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
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...
No.
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
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.
Why do you use the term "so called" in reference to their property? And why do you place the word "property" in scare-quotes?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.