Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Claims Copyright On Flickr Photos

Posted by kdawson on from the toddler's-creed dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "US government policy is that photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities are not subject to copyright in the US. But Kathy Gill writes that after originally putting official White House photos in the public domain, since January the Obama White House has been asserting that no one but 'news organizations' can use its Flickr photos taken by the official White House photographer, who is a US government employee. This change appears to be a heavy-handed response to last month's controversy resulting from a billboard that implied the President endorsed The Weatherproof Garment Co. after the company used an AP photo of the president for a Times Square billboard. However a New York law already protects individuals from unauthorized use of their image for advertising, and the billboard was quickly taken down. Gill writes, 'Whatever the reason, the assertion of these "rights" seems to be in direct contrast to official government policy and is certainly in direct contrast to reasonable expectations by the public, given that the photos are being produced with taxpayer (i.e., public) money. Ironically, the same Flickr page that claims (almost exclusive) copyright also links to the US copyright policy statement.'"

5 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Not merely in contrast to "policy" by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    > ...in direct contrast to official government policy...

    In direct contrast to law.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Not merely in contrast to "policy" by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Informative

      In direct contrast to law.

      Specifically: Title 17, Section 105;

      Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

  2. Re:Not necessarily copyright by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Informative


    Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next or Obama Fingers http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html?

    No, and it's not supposed to. Neither of the products you linked to had any implication of endorsement by the President, which is what we're actually talking about here.

    --
    AccountKiller
  3. Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" by Jurily · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone sued for violating its copyright can yawn in the direction of USC 17.1105 and walk out of the courtroom.

    Except when copyright claims are invoked with DMCA takedown notices. There is no checking of actual legal status before it gets taken down. Especially if the sender is the US government.

  4. Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" by iccaros · · Score: 4, Informative

    White House photographer is a Government employee as they are military.. See WHCA http://www.disa.mil/whca/ Spent a good number of years at that command. President Clinton tried the same thing to hide Al Gores fund raising, with illegal use of WHCA to film and photograph.