posted on July 1, 2003 02:37:47 PM new
Corbis sues Amazon over digital images
Digital image company Corbis on Monday sued Amazon.com, accusing the online retail giant of offering unauthorized copies of hundreds of its celebrity pictures, including photos of stars such as Meg Ryan and Vin Diesel.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, alleges that Amazon and at least 15 poster and picture stores violated copyright law by selling the digital images outright or allowing sales to occur through their sites. Corbis is seeking up to $150,000 for each work sold.
"The defendants do not have license or other authority to reproduce, display, distribute, or otherwise copy or use the Corbis-represented images that are the subject of this action," Corbis' lawyers wrote in the complaint.
Corbis also accused the retailers of removing copy protection from the images in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Corbis, founded by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates in 1989, has amassed the rights to millions of images by, among other things, striking deals with commercial photographers and photo journalists. The company licenses those images to publications, businesses and individuals.
The suit highlights the problems facing copyright owners in the digital age, particularly because it's so easy for people to offer unauthorized copies of copyrighted works over the Internet, whether they're photos, songs or music. The dispute also raises questions about how much responsibility an Internet company has for the transactions taking place through its site. The complaint accuses Amazon of vicarious infringement for allegedly allowing its "trusted retailers" to offer Corbis images through its site.
"Amazon has failed to effectively supervise and control the infringing conduct of the supplier defendants," the suit says.
Corbis has pursued several other Web site operators for allegedly selling its copyrighted works, but the case against Amazon represents the highest-profile suit so far.
Amazon did not immediately return calls for comment, but has reportedly taken down the disputed images.
posted on July 1, 2003 04:53:10 PM new
As a photographer, I would never sell my rights of an image to a company. I would only sell the use of a photo for specific reasons.
I generally do concert photography. I give the musician or band certain rights for use. Example: It is ok to use my photo for promotion (posters to promote a show, or to send to a club owner), it is NOT ok to give it to a magazine to be published w/o my written permission. It is ok to use it on a website, It is NOT ok to use it in distribution for a CD w/o my written permission. Certain things are ok because it is name recognition, and others are simply my way of making money. Too many photographers sell their rights away for next to nothing. Then they wonder why they are broke 5 years down the road, and have no rights to the very images they took. This happens to musicians as well.
I would run to the hills if I knew Gates had his fingers in this and was thinking about selling images to them. Just think of the photographers who took the photos, and how they must feel knowing that each image is worth $150 thousand.
posted on July 1, 2003 05:10:57 PM new
The 150k price is not going to hold water since the price for purchase of the images is available on the site. He's playing scare tactics there.
If you look at most image catalogs a great deal of the images are obviously ones taken by studio photographers with time on their hands. A lot of staged images done specifically for advertising. If you have the time and the facilities I see no problem with it, it is a good way to cover studio rental fees and the such. My stepfather has sold landscape images - funny thing is, the ones he has sold are ones he didn't like himelf. This was years ago but the fees paid for the images covered the expenses of the two week vacation he was on when he took the shots,
What bugs me about what Gates is doing with Corbis is that rather than just building an image catalog that is used primarily by designers and art directors, he is buying up rights on photos of stars, basically he is gobling up the still images of our entertainment industry history to be doled out as he sees fit. I think that copyright on these types of photos should be held only by the photographer, the subject, their families or a historical organization but not to a corporate entity. As soon as they pass to a corporate entity, copyright should last only 10 years then pass to public domain. But that is just my opinion.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
[ edited by neonmania on Jul 1, 2003 05:11 PM ]
posted on July 1, 2003 05:34:27 PM new
The photos that Corbis buys, are just a small percentage of the available product. There are all kinds of celebrity photographers out there, who for the most part, have the same photos available. They all obtain press passes to the same events, and for the most part, are given equal access. Some of the bigger name photographers, do get to attend more private functions. I have been approached by more photographers this year, than in the past for selling their photos. I also know that quite a few have left the L.A. area, to work in New York, as things have dried up out this way. Perhaps, Corbis has slowed up a bit and is looking to stop the bleeding. As for prices, I've seen anywhere from $5 -$40 per image for use. If I don't take the shot myself, I usually like to have the negatives myself and keep all control of the image.
posted on July 1, 2003 06:15:24 PM new
Celeb - you might want to check out their catalog again... I'm not taking about red carpet or public performance shots. I'm talking about old studio file photos and such from the 40s and 50s. Red carpet shots are a dime a dozen, I don't see anyone buying many rights to those. To many photographers have similar shots.
Do you sell autographed shots as well? I'm just curious how that genre is policed since I am amazed by how many fakes I see listed. My personal fav was one where boh the first and last name were misspelled.
Mario Andretti - “If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.”
posted on July 1, 2003 06:58:39 PM new
The $150,000 price tag is the statutory damages for the infringement, not the actual loss or value of using the image.
The interesting thing is that the article implies that Corbis put Amazon on notice to remove the infringing items from the Amamzon stores and Amazon refused, therefore the vicarious liability of Amazon.
posted on July 1, 2003 07:24:58 PM new
Nah, I wouldn't touch autograhed items with a ten foot pole. A few years back when they held a major sting on the West Coast, 20-20 went to San Diego with Tony Gwynn and went thru the Qualcomm Stadium shop. Much to his surprise, they were selling balls, bats, etc, with his supposed autograph. He went thru each one, and claimed that they were all fake. That shows how widespread fakes are. Back when I used to sell on Amazon, I was approached by Corbis for selling a Jennifer Love-Hewitt photo. They didn't really seem to care, but wanted to know why they had seen this particular photo all over. I told them that I would cease and desist and told them who my wholesaler was. Never heard back from them, and I don't know what action they took against the wholesaler. I think that at first they thought I was downloading from their site and altering the picture, by removing their watermark, but that wasn't the case. A couple of the firms listed in the suit are legitmate companies that I do think we're possibly misled into thinking they were selling licensed goods. One of the companies mentioned, is Moviegoods.com They are also a powerseller on ebay.
