Corbis to Sue Crestock Over April Fool's Joke? Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

GeoPappas

« on: April 09, 2008, 14:55 »

#link

It seems that Corbis wasn't amused by the April Fool's joke that Crestock created on their website.

Corbis is now threatening to sue Crestock over the action.

You can read more about this here:

http://web2innovations.com/money/2008/04/06/apparently-not-all-companies-find-april-fools-jokes-funny/


	Ignore \| Logged

Kngkyle

« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2008, 14:59 »

#link

Free publicity for Crestock. Assuming they don't get fined.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2008, 15:27 »

#link

looks like good advertising for crestock to me.


	Ignore \| Logged

nativelight

« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2008, 15:33 »

#link

This is interesting. Since Crestock is a Norwegian company, is there anything that Corbis can legally do? It seems there should be. I just don't know.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2008, 15:36 »

#link

well i think that article is a few days old. i think corbis has allready said they are not going to take action.


	Ignore \| Logged

dianajo

New Member

« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2008, 15:37 »

#link

I'm sure Corbis will find something they can do, after all Bill Gates did start it and we know he's got experience in court...

I didn't find the joke terribly funny myself, I thought it was in very poor taste to send false information to contributors AND buyers (and prospective from either side). Makes me glad they declined my port a few months back.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2008, 16:24 »

#link

I'd venture a guess that this was a bit of a publicity stunt for Corbis - if so, it worked.


	Ignore \| Logged

yingyang0

« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2008, 17:35 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on April 09, 2008, 16:24

I'd venture a guess that this was a bit of a publicity stunt for Corbis - if so, it worked.

For Corbis? How so? Corbis said that day they weren't going to sue. The article was outdated before it was written.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2008, 17:38 »

#link

How so? They garnished news article about them from it.


	Ignore \| Logged

Kngkyle

« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2008, 17:46 »

#link

Publicity stunt for both of them. Win-win I suppose.


	Ignore \| Logged

yingyang0

« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2008, 18:04 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on April 09, 2008, 17:38

How so? They garnished news article about them from it.

Corbis conspired with Crestock to create a press release that insulted Corbis and diminished their reputation? That's a little too conspiracy theory for me.


	Ignore \| Logged

litifeta

« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2008, 21:03 »

#link

In Australia they could sue for defamation.

As per Gutnik v Dow Jones.

Dow Jones in the USA made comments in their epublication which is published in New York, and Gutnik successfully sued in Australia.

The Australian High Court ruled that as far as the internet goes, the place where you view the information is the place of publishment.

So Corbis could hypothetically sue Crestock in any country it liked anywhere in the world, obviously the one where they have the defamation or tort laws to sue them.


	Ignore \| Logged

yingyang0

« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2008, 23:50 »

#link

Quote from: litifeta on April 09, 2008, 21:03

The Australian High Court ruled that as far as the internet goes, the place where you view the information is the place of publishment.

So Corbis could hypothetically sue Crestock in any country it liked anywhere in the world, obviously the one where they have the defamation or tort laws to sue them.

In the US just posting something on the internet does not meet the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction (this case would meet the test for other reasons). Australia is unique in common law countries for how far it allows jurisdiction to reach.

Note that Corbis could not hypothetically sue in any country because different countries had different jurisdictional limitations, nor would they sue for defamation. They would sue for tortious interference and slander of title, which are easier.

Since you're from Australia you should also be aware of your Defamation Act of 2005 which bans corporations from suing for defamation. Crazy Aussies Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

holgs

« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2008, 06:11 »

#link

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 09, 2008, 23:50

Quote from: litifeta on April 09, 2008, 21:03

Quite right that corporations should be prevented from suing - court cases involving companies often have nothing to do with right or wrong - more who has the deepest pockets. Give companies the right to sue, and it makes it impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Corbis to Sue Crestock Over April Fool's Joke? Who Will Have the Last Laugh?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results