Slashdot Mirror
White House Claims Copyright On Flickr Photos
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.'"
Also, how do you define "news organizations"?
Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press.
It's not about and never will be about copyright when it comes to government works. It's about control. Bend over Citizen, here come your tax dollars.
Shh.
. . . by slashdotters come the next presidential election.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Actually, this is not true. The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway). This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.
I had nothing to do with creating them but since the law seems secondary and everyone is going crazy and trying to claim they own every image, I think I'd like to lay claim to a few photos I like. I want to start with all the Hubble Images. Actually make that all astro photos. I like them. I should own them. I'd also like to lay claim to all images of sunsets and sunrises. They are cool. Oh and the grand canyon. I've always wanted to visit but never gotten there so this is the next best thing. Which brings me to all images in Yosemite and Yellow Stone. Oh and all nature photos. Well all the good ones. Closer to home I'd like to claim all images of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House. (They can keep the images of Sydney Tower - they're ugly). Of course I have no basis in law or reality for that matter for such wild claims. But that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone these days.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I doubt it will have to see a judge. Some staffer will make an apology and maybe get canned, then some underling's slip up turns into a talking point.
http://www.aaronrogier.net
It sounds more like Obama is tired of seeing blatant attempts to imply his (or Michelle's) endorsement of practically everything (which is a clearly deceptive practice). I doubt very much that an elementary schooler will get a visit from the secret service if they print one of those photos for a diorama.
This may not be the very best way to accomplish that, but something needed to be done. It's hard to codify that sort of thing perfectly in a simple statement. Say "may not be used for commercial advertisement" and you'll see him appearing to endorse the flat-earthers or PETA. Say not for commercial purposes and the very much commercial news outlets are ticked off.
How can Obama continue to claim that he is going to run a "transparent" government?
... when his own white house staff wants to restrict photos that by law cannot be copyrighted?
... how TARP money that has been paid back by big banks is now going to be lent out to smaller banks. It basically means if the US taxpayer is paid back that money will be lent to somebody else, until the entity getting money fails to pay money back, i.e. we ensure we waste 700 billion dollars.
... how recovery.gov has tons of mistakes and hasn't been updated in months.
... how he pretends he is open by recording White House visitors, but he conveniently leaves out lobbyists he meets with outside of White House.
... how he promised not to hirer lobbyists, still insists he hasn't hired lobbyists, yet has 40 lobbyist on staff (they aren't counted as he gave them a special "waiver").
Honestly I hate how much the President lies and how he gets a pass, merely because Bush sucked. I agree Bush had a ton of problems, but it makes no sense to give Obama a pass on his problems. Obama sucks also, just in different ways.
Respect the Constitution
As mentioned elsewhere, federal government works cannot be copyrighted, period.
Title 17 chapter 1 Section 105 of the US code :
105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works
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.
If this is an independent photographer that has transferred the rights to the photos to the government then yes there could be copyright protection, if the photographer is an employee of the government then these pic should be public domain.
I believe the White House photographer is in fact an employee of the government so there should be absolutely no copyright claim here.
Nice try, but no. What this actually means is that the copyright notice on the flickr page is a mistake and it holds no power. Anyone sued for violating its copyright can yawn in the direction of USC 17.1105 and walk out of the courtroom.
Nope, both parties are equally clueless on copyright.
There's a good percentage of voters out there, though, who unfortunately believed that a politician groomed by the Mayor Daley's Machine would suddenly become a champion of human rights once he reached the Presidency.
Whoops.
It'd be interesting to hear what Lawrence Lessig has to say about this stunt, given that Lessig was/is a big supporter of Obama.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
And Slashdot readers continue their 100% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.
The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all. It says
"This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. "
In fewer words:
- We made this available for particular purposes.
- You may not manipulate it.
- It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.
The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct. But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.
well there was a section symbol in there somewhere. Unicode-ignorant slashcode ate it.
Yup, official law allows that, too. Someone in the White House could have used a dozen laws to stop use of presidential "endorsements" in ads, but somehow the first that came to their mind was copyright. Legal and strategic mistake, it won't work. Shows something though. A generally accepted social tendency for abuse of copyright powers, for protection in general in all kinds of issues. A certain large burger chain also uses "unathorized copyright use" to shut up people. The law is actually on the side of allowing these and many more uses, but the legal and business environment at the moment says otherwise. Businesses can abuse the law, copyright holders have infinite powers, that is the social-moral "law" of the moment. It influences interpretation of the actual law, modifying application of the law, modifying public behavior, and so IP owners get away with it. Ask thousands of people to join a protest with shirts saying "I copy mp3 music", and they will be afraid, thinking someone somehow will investigate, sue or arrest them. There is nothing illegal on the shirt, but it's going against the current political-business-legal-moral rules-climate.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
> The issue is using Obama's likeness without his permission.
Tough. He's a public figure and does not earn his living selling his likeness.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Couldn't you then sue them for knowingly sending a false DMCA takedown notice?
No, because I lack the finances to back a lawsuit.
Ah yes! An Obamaite screaming "Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Common goose stepping stooge: if you question Obama suddenly you're nothing but a right wing kook. How trite. When are people going to stop treating politics like a fucking sporting event?
"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."
That's right, because the President of the USA never, ever, delegates stuff to other people. Every single decision in the entire Federal Branch is personally signed off by him, and him alone.
Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.
So, the buck stops there, but he doesn't have to take any responsibility?
Would you like your cake in a doggy bag after you've finished eating it?
Does the EFF? I'm sure they'd just love to get a firm win over the US Government.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/