The paramount question to ask in the future is how much exactly is a single image worth prior to submitting such images to a stock agency? Does this open the door for photographers insuring such assets?

The only way to lessen such a tragedy from occurring in the future is for photographers to maintain a solid DAM (digital asset management) system which can clearly keep track of all their photographic image assets.

For those interested in learning more about such as system I encourage all to read the following book “The DAM Book” by Peter Krogh. The best 35 bucks I ever spend on my career.

Tony Sal

With respect to Ms. Sideman’s piece, some comments are in order:

1. Corbis had never admitted to the loss of anyone’s photographic images until Chris Usher’s trial actually commenced did Corbis’ counsel admit to the loss of at least 8-9,000 images by his client. That “admission” came years after suit was filed.

2. Decisions of the District Courts in the United States, Southern District of New York have held Corbis to be negligent and do not cite any “admissions” by Corbis.

3. If one adds up the total number of missing/non-returned images of all of our clients since 1998 the number totals well over 250,000. In excess of 150,000 images were returned to our clients only upon retention of our firm and/or filing of litigation against Corbis.

4. All of our cases deal with historic or photojournalistic images. None of my clients nor any of my staff believes that (save for perhaps a few shots) the images were just “lost”. The decisions of the Courts in New York and Paris make no determination as to the whereabouts of the subject images.

5. I have spent thousands of hours in Corbis related matters and do not believe that all of the images were merely lost. No witness has ever ascertained the whereabouts of any missing image which remained missing after trial.

6. “Suspicion” does not equal evidence. In the Usher matter, the Court held that Corbis paperwork was so bad as to have it held against it. It is simply not credible or in the slightest bit believable that hundreds of thousands of images which departing photographers sought to have returned to them for licensing by other agencies, were merely “lost”.

We have written and lectured countless times throughout the US on this topic. We take great pains to note that once the images become “lost” they can not compete with any substantially similar images which Corbis may seek to market now or in the future.

In sum, I do not believe nor does anyone associated with these cases, whether litigated or otherwise, that these historical images were merely lost. The numbers are staggering and the claim not believable.

Edward C. Greenberg
570 Lexington Ave.
17th Fl
NYC NY 10022

Suffice it to say that Mr. Usher and Mr. Grace (and many many other photographers who for various reasons have not been able to pursue legal action to get their images back) can never be adequately compensated for the loss of their personal property that they ENTRUSTED to an entity they believed was their agency.

Lest anyone think that these photographers have been adequately compensated, let me remind you that in Mr. Usher’s case, the first attempt to retrieve his images from Corbis occurred in December 2001. No images were received until AFTER legal counsel was retained in 2002. The trial commenced in June 2005, and final legal documents submitted in December 2005. While we waited for a decision, one of our two attorneys was diagnosed with, treated for and finally died from, ovarian cancer. In November 2007, Mr. Usher was told how many images the court found to be missing, but not what they were worth. In February 2008, SIX YEARS after starting the lawsuit, Mr. Usher was awarded what constitutes less than $10 per image.

If you have ever been involved in a lawsuit, as a plaintiff or a defendant, you know how consuming it is — financially, emotionally, and mentally. If you haven’t, let me tell you, it is like having a child with a life threatening disease. And I’m not even talking about the trial!

My last comment is about the court determined “serious deficiencies” in Corbis’ tracking system…

Riddle me this, Batman: “Does anyone else find it odd that the sole owner of Corbis is also the genius that gave us Excel, Access, Money, and all of the Business/Server applications that organize and track data of all kinds… including images, yet he availed himself of NONE of these resources in the operation of Corbis??”

Doubtful.