Slashdot Mirror
Corbis, DMCA, And John Kerry Photos
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."
Hmm, I was going to make a comment on how ironic it would be to turn the DCMA against the rich people who are in power and would like to torpedo Mr. Kerry (or anyone who is a threat to them for that matter) but the /. subject line summed it up quite nicely: "from the forgery-and-lebel-were-already-criminal dept."
Still it would be a nice amount of irony wouldn't it? A wonderful example of what happens when you pass draconian laws -- they come back to bite you in the ass no matter how "good" your intentions were.
On a somewhat offtopic sidenote here's this quotation from the article:
So much for our clean 2004 election - as if any of us thought it would actually happen anyway.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think we're going to see more of this in the future. Remember the famous shark in san fran harbor pic?
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
That aside, though, this is a neat use of watermarks. Much better than that stupid the-watermark-determines-the-restrictions crap that the music companies were playing around with, a while back.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
TotalFarker's give a collective "yeee..." and pull at their shirt collars.
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.
"Pardon me. Would the person responsible for forging the photos, removing the watermarks from the source images, and distributing a libellous claim please come to the Principal's office? Thank you."
Corbis hopes either to track the responsible people down using watermarks, or to invoke DMCA if the watermarks were removed.
If the watermarks were removed, the DMCA won't be able to help much, they'll have a hard time figuring out who did the forgery...
A bad law used in a decent way is still a bad law; the ends do not justify the means...
The unofficial
...infringers - don't they mean thieves? Oh wait, this isn't an RIAA related article.
/. please explain some of these difficult to understand terms: I mean I know what GIMP, DMCA, MP3, PARC, DSL, DRM, DVD and NSA mean, but who's this John Kerry and this Jane Fonda?
John.
Does anyone know if an open-source (cheap) watermark solution exists?
I like to take photos and post them on my site, but I would like to also have them watermarked in case someone takes the photo and starts making money of it.
I looked into the one that comes with Adobe products, but it was way to expensive. Something like $75 for 10 photos.
Just wondering what options are avalible...
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Sorry to rain on your parade...
Kerry's not even officially the nominee yet, just the most likely nominee since he holds a very large lead over the surviving competitors. Therefore, it's a bit far to assume that this came from a right-wing zealot, it just as much could have come from somebody who is overly zealous in supporting another Democrat.
It's highly unlikely that this came from anybody's official campaign, but somebody who really doesn't want Kerry to win for whatever reason makes sense to them. It'd be nice if there's a digital watermark somewhere in the picture that can unmask whomever was involved...
has declared that this investigation has been indefinitely been put on hold for reasons of national security. Furthermore, the original photographer has been relocated for his own protection to Guantanamo Bay, along with representatives of Corbis and anybody else who makes trouble, see!
I don't think this would be covered under free speech as a fair use application. Instead this could be construed as defamation or slander. When these cases have come up in court before, the defining standard always has been that it must be obvious that the picture is either satire (Hustlers famous example of some evangelical priest) or being used to illustrate a political point (W with horns on his head or some such).
In this case what was done was not obvious until the original photographer looked at the picture and said "that's not right" and even he had to look at his original to be sure. It's certainly a good enough photoshop that it would easily fool most people who will give this only a scant few seconds before concluding Kerry did associate with Fonda. Since it depicted him side by side with Jane Fonda, with no way for the public to readily know it was a forgery, the only intent has to be slander.
That would seem ironic, considering it's apparent origins:
From the Guardian
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And if you RTFA (I know, this is Slashdot) it's Corbis going after them for copyright violations, not Kerry.
Real
Fake
Apparently the trail lead to the account of one Beorge Gush - investigations continue.
That's a good point - in fact, the media outlets that didn't even bother to check this bad looking picture out *really* have to be seen as the bad guys here. The whole 'check your sources' thing has to hold once you get past the tabloids. Bad journalism, plain and simple. Taking ANYTHING straight off the web - without independent confirmation of the facts through existing sources and contacts is pretty irresponsible. Any of us can freely editorialize and satirize on the internet, and that's great (I'm doing it now)... but this is like when the Chinese republished the Onion's story about the US Capitol renovations - as fact!
The real photo is not a picture of them together. It is a picture of them in the same place at the same time. Yes, there's a difference--Kerry is basically background in that picture; he's not talking to Hanoi Jane, he's not looking at her, nothing.
I attended a Republican convention once. One of the many speakers was Pat Robertson. By your logic, I therefore believe everything that Pat Robertson believes. Pete DuPont spoke at the same rally. By your logic, Pete DuPont and Pat Robertson therefore have no differences.
It's not Kerry going after them, it's the photographers (and their agents) whose work was misappropriated. In any case, Kerry wouldn't have standing to object on copyright or DMCA grounds. He might have a libel case, though.
-Tom Duff
1. The event where they were actually together (1971) happened before Jane Fonda went over to Vietnam in 1972.
2. At the time that Fonda went over there, Kerry publicly decried her actions.
3. There is no evidence that they really knew each other personally other than as passing acquantainces.
It's not not Kerry going after them for libel. It's the photographers, and they are trying to protect their copyright.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075317/p osts
(Scroll down to post 47.) The original link was at:
http://members.aol.com/registered/private/freep/ke rryfonda.jpg
though it's gone now. "Registered" admits elsewhere on the board to creating the photo.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this article directly follows the one announcing Gimp 2.0?
Just wondering...
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
Not so. Kerry didn't go to Hanoi, Kerry didn't broadcast speaches designed to harm soldier's moral, Kerry stayed here and worked within the law for what he believed in. I have no respect for Hanoi Jane, but I do for Kerry.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If they were pirated, does that not imply someone has to make a profit or use for a NON fair use purpose ? IE NOT poking fun at his retangular face in the time honored form of Satire ? So if someone profited, who ? and get a subpeona for records, businesses keep them, and you are only protected if operating under good faith, buying from the back of a van implies you KNEW it was stolen. If they can't point to someone who profited how do they justify/support the piracy angle. Sounds like a valid issue, but another place in which the terminally stupid piece of legislation previous known as the DMCA will be mis-applied to everyone NOT a CONSULTING LAWYER for either party or firms involved....
At what point does construct of stupidity, layed on a ground of venal greed, to a philosophy of deniability become a solid doctrine to manage society by/with ?
I should have been born wealthy, or too stupid to appreciate the difference...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp
Happy now?
I hardly see the difference this makes, I don't post on here with my account, for my own reasons. I've had max karma ever since the karma kap came into effect.
Signing your name isn't half as important as being right. I post AC all the time on here & I'm regularly modded up. I don't have to justify my existance to another 'coward' but I will, because I believe in anonymous posting.
Yours truly,
chickenshit
It's a lot different then the action movies you've grown up on. In fact, when I was serving in Somalia, the situation was closer to "Blackhawk Down" than "Stripes".
---Well that's nice. I was serving in SWA/Kuwait a few years prior to your stint. When Bush Sr. realized that going into Baghdad would result in a dangerous power vacuum that could lead to a fundamentalist Islamic state. Not to mention civlian casualties and general chaos.
I'm pro-military. I'm vehemently against the current debacle launched in Iraq. And I can definitely see where a Vietnam vet coming home just might have something to say about how pointless that war was.
So again there, Mr. Somalia: What makes you think one cannot simultaneously be pro-military and yet still protest against a war?
You aren't voting for Edwards or Dean (both of whom would actually have a chance of winning) because the Republicans told you not to. They told you Kerry was winning, and that you should vote for him because of that, and you believed him.
Guess Democrats are just as stupid as the rest of the sheep, eh?
Suppose you were on the scene at the My Lai massacre, when American troops were murdering civilians. Would it be treason to urge them to stop? No. Would it be treason to use force to try to stop them? Maybe. Would it be wrong? Certainly not. Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson ordered his crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired on Vietnamese civilians he was shielding with his helicopter.
If you view the Vietnam War as one big massacre, you have a moral obligation to do what you can to stop it. That view is one reasonable people could hold. The U.S. dropped more tonnage of bombs on agricultural N. Vietnam than on Nazi Germany and Japan. The B52 crews Hanoi Jane was hoping would be shot down were following lawful orders and yet perpetrating massacres. It's a problem.
I have a lot of respect for the troops. I have no respect for the current CIC. If my own brother were shooting civilians, I'd stop him if I had the chance. Would you stand by just because of the uniform?
I don't recall the argument being that Republicans were rich. It was that they are the tools of the rich...
So basically you're saying that Republicans are the tools of the Democrats?
Brain... hurting! Must... vote... Libertarian!!
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I realise this is probably not the election to be saying it during, but you guys could always try and create a third party? When you have three or more parties, centrism is no longer an equilibrium, so you'll actually find politicians with progressive policies.
Personally I don't envy you guys at all, and I'm not sure I'd be able to stomach vote for Nader, but I'd at least give it some thought.
...it's also easier to be conservative.
The wealthy tend to be more conservative. But, of course, this is by no means universal. Conservatives generally support the status quo, and the rich tend to be happy with the status quo.
A countervailing tendency is based on the fact that more highly educated people tend to be more liberal, and education tends to correlate to income. All of these are tendencies, and they get mixed up when they counter one another.
We have a rich-east-coast-liberal stereotype because some people can manipulate others politically by perpetuating it. And because some people can make lots of money telling people who want to hear it what they want to hear. You do understand that most stereotypes are inaccurate, don't you?
The very wealthy of the east coast have tended to be conservative from the very earliest days of our Republic. James Madison sought to build his political base in New York City because he felt this crowd would be won over by his conservative message. And they were. Today we have the Wall Street Journal (one of the most successful conservative publications in the world) making a very good living supplying similarly rich conservatives with what they want to hear in New York City.
If you base your logic on the assumption that stereotypes should be believed, you will come to many false conclusions. But they might well be commonly believed by those who share your biases.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.