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.
Why is flicker taking this issue so seriously?
Or maybe jumpy business people worried they'll get in the middle of a legal mess they'd rather not get involved in.
But why stick with more obvious motivations when you can turn everything into a retarded political pissing match, right?
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
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
Yeah, it's amazing how we made it through 8 years of the Bush presidency without anybody photoshopping pictures of George Bush. If that had happened, the neocons would have rioted, man!
Did you just crawl out from under a rock and miss the past 8 years of the internet? I think for all the things you can criticize Bush and the 'neocons' for, not being able to take a joke, is not one of them.
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.
Proof? I'm finding exactly nothing of the sort, and all similar searches lead to a cartoonist's drawing published in Vanity Fair.
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
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?
I looks like there are plenty of Bush parodies out there.
Most of which make the Joker/Obama image look quite tame.
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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
But why stick with more obvious motivations when you can turn everything into a retarded political pissing match, right?
Yes, because it's not like we experience that kind of politcal bias here on Slashdot all the time where people get modded down because someone of the other party had mod points......
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Actually, they never could take a joke. Not with good grace and humor, at any rate. But that's okay, it's often hard for people to do that when they care passionately about the subject in question. That's kind of basic to the vast majority of humans, really. The rather unfortunate part of it is that people degenerate to such infantile gestures. These gestures, in turn, can probably be traced to back to being incapable of holding a rational, respectful conversation with someone of differing viewpoint, whether because of their own inability or the opposition's inability. Eventually it degenerates to a useless shouting and cockmongery that does not help the democratic process in the slightest. It's most unfortunate, but in a democracy, even the retards get their say. I suppose what's most unfortunate about it is that retards tend to be much louder than the thoughtful types, though your mileage may vary.
"the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand"
Really ? Then where are those pitchforks ? Where was the BusHitler backlash ? There was absolutely no shortage of anti-bush rhetoric, imagery, or anything. Blatantly racist imagery, faked imagery, faked evidence, death threats, ... no shortage at all.
Of course pointing out that as far as policy comparisons go, it's Obama's policies that resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both. Now pointing that out, no matter how true (and how irrelevant), is racist.
Is that the same war that all the major Democrats voted for?
And was it the same Iraq that Clinton bombed without asking permission? Was it the same Iraq that Clinton said was pursing WMD? Was it the same Iraq that had rape/torture rooms in the police offices, shut off water to towns, and was keeping food out? Was it the same Iraq were 30 million lives were in jeopardy, and the people thanked the US for liberating them?
In reality, both parties supported going into Iraq. You can question whether or not the war was justified (despite Iraq violating over 75 security resolutions, and the UN saying if they weren't 100% complicit, then the cease-fire of 1991 was null and void, authorizing military intervention). But you can't pin the war on one person. The President can't go to war. Congress goes to war. And Congress had no problem with it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Perhaps you're right, but I don't think this is a liberal thing. I think it is an Obama thing.
People had no difficulty making fun of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Neither did they have difficulty making fun of Al Gore. Even in the late 90s when the internet was comparitvely small, parodies, insulting comics, and distorted likenesses of President Clinton were quite common.
Obama just has more charisma. People who like him take greater offense to slander against him. This is probably what the 30s and 40s were like with FDR (the only president to be elected 4 times BTW).
I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
If? We all know that when Bush was in office, no negative pictures or parodies of him circulated the internet. *blinks*
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!
Obama just has more charisma.
In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."
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!
>resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both.
Or all early 20th century European governments. You know the ones today with excellent universal healthcare, less obsese people, better public trans, lower infant mortality, less debt, more personal savings, free education, and quality of life standards.
Oh right, everything is about Hitler. Thats "reasonable" and your side is hysterically yelling Hitler like spoiled children unable to win a debate.
I know we all like to complain here, but Slashdot is one of the most even handed moderation systems I have ever seen. Have you ever posted to Reddit or Digg? If they even suspect you're related to somebody who once voted Republican, you get down-modded by over 300 people and banned within minutes.
I see comments of all flavors that get modded up here - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Populist (well, maybe not those). I do love it here.
By the "other party" you are refering to the Apple party, right?
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
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.
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.
The Bush as Joker image was published by Vanity Fair and received no critical media attention. No one was offended.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html