Slashdot Mirror
Flickr Yanks Image of Obama As Joker
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting article yesterday about the unmasking of the recent creator of the controversial and iconic Obama/Joker image that has been popping up around Los Angeles with the word Socialism under it. The Los Angeles Times has identified the images' creator as Firas Alkhateeb. Even more interesting though is the fact that after getting over 20,000 hits on the image at Flickr, Flickr removed the image from Alkateeb's photostream, citing 'copyright' concerns. The image in question is clearly both an independent derivative work and unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use. It has appeared on many other sites without issue on the Internet." According to the same reader, "Flickr also recently nuked a user's entire photostream over negative comments on President Obama's official photostream."
Does freedom of speech mean anything anymore?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
From that article, it appears the user violated Flickr's community guidelines, as his posts were initially removed, and then in response, he posted (on the same picture it appears) links to tortured prisoners. I'm sure that Flickr views the White House photo's as family friendly material and I'm not surprised that they're strictly moderated.
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Also, I wonder if the Streisand Effect will hit?
Free Martian Whores!
Why is flicker taking this issue so seriously?
It is interesting that when Time did this very thing to a photo of Bush our unbiased main-stream media thought it was thought-provoking and no censorship or wrist-slapping was encouraged.
It's ok to have a picture of Bush as Hitler/Joker/Satan, but Obama is clearly off limits.
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
What I love is that the creator of the image, Firas Alkhateeb, has seen his work *cough* borrowed by the Republicans as an anti-Obama anti-Socialist campaign, but his actual intention with the image was to protest about Obama not being liberal enough. (And the fact that Alkhateeb is a Palestinian makes me smile, too.)
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
With pseudo free services such as Flickr, you have to abide by their terms of service. Expect them to err on the side of caution rather than risk litigation by large companies. My guess is they were more worried about Time magazine being referenced than the president. According to their terms of service: "You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or remove any Content that is available via the Yahoo! Services. Without limiting the foregoing, Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by Yahoo! or submitted to Yahoo!, including without limitation information in Yahoo! Message Boards and in all other parts of the Yahoo! Services." Note the phrase "otherwise objectionable". Nice vague language to give themselves the right to remove just about anything. Even though the image was probably copyrighted, it might not have been removed if the rest of Time magazine cover had not also been reproduced. Some might argue that that was implying that Time some how shared the views of the poster (granted that is a bit of a stretch).
So private businesses don't have a say on what can / can't appear on their websites anymore because that would constitute fascism?
Same as the old boss!
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
You have as much right to political trolling in Flicker as you do standing on a soapbox in your local mall.
You are allowed to troll so long as the management approves.
--
BMO
Unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use.
It's not "unquestionable" at all. First of all, the fact that it's a parody of the President does not make it fair use - to be fair use as a parody, something has to be a parody of the copyright work, not the subject of that work. Second, it's not at all obvious to me that this is a parody of Time Magazine. What feature of the Time cover is being parodied, exactly? It seems to me that the image in question is using the Time photograph to produce an unrelated piece of work commenting on the President. That's no more fair use than, say, sampling a record to produce a new track is fair use.
I think you could make a good case that this kind of transformative use of copyright material ought to be generally allowed, but it doesn't help that case to exaggerate the actual scope of fair-use rights to make derivative works.
I'm sure that the Obama administration has his info on file already through the http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ website.
Isn't anyone else bothered ONE LITTLE BIT by the administration asking people to forward email rumors, etc., critical of the Obama or "the health care plan"? The site says "please don't forward names, etc." but they publicly ask that those things be forwarded. So if you have a slightly conspiracy minded friend, and you are one of the many recipients of his email, guess what - the Administration likely has your email address.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Regret your vote yet, you fucking fascist pieces of shit? Anybody who voted for this thug( or McCain, for that matter )deserves to develop bone cancer and die - slowly, without painkillers.
My friend told me he saw a few of these and he was very upset. Not about the portrayl of Obama, but that they don't understand the Joker at all. Anarchy is more his flavour than Socialism.
From TFA:
Even more so, combining the accusation of Socialism with a depiction of Obama as the Joker makes no fucking sense. The Joker was about chaos and anarchy which is so far away from Socialism that the juxtaposition just strikes me as ludicrous. All it does is make the one who put the poster together look like an ignoramus. I can see the thought train-wreck now: "Lessee... Socialism is evil, and the Joker is evil, so the Joker equals Socialism!" Yeah, I doubt someone that bright even knows what they're accusing the president of. Other than that they're trying to tie him with "evil".
So take a clever image which the artist says wasn't intended as a political message (even though he criticizes Obama), add some moronic twat who thinks it's the perfect political message, and you get something that makes your average political cartoon look intelligent. It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
The enemies of Democracy are
the dixie chicks were silently blacklisted from clearchannel and affiliate stations for criticizing the president publicly, ultimately ending their rise to fame.
fox news had been known to fire anchors and staff critical of the bush administration rather regularly as well.
things like this happen during every presidency. unfortunately i dont think its likely to stop anytime soon. thanks to the internet though there are other venues and locations this rogue artist can exercise his freedom of speech (ironically in some cases not based in america!)
Good people go to bed earlier.
I just want to know, is it fascism or is it not fascism? I'm confused because we have both tags.
As a photographer and a die hard liberal, I find nothing offensive with the picture. Political art is both beautiful and uncomfortable. It both satisfies viewer's interests and generates discussion. Obviously this piece has generated a lot of discussion, and his piece is clearly a parody of the Time's cover. However, I DO take issue with SOMEONE ELSE taking the image off Flickr WITHOUT the artist's permission, editing it and posting it throughout the city. That was a clear violation of the artist's copyright. Flickr was completely within their rights to remove the image. In fact, part of their Terms of Service allows them to remove anything they deem offensive. That is why I refuse to post images there. I hope the artist continues his work and they catch the person who stole his piece off Flickr. Afterall, he is the people who clearly broke the law.
You can't trust the Democrats not to censor, either. Especially Democrats in online and IT positions.
I had a Pro account with Flickr but I had some other issues with Flickr that caused me to allow it to lapse. In the meantime I've been checking out other sites, and the one that seems most Flickr-like without the culture of censorship running it behind the scenes is iPernity.
If you're in the US, due to currency exchange rates their equivalent of a Pro account costs a bit more but it's still pretty reasonable.
That poster doesn't even make sense. What has Obama got to do with the Joker? Nothing What has the Joker got to do with Socialism? Nothing. What does Obama have to do with Socialism? Nothing, by any reasonable definition of the term. It's as if someone just splattered their incoherent thoughts onto a page.
I had misread the summary as "OSAMA/Joker".
I find it very discomforting that my opinion had already formed that quickly, as I soon realized my mistake and noticed how I responded once I read it correctly.
I really didn't care when I thought it said Osama, but I DID care when I realized it said Obama.
Very interesting AND INsightful in an introspective sort of way...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This outrage from the party of Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and the daily Kos? Really???
Nancy Pelosi said "dissension was patriotic" when it was her team doing it. Now that the other team is doing it and getting similar results from their cheerleaders so they need to be censored and shouted down.
Democrats created BS documentaries, TV shows, and form organizations like MoveOn.org and the daily Kos. Organizations which are little more then conservative hate groups whose tactics amounted to calling conservatives names like neo-cons and Nazis. Things I often see repeated here by the self appointed "enlightened ones".
It's this Bush hate that got Obama and company elected. Now that the other side is starting to use similar tactics, tactics that worked so well for the democrats. Now all of sudden these hypocrites have a problem with it.
They all deserve to be taken out and shot, R's and D's alike. From were I'm standing both political parties aren't all that much better then the Klu Klux Klan or Reverend Write's racist congregation, it's just a matter of who/what they decide to hate.
Well lest see where can we start-
"redistribute the wealth"
"health care for all, even for those not legally here"
"census will count illegals"
"we dont want to be in the car biz, but we are.....and are now getting into the healthcare biz"
he is the classic 60's derivative Marxist Socialist infused with some closet black militancy born of phony christian black so called "churches" and the nation of islam garbage all wrapped up as one dysfunctional pile o dung. their theme is "its whitey" and guess what, it aint whitey today, sorry yesterdays foil is history
USS Obama is taking on water and is listing
It's parodying Time's multiple photoshops of Obama -- Obama as FDR, Obama as a doctor, etc. "Here's Obama as the Joker, Time, when are you going to do that one, huh?" Time has already put Obama on the cover in his first 6 months more than it did FDR during his entire 12 years.
gotta love the Cloud!
If by miracle my post is not drowned down into depths of oblivion, note that Dubya was depicted tens of times with very unflattering altered photos, and so was Cheney, while the W. administration was in power - and nobody complained.
See this or this, for example.
Also, while Mc Cain was campaigning, this rather shocking picture was publicized by The Atlantic - who later recanted and apologized - but the point is, nobody in the McCain camp complained, let alone did you have public and officers making a fuss about it.
But with Obama, the thought police is up in arms bigtime.
And they are right to be: Obama is sacred and he farts rainbows, and his words are words of wisdom, and he poops gold nuggets. And Obama won't speak up: it is the Will of the People that is against any criticism of the Beloved President.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the world is not black and white, there are no pure 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, a fascist, a Nazi, or insane.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
We're still at war. Obama is a War President. If you are not with him, then you are with the terrorists. Any treasonous acts against the president must be quashed at all costs to preserve our freedom and the Cunstitution.
If it was good for W., then it's good for O. If you're going to whine about it, why did you think it was OK to give the President this power? Did you always think that the President would be a guy you approved of?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
They should have used a photo of Noam Chomsky instead?
But... Where would they find one of him without glasses?
And if they did - how would we know it was him?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Except that's not what the terms of services say. They don't just say "we do what they want". They state certain policies. None of which say "derivative works can be removed if we don't like them".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Your sig says that fairness is Marxism in drag. So anyone whining about how unfair something is must be a Marxist who wants to handicap everyone down to the same level. Don't sell your boy short! Nobody screws up like a Bush. Obama's screw ups are (so far) amateur league compared to what Bush did. It will take us decades to repair the damage Bush did to our international reputation. But of course, every other country in the world is either a third world dictatorship or a socialist hell-hive, right? So why should we care?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Thanks, that does explain why the image is a parody.
You're only allowed to use copyrighted characters and images that belong to the object of parody. This means that if you're mocking Disney, you can use Mickey Mouse, but you can't use Mickey Mouse to parody someone not associated with Disney.
It's counterintuitive, but it's exactly the way our legal system works. This is exactly the same thing that happened when Penny Arcade used Strawberry Shortcake to parody American McGee.
Of course, what's actually happening here is that the people who disagree with the parody are using the letter of the law to get it removed. Moral of the story: if you're going to piss people off make sure you dot your i's and cross your t's first.
Flickr didn't "silence" anybody, they said DON'T USE FLICKR.
And when did Flickr scream for equal treatment and equal rights in the first place? If they didn't, then your implication of hypocrisy makes no sense.
Or do you mean that because a few people who self-identify as "liberal" have been known to scream for equal rights, that everybody else who you make an off-the-cuff identification as liberal is held accountable to what those few people did?
It would make just as much sense to say, "It's funny how the group that screams for the sanctity of private property and ownership rights is so quick to get offended when others exercise those rights."
Obviously not all conservatives are offended by Flickr's actions, so calling conservatives as a group hypocrites would be wrong in this instance.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
That is why I always laugh when I see people not trusting governement and pushing for capitalisitc enterprise everywhere. You can vote people out. You can put them on a wall/guillotine and make a revolution. With private enterprise, when they have a suffisent size of the market or are quasi monopolisitc, you are screwed, because walking out and not buying on them will not work. No first amendment right applies. In other word you have the worst cyberpunk nightmare where the big conglomerat do their stuff and your speech is about as stiffled as the private enterprise want it to be, unless you count walking in the street with a sign. And knowing how much sheeple there is which don#t care about free speech, you are better off with a small group being able to desposit a governement, with a small group you cannot do anything against private enterprise
Give me a governement for anything related to information spreed (journal, net pipe, phone etc...). I can kick a governement out, I can't do anything on private enterprise. With the push toward private enterprise for everything, I see a very very dark future for free speech. And the governement will rejoice because they can force private enterprise to implement whatever watching they wish all the while getting the benefit of indirectly supressing free speech (who got the money ? Who get into politic ? roughly the same group in average).
Big brother won, and he is a capitalist.
According to Flickr's terms of service, you can only post content on Flickr that was solely created by yourself. There is no consideration for "Fair Use" or "licensed" or anything else. Simply content created by the user, period. Combine that with the legal requirements of the DMCA takedown notice, and Flickr basically HAS to comply with a copyright infringement notice, regardless of merit (same as YouTube, Facebook, or anyone else). It then becomes up to the user to file a counter-claim, where they can defend their use as either "fair", or unique enough to be considered their "original" work. The article doesn't mention that the user declined his right to do so, and was basically content to let it go.
Flickr thinks it's cool.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bush+hitler
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
I hear this argument all of the time. The reason internet media seems liberal is because it's more likely to be run by individuals or smaller corporations. People who don't automatically take the side of corporate interest over themselves, as most media corporations do. And as far as "left" and "right" are concerned, America is far more conservative than any other country in the West. Our overseas caricature is holding a gun and a bible for good reason. In other countries, they actually have communist and socialist parties that join in the discussion, without some schmuck screaming bloody murder the whole time.
I don't consider Obama a savior or anything. He was simply the lesser of two evils. He's quickly discovering that it doesn't matter how many people support healthcare reform (70%, with 50% wanting a "major" overhaul), if the change in policy affects too many big players in the corporate world. Insurance companies don't just lie down and let you force them to start playing by rules and making less money. Money pours into propaganda campaigns, and are usually successful. They will lie through their teeth to keep the profits rolling in, truth and ethics be damned.
In a sense, this is no different than a Democratic representative, meek and mild, turning into a lunatic when you threaten the jobs of their constituents who happen to build fighter jets that simply aren't useful for defense as they used to be.
And as far as parodies are concerned, there was a sitcom called "That's My Bush" that was on air within months of his inauguration, because he was so laughably inept, even in the beginning. I don't hesitate to remind everyone that at this point in his first term, Bush had taken a lot of vacations, given the Taliban 40 million dollars for their help with the war on drugs, and was nearly assassinated by a pretzel. Obama may do just as poorly, but so far, he's still got a chance for my vote next go around.
If you've listened to any of Obama's speeches you'd KNOW he was The Riddler.
Actually it would be good to know your race if you make such claims about Obama.
Not that it would not make you a racist, just need it to label you an Uncle Tom as well.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Actually, this is Flickr telling it's users that oppose Obama that they are not entitled to express their political opinions.
The student behind the original "Joker-ized" Obama image does not oppose Obama, you would know that if you had read the article. You would also know that the originator of the image did not include the word "Socialism" in his work, that was added later by someone who has not revealed their identity.
So if you are trying to claim that the person who created the original image did it because they dislike Obama, you are dead wrong.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Did Flickr receive a DMCA takedown notice or did they do it on their own initiative?
Do they take any public money ( including tax abatements )? If so, they should be held to a higher standard. If not, i agree, it sux to be their users.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And of course, anyone who knows anything about the Joker himself knows that he was really more of an anarchist.
So anyone who thinks that there is some great political conspiracy behind this needs to pay at least a little attention to what is actually happening here regarding the image and its author. And then after that they should hopefully stop hyperventilating enough to realize that even if Flickr pulls an image it doesn't just disappear from the internet - it is still out there for people to see and Flickr knows that too.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you actually would RTFA, you would know the reason that Flickr provided for pulling the images. It has nothing to do with the subject matter or the irrelevant text that was later added by someone else. After the image went viral it became difficult for Flickr to ascertain for sure who was the copyright holder so they pulled it to cover their own asses while waiting for the smoke to settle.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions
Sorry, but you're wrong on that regard. If you had read the article before starting your rant you would know that Flickr did this out of copyright concerns; this has nothing to do with politics or free speech.
You would also know that the original author did not post it to be political - the "socialism" caption was added later, by someone else.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You are free to speak about whatever you want but Obama's face is copyright protected. Otherwise anybody could run for president without licensing his face.
I think the issue here is copyright vs. trademark. I think the problem here is that they are trying to use fair use parody of a copyrighted item (the magazine cover) to defend against the use of a trademarked item (the TIME logo). Both have separate laws dealing with them so I don't believe you can really use one as a defense against the other. While the cover itself is parody and fair use, the use of the TIME logo is not as it is in no way being parodied. Since the people at TIME are free to print covers that are parodies of things themselves, the use of the TIME logo, even when the content is a parody can cause brand confusion. If a person was surfing the internet and had no knowledge of the back story of the item in question, due to the use of the TIME trademark, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that it was the people at TIME that were doing the parody, not someone else.
If they had used a parody which used the same font and the title CLOWN then they would be parodying the content of the cover, and the trademark, but as it is while they are practicing parody it in no way removes the confusion and inappropriate use of a trademark. (Obligatory IANAL)
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative.
Studies like these?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/
Sorry, but in the 2008 election, the media was absolutely, positively in the bag for Obama.
Yeah, uh, you know your source there is run by the Moonies, HATES the larger and more successful Post, and is basically DC's 'National Enquirer' of the right wing, right? Talk about media bias!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution granting free speech and/or democracy as it pertains to events on the Internet on someone's private site.
WTF? You're supposed to keep arguing. You fail at the internet forever!
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
Let's assume that this is an "open and shut" fair use claim. So what? This will do absolutely nothing to stop you from being sued. The suit will cost you a ton of money or you will lose. Now, you might feel that is a great way to spend your money, but Flickr doesn't want to spend their money dealing with this. Flickr did nothing wrong here. They made a simple, obvious business decision. The problem here is our copyright laws, which give big corporations that can pay for expensive lawyers all the power.
Fair Use is pretty much dead.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
Actually, you should know that parody is allowed under copyright laws.
And if you read anything in this thread, you'd see Flickr has no qualms with similar images regarding Bush. So they're lying about copyright concerns.
The original author did make their parody over political concerns. However his political concerns differ from those spreading it now.
Don't attempt to correct people when you're wrong on every point.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet, but I think that the picture was perceived with excessive political correctness as being racist
Because Obama was portrayed in WHITEFACE
so I don't think it is at all about the characterization, but about whatever having a black man in whiteface implies
whatever -if this is the reason, then they are being hyper-sensitive and should grow a pair
-I'm just sayin
Its the race card. Taking offense is a given. People took offense when Bush was characterized in less colorful means but the difference here is purely race. Mostly its the fear of being portrayed as racist and that is a valid fear where there is no shortage of people looking for offense or those whose life is perpetuated by finding racial overtones in any action.
Any disagreement eventually gets twisted into race. Obama uses that to his advantage as do his handlers. There have been stories on major cable news about how this is all about race; health care.
It is a new cop out that was called early in the election cycle. Basically the card would be used to redirect any discussion he was on the losing side of. One thing people cannot handle, this is especially true of politicians, is that people don't like them or their ideas. Hence they look for a reason so they can portray those who criticize in the least favorable light.
Intimidation short and simple
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
Emperialism? I can't tell if you were just trying to be ironic when mentioning Bush, or you just committed a Bushism yourself. :)
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Seriously, I'm not a huge Obama fan, but I don't see how depicting him as a fictional psychopathic (or is Joker a sociopath?) killer is funny. Not saying Flickr is right or wrong, I just don't see any humor in the image.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
How darez he mock TEH MESSIAH and SAVIOR?!?! ZOMG!11
http://images.google.com/images?q=obama%20joker&oe=utf-8&rls=org.gentoo:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
No comment! :P
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
None of those picture contain a copywritten character, where as the Joker is under copyright. That's the infringement.
Obama as a much higher approval rating then BUSH and hasn't even been there a year, so not a lot of time for anti-Obama material.
Hey, crete your own flicker account and put anti Obama facts up there and do something not inringing on the copyright and see what happens.
oh, and it also infringes upon Time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nice to see that now those Rightwingers who were so against any form of dissent against Bush now are going "OMG FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
Do you guys even remember Free Speech Zones?
The amount of doublethink that goes on in rightwingers brains simply astonishes me.
I guess internet publishing really is mainstream now. This clearly makes Flikr no more biased than say, CBS, NBC, ABC, or PBS.
-Styopa
Right now they're trying to decide the right time to spring the "Fairness Doctrine" on AM radio. A lot of Conservatives listen there; almost no liberals. This is because Liberals tend to only use the radio for music.
When Air America failed, it had nothing to do with ideology, because of the demographic of people tuning in. Nevermind that the talent of these humorless, hateful people wasn't anything to listen to.
But the FCC need only decide to do so, and all the sudden worthless Liberal coverage must start taking 50% of the airtime, even though no one wants it. It also means Conservative shows will necessarily cost more, and many will go away.
Say what you will about the Bush administration. He never opened a 'snitch' email or flotilla of websites for propaganda. He never told a company with whom the government had a contract, that it wouldn't be honored. And Bush never told anyone how much money they were permitted to make.
All of these are being attempted by the Left, right now. So Freedom of Speech? That'd only permit dissent to blossom! They've got a big list of rights to take away under the guise of healthcare, because they're smarter than us!
Ask yourself: Other than the military, who get to make their own decisions about how the money is actually spent, can you name ONE federal organization that isn't spewing taxpayer money down the toilet for a useful, efficient purpose?
Why would you let this HISTORICALLY inept body decide your healthcare?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Actually, you should know that parody is allowed under copyright laws
I am well aware that parody is covered. That is what keeps artists like Weird Al from being sued. However parody is not the issue.
And if you read anything in this thread, you'd see Flickr has no qualms with similar images regarding Bush. So they're lying about copyright concerns.
If you read the LA Times article you would know that Flickr didn't pull the images because they are in regards to President Obama. But I cannot force you to read the article if you choose not to.
The original author did make their parody over political concerns.
I'll take that to further indicate that you did not read the LA Times article that he was interviewed in.
However his political concerns differ from those spreading it now
Strange, and irrelevant statement.
Don't attempt to correct people when you're wrong on every point
Actually you have done a fine job of proving my point. You refuse to read the article, and I cannot force you to do so.
However, if you were to actually read the article it would be clear why Flickr removed the image, and you would know it has nothing to do with politics.
The image was removed because it is so prevalent that it is not clear who actually holds the copyright. And if Flickr were to keep copyrighted material on their website that they do not have the rights to post, then they would be in violation.
So please, do us all a favor, and try to be factual rather than just opinionated.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Have you been to America recently? Anybody who publicly bash The President will be met with iron fists from the righteous people.
Oh yeah, and the author was actually pro Obama. Yeah right. That's convenient, otherwise his life will become a living hell.
This is what your country has become to, and you can't be happier.
So... This is ok:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/
but not this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/
Got it...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This article deserves to be tagged with the "!censorship" tag rather than the "censorship" tag. A list of people who applied the "censorship" tag to this article would likely match up well with a list of people who are posting to the conversation without having bothered to read the article.
Timothy, you should be ashamed for posting such an atrocious summary to the front page.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Parody is fine under copyright law.
It's not particularly clear the image is a parody. What is it mocking / poking fun at? If it's Obama, then the copyright problem you're dealing with is the use of the image of the Nolan/Ledger Joker. If it's the Joker... you're going to have to explain how exactly that's working here.
(If it's the concept of equating the current president with socialism or nihilistic anarchy, I think you may actually have a case)
Flickr has no problem with copyrighted images of Bush being photoshopped.
That may or may not be true, but this isn't a good direct comparison with which to asses that issue, partly for the reasons I mentioned above (the significant copyright issue likely isn't with the image of a public figure)... and partly because this image has a really high visibility right now.
If you want to make that point, you'll need a comparable image where of Bush (under copyright protections not mitigated by law about images about public figures) photoshopped with an image from a highly successful commercial work with the level of distribution that the Obama-Joker image is getting.
This isn't to say that there aren't some larger points about copyright protection vs speech that could be made, or that Flickr's true reason for removing the image is their given reason. Just that it's plausible.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Dissent is only patriotic when it's not directed at your guy.
... is that he recognizes that Obama is a political ghost ("lacking substance") and that Dennis Kucinich should have been the Democratic (or at least SOME party's) nominee. The guy deserves some serious modding-up for that, regardless what people think of his Photoshopping skills or subject matter.
Then does that make Dick Cheney ...... Batman????
God or FSM help us all......
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
> Search for 'joker' then, there are thousands of pictures of the Joker, some straight from "The Dark Knight". If it was truly for copyright violations they'd take these down as well wouldn't they?
They can't be bothered to hunt down infringing photos on their own, and there's a fair use argument possible when it's only a tiny portion of a movie (rather than when the work is a photograph and you're reproducing the whole thing).
In other words, they don't bother taking stuff down unless someone complains or it attracts lots of attention.
This. This. This. This.
Even if you don't think "information wants to be free" or think that DRM isn't all that bad, can we at least all agree that it's a ridiculously large loophole to suppress speech you don't like? Not only that but you're obligated to report copyright violations so you're being a good citizen by doing it; talk about doublethink.
Flickr thinks it's cool.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obamahitler&m=text
Fixed that for you
"Actually, they never could take a joke."
You mean they never would invite a comedian like Colbert to mock Bush mercilessly for 20 minutes right to his face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s
You're right, they couldn't take a joke.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"thanks to Condi Rice scaring people"
Racist.
CENSORSHIP!
MOD UP
It's the Chewbacca Defense of politics. You make inflammatory posters that make so little sense that they cause peoples' heads to explode in order to prevent rational discussion, which you can't allow to happen for some reason. This works best if you're already so used to doublethink that you can accept all this without your own head exploding.
Change!
Your crybaby routine is hilarious. Bless.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetpixel/29975820/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eraserhead5/3218437174/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eduardo_dacosta/511117225/
and finally, as for the copyright issue,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yui0ta/3395709225/in/pool-35237092212@N01
This (list of pictures) is the type of HYPOCRISY from the left that just stuns me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy
hyâ...pocâ...riâ...sy
â
â/hÉËpÉ'krÉ(TM)si/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
Use hypocrisy in a Sentence
â"noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
I may be braindead, or at least you may think so (Hey, eye of the beholder, etc), but I didn't "slap a fascism tag" on anything here.
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I'm quite surprised nobody has posted a link yet.
Pulling down the poster just proves the poster right.
Free speech has nothing at all to do with this. It's all very, very simple. Flickr do not want to have to deal with any hassles that might crop up from hosting this image. You may be able to find dozens of photoshopped Bushes, Palins, Newts or whatever but nobody really cares a great deal so there is no real hassle for them to deal with. What has killed this image being hosted there is simply that enough people are arguing about it that there might have ended up being a lot of people being pissed off at Flickr. Removing it pisses off some people as well but maybe less people than keeping it there - it's a business decision just as removing images of hard core pron is a business decision.
I'm an U.S. natural citizen living in a socialist democracy. We have socialized medicine, socialized education (through Ph.D.), and many other social functions of the government. Poverty is measured in fractions of a percent.
The labor unions are not run by guys who wear $5000 suits and don't like their pictures taken. They're run by union reps who actually represent the unions.
Fact is, in this country, we take for granted the freedoms Americans are constantly being reminded they once had... or had to give up to have other freedoms.
We have a higher percentage of homes with guns than America does, but they are typically only found in houses of official military reserve. Guns just aren't a part of culture. They typically only come up in discussions about paranoid Americans who are gun freaks.
We have a crime level low enough that the police department doesn't even bother with budgets for forensics, it's cheaper to use other countries when needed.
Our kids play outside unattended and we don't panic.
Before a picture is taken down from somewhere, there is at least some form of debate involved.
I'm NEVER going back... this utopian (except for the awful weather) society is everything Americans try to convince themselves America is.
Only real problem here is that since the educational level on average is much higher than in the U.S., we have to import labor to do most of the crap work.
Heh, I've seen this continually on 4chan for the last week, it didn't even register as offensive, just stupid and inaccurate (and also not as Obama but that may just be me).
Anarchist Communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
Anarchist communism advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy through which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.
So perhaps an Anarchist Socialist is possible! :)
If you don't think experiments in Socialism always devolve into chaos and anarchy, you haven't been paying attention to world events for the last century or so.
Everyone complaining about Politics and Free Speech, when this is all about Flickr bandwidth and publicity.
Probably someone low level saw the massive downloads, checked it out, and pulled it down because they thought it was bad publicity for the company.
But here on Slashdot, its a giant conspiracy wrapped in Enigma, with a side of cheese.
Pathetic.
ok, just kidding.
/. does seem to have a lot more level-headed types, people willing to do research, check data, provide citations, etc than most other sites. And that tends to lead to good discussion rather than the negative cyclic effect of partisan douchebaggery.
I agree 100%. It's almost impossible to find a site with evenhanded moderation. Even some sites that seem to have a balance really just happen to have a similar number of extremists from each side and you can see it in the moderation (that's right Newsvine, I'm talking about you).
Whoever is arguing over this Obama/Joker thing are idiots. What we need to be concerned about are Obamas upcoming health care death squads. They want to kill Gram-Gram!!1!
Maybe I am wrong But I thought the whole point of the image was to draw attention to Alex Jones www.infowars.com new video The Obama Deception. Its not a racist video nor does it go crazy on obama its more to show whats going on. I guess sometimes you have to go to a marketing extream to get people to watch.
From what I understand, (long time listener) they put it on a shirt and everyone wanted to get one! so it evolved into something and there might even be a contest. But heck don't take my 2 cents ...
Alex jones to me seems like a decent fellow who knows way to much . And backs it up...
I only posted this because no one seems to of made the link yet on here!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So they yank the copyrighted images of "The New Age Savior" but the Bush covers and Regan covers remain... Odd... "Why so one-sided" in this take down. Doesn't the White House also tend to previous presidents or just "their own".
Once again we see that the road to civil war is paved in hipocracy and decite. The Democrats and Republicans will tear this nation apart, masked as diversity and globalization, all the while the elites pillage it for what wealth is left then sailing off to their masters on shores afar leaving behind the wreckage... All they need to do is keep us 'serfs' fighting one another long enough for them to bleed us dry...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
So how did this change? Answer as you well know IT DIDN'T. Thus there is NO OFFICIAL ACT to influence because NOTHING NEW WAS DONE by the officials. The business arrangement you find so dire existed prior to this stupidity over the retouched magazine cover with some clowns that wouldn't know a socialist if they were bitten by one plastering the thing on walls and calling attention to it. The stupidity over the retouched image of the cover thus changed nothing. While it may irk you that a conduit for this silly bit of propaganda has vanished there is NOTHING AT ALL ILLEGAL ABOUT THAT. On the other hand while Flickr most likely has a vast number of images that could cause copyright hassles this one differed from all the others because it got in the news, making it a good move for a lot of entirely legal reasons to delete it. However you know all of this and I wish you would stop pretending that you don't - nobody capable of reading this thread is stupid enough to fall for your trick by this point.
Your lie implies that everyone associated with a government contract of any kind is a criminal - which is obviously bullshit. Plenty of exclusive contracts exist quite innocently, for instance you don't call in two plumbing companies to fix one leaky tap. This whole discussion would not have happened if you were honest or thought about the implications of what you were writing. All this harping about that law is irrelevant when nothing that the law addresses has happened. It appears you just keep bringing it up to attempt to paint me as someone that is not law abiding. It's a pity that such nasty tactics came out but at least you are showing the readers here a lot about yourself, although I doubt anyone will bother with a stupid thread like this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion