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.'"
But restrictions, no.
Assuming the judges aren't paid off ahead of time, the first suit will have this nonsense struck down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That the Federal Government is overstepping its authority with these images.
To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status. That is, if it is a matter of national security or not.
Since the Feds are not restricting these images due to security issues, they really don't have a leg to stand on.
You know things are in a sad state of being when even the government disregards the rules of copyright.
Aaaand the Democrats continue their almost-perfect record of being totally clueless and draconian on copyright issues.
You'll know it when you've paid it.
Law has become something about which those in power can emote.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
There are always several laws, frequently very contradictory, everywhere. The long-written "offcial" law, is supposed to be universally accepted, but isn't. There is acceptance and interpretation of it, first. Then the cultural customs, the political momentum, religious laws, individual morality, social morality, community rules, family rules, secret rules, business rules, contracts, all of which usually conflict in dozens of ways. The wise citizen knows which law to follow in each situation, and more importantly, which is more moral or immoral. Political and business momentum and rules, at this historical moment, basically says copyright law can almost always be used to stop someone who isn't the copyright holder, who is frequently whoever has the most power and lawyers, and some sort of legal argument. Clearly the president, in this case. Even if dozens of public and fair use long-held-written laws say otherwise. In this case however it should also be interesting to investigate how do government produced and owned intellectual property rules work in general. I'm no lawyer, though.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
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.
Please google "photographer work for hire."
The photographer does not retain ANY copyright over work done as part of employment. If it's contract work, it is unlikely that a government agency would agree to give the photographer copyright over the photos- I'm sure there's a mile-long line of photographers happy to work with the Whitehouse.
Please help metamoderate.
The actual language is an assertion of copyright and is in violation of the public domain notice that is also linked.
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.
Moreover, the issue of using a photo of person's likeness to imply an endorsement is NOT a copyright issue. As I noted in the referenced article (doesn't anyone /read/ the links anymore?) better language might be:
A reminder that photographs may not be used in any manner that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House, whether the endorsement is commercial or political in nature.
Kathy, I am a photographer and I am very familiar with copyright. I have also done a lot of work under federal contracts so I'm familiar with copyright in that context as well.
Your post has a headline, "White House Makes Full Copyright Claim on Photos." This is very simply untrue. Think of the ways people assert copyright: using the © copyright symbol, registering works with the copyright office, filing an infringement suit, etc.. I don't mean to say you need to do this to have a copyright, but to say that the White House is making a claim to copyright without doing any of the things we normally do to claim copyright things is misleading at best.
Claiming that works like the ones on Flickr cannot be used for commercial purposes is not claiming a right, but rather stating a fact. The statement is unnecessary, but it seems the White House decided it would be a good idea to remind people of the facts in light of recent events.
The only part that is a little baffling is the statement that the images may not be modified. It's also strange that this is not on the http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse page but only under individual images. I'm not sure what they are basing this on, but is certainly does not constitute a "Full Copyright Claim." It seems that the headline and article is written, not to illuminate or inform, but rather to garner attention and be provocative regardless of the facts.
If I white out all likeness of people (let's say with large black rectangles for sake of argument) in the photos. Would I be able to use it for commercial purposes like put it in my movie? That would violate both the assertion that the photos are not allowed to manipulated as well as the assertion that it could not be used for commercial purposes, but as far as I can tell should be perfectly lawful.