Corbis, DMCA, And John Kerry Photos

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Corbis, DMCA, And John Kerry Photos

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday February 25, 2004 @09:29AM from the forgery-and-libel-were-already-criminal dept.

Phronesis writes "Photo District News is running a story reporting that three historic photos of John Kerry from the early 1970s, including the one used for the Jane Fonda forgery, were pirated from Corbis. The photographers who own the copyright on the photos are asking Corbis to use its fancy watermarking technology to find the culprit. Corbis hopes either to track the responsible people down using watermarks, or to invoke DMCA if the watermarks were removed."

11 of 804 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not a bad forgery..... by BWJones · 2004-02-25 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah so this is the problem with folks who don't ask questions. A quick examination of the forged image reveals differing light angles. However, other than that, the forgery (based upon an interpretation of the low resolution image from the link) is pretty decent. The cut lines are well concealed, and the brightness has been rather nicely matched. Of course the highlights in her hair have been darkened to match the background of trees and such, but here is(are) my question(s)..... 1) Who would be stupid enough to obtain a copyrighted image in a forgery attempt? 2) Unless this is an attempt by a right wing organization to discredit Kerry, why waste your time? Especially when you are lying?

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
1. Re:Not a bad forgery..... by techno-vampire · 2004-02-25 10:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  She did mnore than that. She sat in the seat of an AA gun and said that she wished she could shoot it against an American B-52. If we had declared war, it would have been treason as defined in the Constitution. Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
2. Re:Not a bad forgery..... by Skjellifetti · 2004-02-25 10:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  But could someone explain the Jane Fonda thing? What did that forged photo purport to show?
  
  Jane Fonda is an actress, daughter of Henry Fonda, formerly married to liberal media mogul Ted Turner and also to SDS activist Tom Hayden. She was an opponent of the Vietnam War who made a trip to North Vietnam at the height of the war thus earning the sobriquet "Hanoi Jane." The political right in the U.S. hates her guts. By placing John Kerry with Fonda, they seek to make Kerry appear as a left wing traitor.
  
  --
  FreeSpeech.org
3. Re:Not a bad forgery..... by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-02-25 10:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The political right in the U.S. hates her guts.
  
  Ummm, no, more than just the political right hate her guts. Anyone ever associated with the military hates her guts. Any (informed) patriotic American probably hates her guts.
  
  You see, she did not just "make a trip" to N. Vietnam. She ENCOURAGED them to shoot down Americans. She visited an anti-aircraft battery that was used to shoot at/down American planes. She encouraged the enemy to continue fighting, and encouraged the Americans (over the radio) to essentially "give up." She even asked to pose in videos with American POW's, and some of those POW's later testified that they were tortured if they did not want to appear in the videos with her. Like a previous poster said, if war had been officially declared, she could have been executed for treason. As it stands, most people who know all the facts consider her a traitor to this day.
  
  This is why any photo showing Kerry at an anti-war rally with her is extremely damaging to his campaign. This is also why Jane Fonda has been trying to distance herself from him in recent interviews, because she knows she is so hated it could torpedo the Dem's campaign.
  
  Here is some more info from Snopes.
  
  --
  Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once by Cajun+Hell · 2004-02-25 09:39 · Score: 5, Informative

how ironic it would be to turn the DCMA against the rich people who are in power and would like to torpedo Mr. Kerry
Mr. Kerry was in the Senate when DMCA passed unanymously, thus he voted for it. Would it be ironic if a law that a senator voted for, turned out to be useful to him? Not really.
And as for contrasting "rich people" with Mr. Kerry, that's a very interesting spin you have chosen.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:Watermarks by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-02-25 09:39 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't get how DMCA applies at all.

The other part of the DMCA says stripping copyright information or other identifying marks from a copyrighted work in an attempt to avoid proper attribution is also a violation.
It's in that part none of us got really upset about because most of us (even those who "pirate" regularly) still think the creator should get credit (just not control).

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Watermarks by Salsaman · 2004-02-25 09:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, it is a crime under the DMCA, section 1202. There was an article on this very issue on groklaw.net. All they need to do is say that a watermark is copyright management information.
Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information

. . . (b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law--

(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,

knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

In other words "Thou shalt not do anything we don't like."
Background On Photo from Guardian by ackthpt · 2004-02-25 09:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Not necessarily. Heard that it was helping Kerry soften his pro-Iraq war support.
That would seem ironic, considering it's apparent origins:
From the Guardian

Ms Fonda is reviled by many Vietnam vets for her wartime visit to Hanoi, and the image was widely aired over the internet by a fringe group of Vietnam veterans who have pursued a vendetta against Mr Kerry for years.
In less than a week, the forgery travelled from a message board on a rightwing website to a Vietnam veterans' mailing list to mainstream organisations. Two British national newspapers - the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday - used the photograph in editions on Friday last week and at the weekend.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Interesting by Blic · 2004-02-25 09:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Parody and "pranksters" is one thing - no one lost any sleep over this one or the pic of Dubya wearing the One Ring - but this is different. This was passed off as a legitimate AP photo to news organizations complete with fabricated story.
And if you RTFA (I know, this is Slashdot) it's Corbis going after them for copyright violations, not Kerry.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once by DustMagnet · 2004-02-25 10:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Mr. Kerry was in the Senate when DMCA passed unanymously, thus he voted for it.
You are not required to vote in the Senate, but I checked and Kerry did vote yea .

--
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once by mapmaker · 2004-02-25 10:28 · Score: 5, Informative

And you DO know his wife's maiden name, right?
No. And clearly, neither do you. Her current last name, which she got from her first husband, is Heinz.
I have no idea what her maiden name was.