corbis!
40 posted on 04/16/2004 3:11:49 PM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase; Jim Robinson
The scrubbing and purging of an the FR news archive continues. Given time, we will be reduced to excerpts only.

I realize that the perception of "fair use" differs between parties, but as some others have pointed out, that fight may need to be fought by either those with deeper pockets, or those who are more "politically correct" than we are.

41 posted on 04/16/2004 3:13:11 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Unfortunately, some have even demanded that we not even link to their publication. I'm talking text here, not images. So obviously it's not a matter of driving traffic to their sites--it's a spittin' contest. It should also be noted that Free Republic appears to be the only site receiving this kind of treatment.
42 posted on 04/16/2004 3:13:27 PM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
Founded by Bill Gates in 1989, Corbis is headquartered in Seattle, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Paris, Düsseldorf, Vienna, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and Tokyo.
43 posted on 04/16/2004 3:15:25 PM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
It seems silly that they want to forbid linking too. Suppose I see a picture at someone's site that is available to the whole wide world. I E-Mail the site information to you, you paste it and go to it. I have in effect, "linked." So I can't understand how it would be any different to link via a posting, or having you paste and go the site because I sent you an E-Mail.
44 posted on 04/16/2004 3:17:44 PM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Well, I never realized that they were the ones who decide. I thought the courts were. So far, deep linking has not been ruled illegal. I doubt highly it ever will be, since servers can decide (based on the information in the http request headers) if the request came from within or without and can redirect outside requests (or reject them).

They already have the power to stop deep links. They don't need the courts to do so, and the courts will continue to rule that way.

Until courts rule another way, I am going to assume that courts are going to continue to rule the way they have so far.

45 posted on 04/16/2004 3:24:46 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Yeah, I understand your point and it's certainly valid. It boils my blood too. I'm just concerned that these guys have built a small empire on copyright and digital rights management and thus are probably not the test case we'd like to make.
46 posted on 04/16/2004 3:25:36 PM PDT by ProfoundMan (It's NOT a scandal, it's a WAR !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Your wish is our command, sir. I agree with those posters that think this is a shakedown, but you have to pick your battles, and this one isn't worth it.
47 posted on 04/16/2004 3:33:21 PM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
You're perhaps more right than you know. I worked for a competitor of Lexis-Nexis for quite some time and the push for digital rights management was quite strong from the copyright holders. We had a system to allow customers to pay more to distribute their downloaded info to larger audiences but it was voluntary. You can guess how many folks volunteered. This is what drives the push for the rights management stuff. The publishers will essentially destroy the intellectual market of their ideas to gain a few more cents on the distribution market.

What we're seeing with Corbis and the like is just the beginning. Crawlers and spiders searching your drives for copyrighted material aren't that far off. The RIAA stuff is just annoying, limiting access to thought is criminal.
48 posted on 04/16/2004 3:38:56 PM PDT by ProfoundMan (It's NOT a scandal, it's a WAR !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969; Jim Robinson
I agree with those posters that think this is a shakedown, but you have to pick your battles, and this one isn't worth it.

I disagree.

I disagree because it's pretty clear that someone who puts something up on the internet can control who looks at it by restricting access to their server if they wish to do so. I think they have to do more than say they don't want certain classes of people people to look at it.

I don't know how much it would cost to fight this in a court but it's the sort of thing I would support financially. If there are enough of us who would contribute to a legal fund for this purpose, maybe we could stop it before it effectively destroys FR.

ML/NJ

49 posted on 04/16/2004 3:44:14 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; ml/nj; All
This is really not the battle to fight...

MicroSoft will become the repository of most of the information and data if it has it's way...

DRM

Digital Rights Management

Gawdammgates intends to become the owner of all he surveys

this individual has no respect for any law

this individual is not just the owner of corbis

corbis is slowly becoming the image bank/market for the world

these 2 links contain over 1000 opinions and whatever

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/02/0432224&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=99

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/25/2113238&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=149&tid=99

gawdamgates plans to control as much information as
possible utilizing any method necessary
50 posted on 04/16/2004 4:08:43 PM PDT by kemosabe (Sheesh...Who is running the Assylum anyhow?...jes might b gawdamgates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson