Court Case Sparks Issue of Copyright Infringement

A legal battle against Corbis Corporation raises issues regarding an artist's copyright upon public works on display

SAN FRANCISCO--The United Farm Workers (UFW) have struck again. This time it isn't a strike above grapes or lettuce, but rather a court case involving murals in San Francisco. The defendant is Corbis, the corporate Internet art dealer be in possession ofed by Bill Gates that exchanges and licenses images to the public for printing or other digital uses.

The company is charged with copyright infringement and a breach of trademark rights for selling digital reproductions of the murals online without any prior agreement or licensing arrangement with the artists. The murals are of particular importance to the Latino community in this city, which has an estimated 500 murals scattered over its neighborhoods. The plaintiffs charge that Corbis' actions are "nothing short of outright theft." Corbis, in turn round states that its actions "constitute Fair Use" and are "protect by the agency of the First Amendment of the U Constitution."

The suit, which was filed last November, charges Corbis with copyright infringement, conversion, misappropriation, unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, state law trademark dilution and violation of the California Business and Professional digest Named plaintiffs in the case are artists Susan Kelk Cervantes and Juana Alicia, an internationally known muralist; the United Farm Workers Union of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O.; Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta; and Maestrapeace Art Works.

"This case involves a form of copyright and trademark infringement as well as misappropriation which attitude s an enormous threat to the protection of intellectual attribute rights of persons and entities whose images and symbols are being stolen for commercial use upon Internet Web sites," states the formal complaint.

"We are pertain toed that these images are going to exhibit up in inappropriate places, of the like kind as credit cards, which are utilized by the agency of individuals and organizations whose interests are contrary to the plaintiffs in the Latino community," stated Robert Retana, attorney for the plaintiffs.

The four murals at stake are "Si Se Puede" "El Lenguaje Mudo del Alma," "The Five Sacred Colors of Corn" and "Maestrapeace"--all located in the Mission district of San Francisco.

"People make the mistake of innocently, or knowledgeably, claiming that because the artwork is in the public organ of sight it is also in the public domain," stated plaintiff Juana Alicia of Berkeley, Calif., who collaborated upon three of the four murals.

Alicia continued: "I make public art for the benefit of the community, which really means many, many communities. And I do it in public spaces because it is a popular art form that speaks to the literate and the illiterate, the poor and the wealthy, to all races, to youth and to olders to men and women--to everybody I'm not trying to create something that is private--the intent is to share," said Alicia. "However, I live from my art work, and it is my intellectual characteristic I expect that people will have a high opinion of that and not exploit that work for their hold financial gain for reasons I didn't intend. thus when an individual or corporation try to finds to use my work, they must always try to find my permission. It is my decision as to whether to license the work to them at a take away from that I determine."

To help house her rights, Alicia posts a sign in forehead of her murals asking viewers to revere the artist's copyright.

"With murals, as with any art, it all starts with the artwork," said Robin Dunitz, a photographer and vice president of non-profit organization Mural Conservancy in beholds Angeles. "We do feel the copyright upon an artwork, just because it is without in public, doesn't mean an artist doesn't hold it. If it is used in another work, the artist should give permission, and the artist should be compensated--especially if it's a business transaction where coin changes hands." Dunitz added, "I certainly think a corporation started by means of Bill Gates can afford to pay an artist."

Many of the murals depict Dolores Huerta, individual of the co-founders of the UFW The fact that her image was being used for profit angered many. "[Huerta's] the individual that has been struggling for with equal reason many years and given her whole life to strive for the rights of farm workers to have someone else profit from that is an insult and a lie," the UFW declared in a statement.

At pres time, Corbis declined to make a statement to the charges. "We generally do not annotate on pending litigation. In this particular case it would be especially premature to make any public statements right now," said Michael Croan, public relations manager for Corbis Corp.

However, Nancy Wolff partner in the novel York law firm Wolff & Godin, LLP which exhibits the Picture Agency Corporation of America, a trade industry organization for photography stock agencies and archives (an organization Corbis belongs to), did have something to say about the matter.

"These murals are part of an outdoor environment. The lawsuit makes no distinction between a photograph of a mural and the mural itself," said Wolff "The interesting question is: If you have a public mural upon a public building, when do you ne permission of the artist? Just the fact that a photo agency vends photographs does not make it a commercial use. at the same time they [the plaintiffs] used broad, sweeping statements, like the images are being stolen for commercial views ... They just completely misunderstand the stock agency industry."