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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Sloppy fail. From the very tippy top of Yahoo's Terms of Service:
A little later on, this gem:
There's more!
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If not, print this out, take it to your lawyer, and he'll explain it to you using hand puppets and bright crayon drawings.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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
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)
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
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.
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.
... 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.
> 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.
Yeah, except that those photos of Bush on Flickr, they're all still up. Do you understand the distinction?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"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."
If you wanted to show Obama was a terribly president, you might show him as Mickey Mouse president. If you wanted to show Bush as a warlike president, you might put him in a Rambo poster. I'm not sure why you think you can only use Donald Duck to parody Donald Duck.
Clearly, your personal interpretation of the law doesn't pass the common sense test.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Change!
Well, I appreciate your watching over me.
Unfortunately, the link you gave doesn't actually go anywhere. It says text needs to be added; I don't know if you were trying to solicit my help to fill it out? In any event, here's a link that works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
It's interesting that you would cite this, but probably not relevant since the circumstances are different.
But to help even more, what the supreme court gave as guidelines for fair use for fair use:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(taken from Wikipedia, so maybe it's made up)
Anyway, if this is correct, not only is the original picture a parody of the Time cover passing your test (using Time to parody Time), but it is also political speech, and since there really is no attempt to commercialize the image, I think the odds are stacked against this being a copyright violation. You never know. Our courts seemed to be ruled by Captain Morgan these days, so you never know what you'll get when you start to litigate things.
The best explanation is probably that Flickr doesn't want to defend against any sort of lawsuit regardless of the merits.
Here's a few mainstream political images that *gasp* uses mickey mouse!
http://arttalksback.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b3d8d970c0112796d38be28a4-320wi
Damn. Disney should sue!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Oh, BTW, the Disney/Mickey ears are copyrighted & trademarked.
My advice is not to try to make them and sell them on the street. I wouldn't even sell pictures of them.
But if you want to put them on a picture of Obama to make a political point, it's Katy-bar-the-door.
Bush as Dracula in a French Dracula poster:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/a/T/bush_dubcula.jpg
Bush in a Rambo poster:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrambo2.htm
Obama as Dumbo:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20dumbo/darthdilbert/Blog/obama_dumbo.png (this one should rile the faithful, eh?)
Bush as Custer:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/images/graphics/Custer.jpg (although the copyright has expired, so not a great example)
Making fun of the republican symbol (probably a TM)
http://kisrael.com/m/2009.01.23.dumbo.png
Point is, it's pretty well accepted to used TM'd & copyrighted images to make a political point. Does that make it legal? You'll have to talk to Captain Morgan to find out...
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you