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.
> ...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.
Hi. I (a US Citizen) am the owner of these copyrights. As being a such, I hereby grant permission for anyone to use this material freely.
Snark Snark.
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 ----
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.
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.
You never did get me that tank, so I'm not sure I believe you this time.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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
Aaaand the Democrats continue their almost-perfect record of being totally clueless and draconian on copyright issues.
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.
...using Creative Commons like they already are? Creative commons already states that on most of their licenses that you can't use whatever is licensed in a way that makes it seem like the copyright holder (in this case, the US government) endorse you or your derivative work (without permission, of course, like if Obama officially said that he approved of something). I mean, really, there's WAY more than only two choices, and Creative Commons just makes sense to use.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
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
Also, software created by U.S. government employees cannot be copyrighted. You can ask for source code, but that may involve an Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA) request, and you'd have to pay for the cost of providing you that information (considerably less than the cost of the software source code if you developed it). Unfortunately most software now developed for U.S. government is written by contractors (not U.S. government employees), and most contractors retain all rights to that software even though it was paid for 100% by government money. This makes it less costly for the government to produce software.
Keep Doing Good.
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.
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.
It is not an independent photographer, as the seeded article documents.
And this is boilerplate on all photos from the White House, even those that were licensed as public domain in May 2009. IOW, the boilerplate has been made retroactive.
Kathy (the author of the seeded post)
well there was a section symbol in there somewhere. Unicode-ignorant slashcode ate it.
Couldn't you then sue them for knowingly sending a false DMCA takedown notice? Since the U.S. gov't can't copyright its works, there should be no question of whether the picture is in violation or not.
Put identity in the browser.
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/
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 Flickr statement appears below: note that it is an assertion of full copyright with two exceptions: news organizations and personal use of anyone included in the photo. As the article notes -- and as I have noted several times in this thread -- the issue of implied endorsement is NOT a copyright issue.
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
Couldn't you then sue them for knowingly sending a false DMCA takedown notice?
No, because I lack the finances to back a lawsuit.
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.
It seems there are multiple circumstances where the photos may be protectable:
Caveats
* Other persons may have rights either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
* Not all work that appears on US Government Websites is considered to be a US Government work. Check with the content curator to see whether the work is a US Government Work. Works prepared for the United States Government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the United States Government.
* The United States Government Work designation is distinct from designations that apply to works of US state and local governments. Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.
* Copyright laws differ internationally. While a United States Government work is not protectable under United States copyright laws, the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in other jurisdictions. Outside of the United States, the United States Government may assert copyright in United States Government works.
(from: http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml)
I wonder if any of those caveats apply here.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
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/