Corbis Sues Amazon for Copyright Infringement

Gedvondur writes "The story ran in the WSJ today, that the Gates-owned image company, Corbis, is suing Amazon.com for copyright violations (PDF link). Apparently the suit was without warning to Amazon. Amazon will use the DMCA to defend itself. Link goes to copy of the WSJ article on Corbis's site."

Comments

PDF??

[The Bungi]

Here's a link to news.com. Give Google news a shot, the piece is being carried by just about everyone.

Amazon uses DMCA to defends itself

[cpc]

"Amazon's Mr. Curry said the Corbis lawsuit was "without merit with respect to Amazon" because the company isn't liable for copyright infringements by its merchant partners under the DMCA."

Looks like the DMCA is a swiss army knife...

Here is the suit:

[Anonymous Coward]

Corbis attacks with IP violation suit.
Amazon strikes with DCMA +0.
Corbis resists !
Amazon conjures rapid laywers.
Corbis conjures Bill Gates.
Amazon conjures David Boies.
Bill Gates attacks with incompatible IE +6.
David Boies strikes with countersuit.
Countersuit misfires !
Judge drops dead laughing !
Bill Gates integrates IE into Windows.
Corbis conjures more laywers.
Amazon casts press release at Bill Gates.
Bill Gates resists !
David Boies casts Chebacca defense.
Chebacca defense misfires !
Amazon loses !Judge orders Amazon to pay 10000000 $ !

Re:an interesting test of the DMCA vs. the DMCA

[ocelotbob]

Actually, a more likely, though somewhat unfortunate at least from a personal freedom standpoint, is that the DMCA wins on both counts. From what it sounds like, Corbis' suit against Amazon is on shaky ground in that they didn't give them a chance to rectify the situation before the suit was filed. Amazon's going to claim the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA apply to this case, as they simply provide a marketplace for the information; much like an ISP, they only provide the linkspace, and don't pay much mind to the sites unless a problem is brought to their attention. Chances are, the court's going to agree with this defense, and either dismiss the case against Amazon, or a jury is going to find Amazon not liable due to the safe-harbor clause.

This leaves the actual sellers. They are commiting copyright violations, and as they are removing encryption used to protect copyrighted images without authorization, they will be slammed by the DMCA. Thus there is no battle royale with the DMCA against the DMCA, as the two different clauses of the DMCA are going to be used with what will be two different parties.

Re:First PDF Sucks Post

[Jotham]

This isn't Amazon but someone with an Amazon merchant account. Anyone can sign up and use it.

So while they have a case against the person selling the photos I don't think they have one against Amazon itself (unless it was made aware of the fact and failed to take action - which is not the case).

This case is akin to charging a newspaper with theft because someone advertised something that turned out to be stolen in the trading post section or pimping because of the classified section.

The only reason Amazon is the target is because it has more money.

Why not negotiation?

[panurge]

The average professional photographer doesn't make a huge amount of money. It seems reasonable that if someone's work has been ripped off, they should be paid an amount equal to the usual fee rate for the actual usage, plus the costs of enforcement. In a more rational commercial environment, Corbis could simply have sent Amazon a bill. If Amazon refused to pay, then legal action would start. And Amazon would have the option of paying, then passing the bill back to the people posting copyright material on its site.

Back in the days before lawyers decided that the Constitution guaranteed them a percentage of everything, a part share in a couple of hotels and a condo, and a different colored SUV for every day of the week, good lawyers could write a letter that would start the process of negotiation without egos getting inflamed and everything ending up in court. It's better for business that way. But now CEOs are terrified of not being seen to do everything possible to extract every last cent and inflate the share price, and I suspect law firms milk this. Eventually the tide of opinion will turn, perhaps when those same CEOs decide to blame the tide of lawsuits for current underperformance and start to lobby government to fix the problem. Cynical? Yes. Realistic? Maybe