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 previous 1-5051-81 last
To: Jim Robinson
Question

How does one know that an image is from Corbis or not?
51 posted on 04/16/2004 4:11:38 PM PDT by HighWheeler (Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. - Marion Barry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
That's freaking insane. Then they shouldn't host the images on their own site.
52 posted on 04/16/2004 4:26:07 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
I do hear you, and even agree. But this is Jim Robinson's web site, and if sued, he's the one appearing in court, not us. All I'm saying is, given the history of the whole thing, you understand why Jim is doing as he is.
53 posted on 04/16/2004 4:43:04 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Don't the people at Corbis have anything to do with their lives?!

Can we link to snopes.com? ;)

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp
54 posted on 04/16/2004 6:04:23 PM PDT by FairOpinion (If you are not voting for Bush, you are voting for the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan; Jim Robinson; All
I couldn't agree more. How I found the picture you mentioned was a google search on a partial quote you mentioned: "Protestors near the home of former US President Bill Clinton and US Senator" turned up the photo at the Corbis site, along with all the gobeltly-gook when you look within Corbis.

Tried to cut/paste from their site - nothing doing.

As far as what I think, once something is posted anywhere on the internet, it's fair game to link. Otherwise, what's the point?

55 posted on 04/16/2004 6:39:56 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Hmmmm -- I wonder who the Freeper is?
56 posted on 04/16/2004 7:11:18 PM PDT by Exit148 (Loose Change Club -- 5 quarters/5 dimes/1 nickel 11 pennies=$1.91 for last week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
When my sister was in law school, she worked in the Corbis legal department. What do they mostly do there? They search for any and every use of their so called "property" and threaten to sue whomever they don't want using it. She said that the head lawyer is a Class One B*tch who gets her jollies out of scaring "the little people" with threats of lawsuits.
57 posted on 04/16/2004 7:17:18 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
I agree 100%.

Seems like it's a dead issue though ...
58 posted on 04/16/2004 7:29:57 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JLO
Tried to cut/paste from their site - nothing doing.

Your not doing it right, smile...gotta use the right tools.

http://www.relaxingsoftware.com/Snapshot/snapshot.htm

59 posted on 04/16/2004 7:40:13 PM PDT by LowOiL (Christian and proud of it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
When my sister was in law school, she worked in the Corbis legal department. What do they mostly do there? They search for any and every use of their so called "property" and threaten to sue whomever they don't want using it. She said that the head lawyer is a Class One B*tch who gets her jollies out of scaring "the little people" with threats of lawsuits.

How are they protected when they take pictures of others? Because it is a public sidewalk, do they have free and legal rein?

60 posted on 04/16/2004 7:42:34 PM PDT by Exit148 (Loose Change Club -- 5 quarters/5 dimes/1 nickel 11 pennies=$1.91 for last week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
No, but he's hated enough that some bad PR on his crushing an independent website would hurt him.
61 posted on 04/16/2004 7:48:20 PM PDT by mabelkitty (John Kerry is the sad clown of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ProfoundMan; All
OK...suppose I have purchased images from...you know, that picture Website...and have the appropriate license. For example, in the BizPresenter section of...you know, that picture Website...the EULA reads in part...

You may also use C**bis Material in an Educational, Editorial, and Commercial Use Web site, and in digital presentations.

You may distribute any presentation you create via your Web site or Company intranet.

Are they now saying that they aren't going to live up their end of the contract?

Interesting...

62 posted on 04/16/2004 7:56:45 PM PDT by Ulysses ("Most of us go through life thinking we're Superman. Superman goes through life being Clark Kent!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL
Good grief, I really thought I knew about how to do it. smile back atcha. Ok, what gives - what are your tools I don't know about?

Alt copy and paste
or
Control C and P

What am I missing? Thanks.

Gosh, you know the saying is true "if you're not careful, you learn somthing new every day" LOL
63 posted on 04/16/2004 7:56:47 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The images came off of totallysweetpixels.com shortly after they were posted in the first place. Why are they still squawking when images was no longer posted at the site?
64 posted on 04/16/2004 7:58:16 PM PDT by armymarinemom (Bring Them Home Now.org--The Few, The Loud, The Latrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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?

No.

65 posted on 04/17/2004 4:22:02 AM PDT by steveegg (Radical Islam has more in common with Islamic populations than the mainstream media has with America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Having no leg to stand on in a court of law matters little when one side has vast resources and the other does not.
66 posted on 04/17/2004 4:45:15 AM PDT by I_dmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JLO
What am I missing?

The below is a FREE program that lets you save a picture of the screen "as it is". Thus sites that are hard to copy pictures from (example, a picture on a media player or quicktime player can be saved). You can instantly cut to size what picture you want too without using your photo editor.

http://www.relaxingsoftware.com/Snapshot/snapshot.htm

67 posted on 04/17/2004 5:37:25 AM PDT by LowOiL (Christian and proud of it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
You forgot Ticketmaster versus Microsoft, which I believe is the precedent for prohibitions against deep linking.

One can hardly fault Mr. Gates for requiring of others the same measure that's been required of him.

68 posted on 04/17/2004 11:40:54 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dales
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.

I have "the power to stop" burglars, too. Bigger locks, stronger doors, bars on my windows, etc. But, the lack of those measures does not give a burglar carte blanche to enter my property.

By the way, are you familiar with the Ticketmaster/Microsoft deep linking case? As I recall, Microsoft was linking to pages that Ticketmaster did not want third parties to link to. As I recall, Microsoft felt that they had a right to link to any URL they wanted to link to (using the same arguments I see in this thread, as I recall), and, as I recall, Microsoft lost that case.

I don't believe that precedent has been challenged. And I do find it a bit presumptuous of some who would urge this site to take up the battle against a windmill that has already driven Microsoft away. Perhaps you can supply this site's owners with deeper pockets and bigger better lawyers than Microsoft could muster in the Ticketmaster case?

I am suppressing laughter as I say that, by the way. The topic drips with irony. The idea of attempting to prevail against Microsoft's principal in a case similar to the one that he set precedent by losing... if nothing else, there is an awful lot of chutzpah online in this thread.

69 posted on 04/17/2004 11:52:32 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
They search for any and every use of their so called "property" and threaten to sue whomever they don't want using it.

Why do you use the term "so called" in reference to their property? And why do you place the word "property" in scare-quotes?

70 posted on 04/17/2004 11:57:53 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Read the message above again. They say we can't even link.

That's freaking insane. Then they shouldn't host the images on their own site.

If Microsoft can be prohibited from linking to Ticketmaster URSs, why should any other site be above the law WRT linking to Corbis URLs?

By the way, my initial take on your statement was that it was chillingly close to something along the lines of, "If she didn't want to get laid, she shouldn't have gone into his apartment," or, "If she didn't want to get raped, then she shouldn't have worn such a short skirt, or gone into that neighborhood, or..."

Since when does my failure to lock my door at night give you the right to enter my home and make use of my property?

71 posted on 04/17/2004 12:01:44 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Big difference. An http server exists to present documents to a requestor based on a given address. The address can be made public, or private. Complaining about deep linking is like making it public and then complaining when it is used.

The lock analogy breaks down in that there are negligable costs involved in making your http server redirect outside requests to the front page of your domain, whereas putting locks on your door requires real costs. And the analogy to bigger and better locks has no cyber equivalent. If the referrer header says it is from another site, redirect. Period.

I think that anyone who thinks they will ever see deep linking ruled illegal is bound to be very disappointed. And rightfully so- people like that are just looking to be a-holes.

As for your precedent, that was two companies deciding to settle, and as such it would have no bearing on any court decision. So far, there have been a small number of deep linking cases brought, and none successfully. Until there is a counter example, it is much handwringing and potential profits being eyed by a bunch of bottom sucking trial lawyers.

72 posted on 04/17/2004 12:51:20 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
dumbest...analogies...EVER

There is no locked door. There is no rape. There is no breaking and entering. The image is posted right there in clear view of the house's window, so I suppose I am not allowed to open my blinds to look. If you don't want it publically viewed, don't put the pic in a public place.

Maybe next we'll send the bookmark police to look at each person's computer.

73 posted on 04/17/2004 1:41:45 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (Remember, name and town, name and town, if you wish to opine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All
JIM,

Would there be any merit in trying to creatively develop a proactive strategy.

There have to be SOME corporate biggies on FR and more related to those who are on FR.

We ought to be able to AT LEAST GO TO THEM and ask them for an agreement to use their text, images for our conservative cause.

Then, we could try others--general common sources. Even if we had to pay a reasonable minimal subscription fee, it might be worth the decreased hassles. But conservative types should be willing to grant fair use for the cause.

Then there's the fair use issue itself. Perhaps some of our legislators could adjust the copyright law. That's a stretch and long term issue but perhaps worth considering.

I just hate seeing you and FR go through all the hassles and flipflops every X days/weeks from such copyright jerking around.

Sigh.

Thanks for ALL you and John do!
74 posted on 04/17/2004 1:46:28 PM PDT by Quix (Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL
Thanks for the info for sure. Sorry to say, I'm just dumb enough/not smart enough to be able to figure it out exactly, what you mean.

I already know how to capture and print a screen. I use printscreen by Alfred Bolinger. Love it - can't imagine living without it for my job reasons.

Sounds different though, what you may mean.

Best to you! Nice conversing.
75 posted on 04/19/2004 11:25:29 PM PDT by JLO (CAN'T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Big difference. An http server exists to present documents to a requestor based on a given address. The address can be made public, or private. Complaining about deep linking is like making it public and then complaining when it is used.

The lock analogy breaks down in that there are negligable costs involved in making your http server redirect outside requests to the front page of your domain, whereas putting locks on your door requires real costs. And the analogy to bigger and better locks has no cyber equivalent. If the referrer header says it is from another site, redirect. Period.

I think that anyone who thinks they will ever see deep linking ruled illegal is bound to be very disappointed. And rightfully so- people like that are just looking to be a-holes.

Tell it to the judge. :)

Microsoft got whupped by Ticketmaster. Your technical arguments sound nice, but the court didn't see it your way.

It's one of the few times that MS did not prevail in a civil matter. You'd think that if your argument held water, they'd have dug in for the fight.

76 posted on 04/20/2004 4:44:03 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture; All
dumbest...analogies...EVER

Thanks for the personal attack. I always enjoy finding out what kind of person I'm dealing with. Sometimes it's easy -- like now, for example.

As to the rest of your arrogant retort, see above, my reply to the other guy applies to your issue too.

Bye now.

77 posted on 04/20/2004 4:45:45 AM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
There is one serious problem with the foundation of your last post.

The courts did not see it your way. The case was settled out of court.

Further, Ticketmaster is the one the courts have ruled against:

The motion of Ticketmaster Corporation and Ticketmaster Online-Search, Inc. (hereafter collectively Ticketmaster or TM) for preliminary injunction against Tickets.Com, Inc. (hereafter T.Com) is denied.
The matter is not completely settled, but the current lay of the legal land is a lot closer to my take on things than yours is.

This article sums things up nicely. It seems like any problems with deep linking will take the form of a competing business trying to make it appear that there is a business relationship with the deep linking when there is no such relationship.

78 posted on 04/20/2004 5:03:10 AM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
I have "the power to stop" burglars, too. Bigger locks, stronger doors, bars on my windows, etc. But, the lack of those measures does not give a burglar carte blanche to enter my property.

In most jurisdictions, a person who does not wish anyone else on some or all of their property is required to surround the property they wish to so protect with a wall, fence, or "NO TRESSPASSING" signage. Absent such measures, others may legally enter the property without legal risk.

79 posted on 04/22/2004 10:59:32 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: supercat; All
If you REALLY believe that you have the right to walk down the street, trying locks, to see if someone forgot to lock the door when they left for work, and then entering their premises "without legal risk", then please do assign someone to let us know when you try it. (I'd ask you to let us know yourself, but I doubt the county lockup will allow you access to a computer.)
80 posted on 04/27/2004 4:19:27 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
If you REALLY believe that you have the right to walk down the street, trying locks, to see if someone forgot to lock the door when they left for work, and then entering their premises "without legal risk", then please do assign someone to let us know when you try it. (I'd ask you to let us know yourself, but I doubt the county lockup will allow you access to a computer.)

I would expect that the locks are affixed to areas surrounded by walls or fences, correct? The existence of walls or fences would suggest that one would need permission to enter, though in many cases that permission may be granted by proxy (e.g. a sign that says "OPEN").

In the absense of signage or other indications to the contrary, I have a general right to walk up anybody's front walk and either knock on their door or ring their doorbell. The front walk is private property, but in the absense of signage or other indications to the contrary a public invitation is presumed.

For trespassing laws to be enforced on private property, it is not necessary that the property be made difficult for unauthorized persons to enter; what is required is to ensure that one cannot enter without willfully trespassing.

If someone has a web site which is password-protected with a username of "username" and a password of "password", then someone visiting the site might be considered a trespasser unless they were somehow explicitly invited. Such a feeble password would of course not be recommended, but its feebleness should not justify trespass. On the other hand, if a web server makes a document available without any particular user authentication, accessing such a document should not be considered trespass.

81 posted on 04/27/2004 4:51:42 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


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