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.
I am personally disputing their claim over images...taken by me of a subject..created by me at the time for a magazine article way back in 1986-87 long before any of this nonsense was possible. I always took reference pictures of my work...even if they were being photographed by someone else...it was for reference.. The pictures Corbis appear to be claiming for were owned at the time by a very large international publishing company who commissioned them to illustrate an article which were then used for further publicity. I produce many subjects for photography, film and TV..of course I will photograph them in situ for my own reference and to represent my work...exactly what my image was doing on my web site.
Photographs of the promotion including the large blown up images of one similar to the image in question were photographed in 1987 and full permission for doing so was given by the original owners....I*C Magazines. The image on the web site was scanned from a photograph developed at Boots long before digital imaging was available to the ordinary person. It came from my Pentax camera. The image was placed on the web sight in 1994 and has been there until recently when this nonsense disputed it.
Having worked in the photographic and film industry for many years, I am fully aware of the hundreds of images that were produced from one session. As these could be sold on by the photographer there could be an incredible minefield of problems out there waiting to trip people up. If a company commissions a photograph for their use and pays for the images they want they are perfectly at liberty to allow others to use it...especially in a promotion for their own marketing. The rest of the images from the session can be sold on anywhere by the photographer.....Is there really a system that can infallibly compare one image with another and say it is 100% exact ? If someone is claiming that in my case they are 100% wrong ! Copyright belongs to the photographer unless he sells that right on to another.
After the initial demand...even though disputed totally, the image in question was removed and replaced by another taken of the same promotion but different enough to cause no mistaken identity...now the demand has increased...with threats to £5000.
I hope Amazon gives this company the best run for the money they can afford and does so on behalf of all those small website owners who have been terrified by this big cosh of a company operating what appears to be a scam. I wish!
Bill Gates should be thoroughly ashamed at what this company is doing to people via their firm of solicitors.
Shafting all those people who pay dearly for his products and give him the wherewithal to be so generous with charitable causes...what a hypocrite!
Just as a matter of interest the solicitors claim reference to the 1988 copyright act....hmmn!
<i>Is the 1988 Copyright Act retrospective?
Answer
No. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 only covers works that have been created since 1 August 1989 when the Act came into force. For works created before that date, you have to refer to the previous copyright legislation and any transitional provisions in the 1988 Act. However, the 'Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995', was retrospective and harmonised the situation regarding the length of copyright protection for existing works irrespective of when they were created.<i/>
It seems it is far too dangerous to use any images...even your own, of subjects you created!