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.'"

Comments

Does this fall under Public Domain?

[rolfwind]

Also, how do you define "news organizations"?

Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press.

Re:Does this fall under Public Domain?

[Mrs. Grundy]

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.

Not merely in contrast to "policy"

[John Hasler]

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

In direct contrast to law.

It would seem...

[lag10]

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.

Re:There are actually several kinds of "law"

[cmiller173]

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.

Re:There are actually several kinds of "law"

[Brian Gordon]

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.

"I copy mp3 music"

[h00manist]

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.