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.
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.
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 [The Government] is tired of seeing blatant attempts to [do something stupid] (which is [obviously wrong]). I doubt very much that [people not doing wrong things] will get a visit from the secret service if they [quite innocently violate this excessively far-ranging policy or law]."
Please, everybody, stop posting things that fit this pattern. They have never, ever, been correct before.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.