This article was the first indication we had that Judge Sotomayor and Corbis’ counsel had (according to Mr. Fairhurst himself) a working relationship. No disclosure was made to us by Judge Sotomayor and thus we had no opportunity to request that she at least consider recusing herself from hearing the case. Had we known of this relationship we would have sought another appeals panel.
I am quoted correctly in the above referenced NY Times article and therefore must assume that Corbis’ counsel is also quoted accurately.

Any doubt as to how photographs are viewed by Corbis is eliminated by the article. If an inept or incompetent agent or seller can’t make deals, the images are thus worthless. That’s the logic.

By that logic newly discovered rare images of say The Beatles or JFK which by definition lack a licensing history, would have (according to Corbis) no value if lost before being offered for licensing. Indeed such images could not (using such logic) even be professionally appraised due to the lack of a revenue stream.

I have lectured and written on many occasions on “photos as commodities”. I have cited other examples of stock agency attitudes but the views set forth by Mr. Fairhurst in the NY Times article are perhaps the clearest and require no interpretation by a reader.

Remember to always consider the practices, policies, views and litigation history of any company prior to deciding whether you want to do business with them. If the corporate policy is “if we can’t sell/license the image it ain’t worth squat” - think twice.

— Edward C. Greenberg