Flickr Yanks Image of Obama As Joker 869
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting article yesterday about the unmasking of the recent creator of the controversial and iconic Obama/Joker image that has been popping up around Los Angeles with the word Socialism under it. The Los Angeles Times has identified the images' creator as Firas Alkhateeb. Even more interesting though is the fact that after getting over 20,000 hits on the image at Flickr, Flickr removed the image from Alkateeb's photostream, citing 'copyright' concerns. The image in question is clearly both an independent derivative work and unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use. It has appeared on many other sites without issue on the Internet." According to the same reader, "Flickr also recently nuked a user's entire photostream over negative comments on President Obama's official photostream."
Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does freedom of speech mean anything anymore?
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Also, I wonder if the Streisand Effect will hit?
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flickr is a company, not a government. You have no constitutional right of free speech on Flickr.
Sucks, I know, but that's the way it is.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe jumpy business people worried they'll get in the middle of a legal mess they'd rather not get involved in.
But why stick with more obvious motivations when you can turn everything into a retarded political pissing match, right?
Time Magazine should be wrist-slapped also? (Score:3, Insightful)
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a free speech issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have as much right to political trolling in Flicker as you do standing on a soapbox in your local mall.
You are allowed to troll so long as the management approves.
--
BMO
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just crawl out from under a rock and miss the past 8 years of the internet? I think for all the things you can criticize Bush and the 'neocons' for, not being able to take a joke, is not one of them.
Not clearly fair use (Score:4, Insightful)
Unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use.
It's not "unquestionable" at all. First of all, the fact that it's a parody of the President does not make it fair use - to be fair use as a parody, something has to be a parody of the copyright work, not the subject of that work. Second, it's not at all obvious to me that this is a parody of Time Magazine. What feature of the Time cover is being parodied, exactly? It seems to me that the image in question is using the Time photograph to produce an unrelated piece of work commenting on the President. That's no more fair use than, say, sampling a record to produce a new track is fair use.
I think you could make a good case that this kind of transformative use of copyright material ought to be generally allowed, but it doesn't help that case to exaggerate the actual scope of fair-use rights to make derivative works.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flickr is a company, not a government. You have no constitutional right of free speech on Flickr.
The issue is slightly more complicated when the government turns corporate websites into official media distribution channels.
Examples: The White House flickr page, twitter page, facebook page, etc.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You were one of many people to respond with this exact sentiment. I'll just respond to you.
I know that a private site has the right to moderate as they see fit. This isn't the removal of pornography, or racist material, illegal material, or any of the usual suspects that would warrant such a removal.
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions. Does Flickr have the right? It is their site, so yes they do.
Should Flickr censor people however? No. I would hope the democratic principles that supposedly infuse this country would be reflected by US businesses to a certain extent. I hope this turns into the Streisand Effect, wherein trying to censor this image, they only bring far more attention to themselves.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Also, I wonder if the Streisand Effect will hit?
I looks like there are plenty of Bush [flickr.com] parodies [flickr.com] out [flickr.com] there. [flickr.com]
Most of which make the Joker/Obama image look quite tame.
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Obama is not (yet) responsible for the deaths of innocents. Bush is.
Not all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree with the artist and then some (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Even more so, combining the accusation of Socialism with a depiction of Obama as the Joker makes no fucking sense. The Joker was about chaos and anarchy which is so far away from Socialism that the juxtaposition just strikes me as ludicrous. All it does is make the one who put the poster together look like an ignoramus. I can see the thought train-wreck now: "Lessee... Socialism is evil, and the Joker is evil, so the Joker equals Socialism!" Yeah, I doubt someone that bright even knows what they're accusing the president of. Other than that they're trying to tie him with "evil".
So take a clever image which the artist says wasn't intended as a political message (even though he criticizes Obama), add some moronic twat who thinks it's the perfect political message, and you get something that makes your average political cartoon look intelligent. It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Flickr says they took it down over copyright concerns. Are you:
a) Calling them liars
b) Someone who didn't bother to RTFA
c) Trying to play the victim card and cry about oppression that doesn't appear to actually exist
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Flickr (a US based company) telling its users that they aren't entitled to express political opinions
Actually, this is Flickr telling it's users that oppose Obama that they are not entitled to express their political opinions. There's still tons of GWB photos out there that make this Joker image look rather tame. Don't take my word for it. Go onto Flickr and search for George Bush and look at the pictures. Then search for Obama and compare those to the GWB pics. I could not find a single negative Obama pic. I had a difficult time finding a positive GWB pic. And please don't try to tell me that 100% of Flickr's users love Obama and hate Bush.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
"the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand"
Really ? Then where are those pitchforks ? Where was the BusHitler backlash ? There was absolutely no shortage of anti-bush rhetoric, imagery, or anything. Blatantly racist imagery, faked imagery, faked evidence, death threats, ... no shortage at all.
Of course pointing out that as far as policy comparisons go, it's Obama's policies that resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both. Now pointing that out, no matter how true (and how irrelevant), is racist.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? [peaceactionwest.org]
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which we are, and everybody seems to be doing, so I guess everything is right with the world.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
The poster is stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that the same war that all the major Democrats voted for?
And was it the same Iraq that Clinton bombed without asking permission? Was it the same Iraq that Clinton said was pursing WMD? Was it the same Iraq that had rape/torture rooms in the police offices, shut off water to towns, and was keeping food out? Was it the same Iraq were 30 million lives were in jeopardy, and the people thanked the US for liberating them?
In reality, both parties supported going into Iraq. You can question whether or not the war was justified (despite Iraq violating over 75 security resolutions, and the UN saying if they weren't 100% complicit, then the cease-fire of 1991 was null and void, authorizing military intervention). But you can't pin the war on one person. The President can't go to war. Congress goes to war. And Congress had no problem with it.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the terms of service forbids parody of some selected people?
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, good thing no innocents have died in Iraq or Afghanistan in the past 8 months.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stef0065/2995333239/ [flickr.com]
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stunning how many people have a hard time with this concept. If you really have a problem with this (as opposed to scoring whatever ideological points you think you can), don't use Flickr.
Better yet, start up a Flickr competitor, only with hookers and blackjack.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't matter. Flickr claims they took it down because they believe it was a copyright violation, not because it's offensive. The standard, then, is not "how nasty are the remaining Bush images", it's "how many of the remaining Bush images appear to violate copyright law".
Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.
Take off the tinfoil hat (Score:3, Insightful)
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the world is not black and white, there are no pure 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, a fascist, a Nazi, or insane.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1 - I won't say Bush is a great President by any means. No one likes him. But you can contend that he preserved more life by going into Iraq than what was lost. Future generations also need to be considered. Any military conflict has civilian causalities. When one side is not wearing uniforms, using human shields, bombing civilians intentionally, etc. civilian causalities are going to be very high. However, millions of people are being liberated. And it wasn't like the situation was great before we got there. Towns had water shut off. Kurds were living in caves for fear of their lives.
I'm curious that no one discusses situations like Liberia, where Bush helped save lives and negotiate a peaceful surrender of a bloodthirsty dictator without firing a single bullet. Bush was a "line-in-the-sand" conservative, but you can't honestly believe that he wanted to kill innocent people. I really don't get ignorant statements like that.
2 - Obama has always been against Iraq. And he promised to end the war. He hasn't pulled out yet. So is he responsible for lives lost in Iraq? And since Obama supports conflict in Afghanistan, is he responsible for civilians killed there? At least be consistent in your logic (or lack there of).
We're at war, remember! (Score:3, Insightful)
We're still at war. Obama is a War President. If you are not with him, then you are with the terrorists. Any treasonous acts against the president must be quashed at all costs to preserve our freedom and the Cunstitution.
If it was good for W., then it's good for O. If you're going to whine about it, why did you think it was OK to give the President this power? Did you always think that the President would be a guy you approved of?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama just has more charisma.
In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am calling them liars.
Parody is fine under copyright law.
Flickr has no problem with copyrighted images of Bush being photoshopped.
Censoring speech is oppression. So oppression does exist here.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech especially don't occur with copyrighted content. Of all people, followers of the gpl should know this.
Alkhateeb's original Flickr page surpassed 20,000 views. The Times found his Flickr site last week thanks to a tip left by a loyal reader of The Ticket. By Friday, the page had been taken down.
It's so horrible that Times didn't want their photo tinkered with....which is probably from AP who is nice and strict with their photo licenses btw. You can play with your tinfoil hats if you want though.
Re:except (Score:5, Insightful)
Sloppy fail. From the very tippy top of Yahoo's Terms of Service: [yahoo.com]
A little later on, this gem:
There's more!
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If not, print this out, take it to your lawyer, and he'll explain it to you using hand puppets and bright crayon drawings.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
>resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both.
Or all early 20th century European governments. You know the ones today with excellent universal healthcare, less obsese people, better public trans, lower infant mortality, less debt, more personal savings, free education, and quality of life standards.
Oh right, everything is about Hitler. Thats "reasonable" and your side is hysterically yelling Hitler like spoiled children unable to win a debate.
Liberal compared to? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
I hear this argument all of the time. The reason internet media seems liberal is because it's more likely to be run by individuals or smaller corporations. People who don't automatically take the side of corporate interest over themselves, as most media corporations do. And as far as "left" and "right" are concerned, America is far more conservative than any other country in the West. Our overseas caricature is holding a gun and a bible for good reason. In other countries, they actually have communist and socialist parties that join in the discussion, without some schmuck screaming bloody murder the whole time.
I don't consider Obama a savior or anything. He was simply the lesser of two evils. He's quickly discovering that it doesn't matter how many people support healthcare reform (70%, with 50% wanting a "major" overhaul), if the change in policy affects too many big players in the corporate world. Insurance companies don't just lie down and let you force them to start playing by rules and making less money. Money pours into propaganda campaigns, and are usually successful. They will lie through their teeth to keep the profits rolling in, truth and ethics be damned.
In a sense, this is no different than a Democratic representative, meek and mild, turning into a lunatic when you threaten the jobs of their constituents who happen to build fighter jets that simply aren't useful for defense as they used to be.
And as far as parodies are concerned, there was a sitcom called "That's My Bush" that was on air within months of his inauguration, because he was so laughably inept, even in the beginning. I don't hesitate to remind everyone that at this point in his first term, Bush had taken a lot of vacations, given the Taliban 40 million dollars for their help with the war on drugs, and was nearly assassinated by a pretzel. Obama may do just as poorly, but so far, he's still got a chance for my vote next go around.
He's not the joker! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you've listened to any of Obama's speeches you'd KNOW he was The Riddler.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with drawing comparisons with Obama's policies and Hitler's is that it makes you look like a freaking idiot. As much as you don't like Obama, he is not trying to round up people in concentration camps and commit genocide. Every other civilized nation has govt. healthcare, why aren't you talking about how those leaders brought it to their country? Pointing it out is, as you say, irrelevant. So why point it out? Because it serves and underhanded political purpose. It is intellectually dishonest and is stirring up some really dangerous feelings in deranged people. And apparently there a lot more deranged people out there than I thought.
More information required. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it would be good to know your race if you make such claims about Obama.
Not that it would not make you a racist, just need it to label you an Uncle Tom as well.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, the Nazi government (while it certainly did barrow elements from the left) was rather aligned with the right. As early as 1933 it had become a dictatorship and began to violently suppressed all opposition. It was also openly aligned with eugenics and racism. Other ideas were outlawed. Your ability to make such a comment would not have existed.
So no, Obama doesn't resemble the "early Hitler". If he did, he wouldn't need to debate with people about his healthcare changes. Also if you didn't notice this was a Flickr decision... not an Obama one.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
The standard, then, is not "how nasty are the remaining Bush images", it's "how many of the remaining Bush images appear to violate copyright law".
All of them? I haven't seen one Bush image where the photoshopper owned the copyright on the source material. Most are based on photos from organizations like AP and Reuters.
I don't think you can rationalize your way out of this double standard; it's pretty blatant.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have the right to do it? Yes.
Do I have the right to bitch about it? Yes.
Cool how that works out.
Copyright vs Trademark (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the issue here is copyright vs. trademark. I think the problem here is that they are trying to use fair use parody of a copyrighted item (the magazine cover) to defend against the use of a trademarked item (the TIME logo). Both have separate laws dealing with them so I don't believe you can really use one as a defense against the other. While the cover itself is parody and fair use, the use of the TIME logo is not as it is in no way being parodied. Since the people at TIME are free to print covers that are parodies of things themselves, the use of the TIME logo, even when the content is a parody can cause brand confusion. If a person was surfing the internet and had no knowledge of the back story of the item in question, due to the use of the TIME trademark, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that it was the people at TIME that were doing the parody, not someone else.
If they had used a parody which used the same font and the title CLOWN then they would be parodying the content of the cover, and the trademark, but as it is while they are practicing parody it in no way removes the confusion and inappropriate use of a trademark. (Obligatory IANAL)
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, the image seems to have sat their quite happily until a bunch of teabaggers took it and started vandalizing public property with it, shoving it into the media spotlight.
Actually, the guy who created the image is a rabid leftist. He dislikes Obama because he's not liberal enough.
Or are you suggesting that a Dennis Kucinich supporter is a "teabagger"?
Your "teabagger" statement kinda proves the point. Anyone who disagrees with Obama must be "teabagger".
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We're at war, remember! (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Quaeda sympathizers posting unpatriotic images of our glorious leader to Flickr is doubleplusungood.
(I disagree with Flicker taking down the images, and think that it's clearly not a copyright violation if the original creator of the Obama/Joker picture posted it and had it taken down.
But as long as republicans are going to act like jackholes, they can have their own rhetoric force fed back to them to see how they like it.
Why is it NOT OK for a pro-Obama citizen to use Bush/Rove style rhetoric to demonstrate to an anti-Obama citizen how wrong and stupid such rhetoric is?
I'd explain more, but I'm late for my appointment with my death panel. Mr. Tuttle is scheduled to die this week, I am Mr. Buttle. Don't want to be late, or I could end up the late Mr. Buttle.
Re:We're at war, remember! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah except for one big problem: Despite the fact that some posters who have self-persecution delusions think so, the Bush administration did not go around yanking down every insult and parody against him on the Internet. If he had, then 90% of the posts from most /. stories that pass as "politics" would have been taken down by those evil Bushies... last time I checked they were all still there. As other posters have pointed out there are all kinds of nasty photoshop pictures of Bush that were put up while he was president and never taken down.
The stupid lines you parroted above are not what your evil "neocon" enemies were saying, but rather what other liberals parroted to make themselves feel more oppressed and therefore more self righteous. Hell, George Bush had protesters right outside of his private home in the middle of Texas and nothing happened to them except Cindy Sheehan made bags of money and got her own cult following. When Bush was asked about Cindy Sheehan, he didn't call her a Nazi (See Nancy Pelosi insulting people who have done more honest work than she ever will for that), instead he said that he understood that she felt hurt and that she had a right to protest, but that he still believed in what he was doing. Now you can disagree with Bush, but I'm getting REALLY sick of the liberal mantra that all anti-Bush speech was suppressed for the last 8 years because it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Color Blind audience? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Obama was portrayed in WHITEFACE
so I don't think it is at all about the characterization, but about whatever having a black man in whiteface implies
whatever -if this is the reason, then they are being hyper-sensitive and should grow a pair
-I'm just sayin
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
>But you can contend that he preserved more life by going into Iraq than what was lost.
That war killed hundreds of thousands of civillians. A study by the lancet estimates 650k. [wikipedia.org]
Even on a strict lives lost metric its a crazy position to take. Even then Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD that he knew were there. Turns out the left was correct and there werent any. The smearing of those who spoke to power like Valerie Plame's husband was in full effect. Colin Powell brought smallpox to the UN and pointed out water trucks and called them mobile biochemical factories. Joe Conservative was out there in the streets talking about mushroom clouds thanks to Condi Rice scaring people with warnings about nuclear war. From a country with no nuclear warheads or missile tech to hit any target in the west.
Hell, your premise doesnt make any sense as if the US wanted to save lives from warlords and dictators, Saddam is probably last on that list. The various warlords in Africa qualify quite a bit more, but there's no oil there, so we dont go there. Funny how that works.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Search for 'joker' then, there are thousands of pictures of the Joker, some straight from "The Dark Knight". If it was truly for copyright violations they'd take these down as well wouldn't they?
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
You must be signed in to see this content.
Oh well, screw that...and screw them.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
When were mutiny and sedition laws repealed? Aren't they like the draft - always in effect, but no one notices them until they are invoked?
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I find funny is that the hordes of Obama-worshipers are now coming out trying to defend Flickr and everyone else involved in this blatant censorship, simply because the "speech" involved is critical of their messiah.
Of course, this is nothing new. Obama won his first two Illinois election campaigns through dirty tricks and baseless lawsuits that kept him from having opponents on the ballot. Left-wing groups have been screaming for years about how people should "not be allowed to say" things that they disagree with - and the usual canards (calling racism, sexism, godwinning the debate) pop up all the time.
If you never took a class on understanding what bias in reporting really means and how it is achieved, you don't understand it. I suggest reading up, starting with this excellent article [media-awareness.ca] which shows you many of the techniques used in the mass media today.
Educate yourselves and be informed. Just beware, if you actually do educate yourself, you may realize precisely how propagandized and brainwashed you have become over the years.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even then Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD that he knew were there.
Bush was stupid to stake such a large claim on WMD, and then give Iraq advance warning before invading. Powell mentioned that he thought all the WMD were being transported out of the country into Syria before the invasion began.
However, Bill Clinton did come to Bush's defense saying he saw first hand plenty of intel on WMD. Clinton also said that perhaps his bombing tactics were perhaps more effective at destroying Iraq's WMD, so that there were fewer to find later on.
We did find manuals and storage facilities that suggest WMD were there, but later moved.
...but there's no oil there, so we dont go there.
US involvement in Iraq began in 1991 because the UN demanded it. When we went into Iraq in 1991, we didn't take oil. And we went into Iraq in 2003, we didn't take oil. Bush was very adamant that Iraqi oil should be protected by military forces, but all oil belonged to Iraq. He wanted to ensure that when it was sold, it was sold by Iraq, and that Iraqi citizens profited directly from it.
If Bush was such an oil lover, why did he go after the automotive industry demanding they improve fuel-economy? (People forget that Obama and Bush were pushing for far tougher standards, and Congress passed a much weaker version). Why did Bush give tax breaks to hybrid owners? Why did Bush increase funding on fuel cell research? Why did Bush repeatedly say he was against depending on foreign oil?
Oh wait, it is easier to make simplistic lies that we were interested in oil rather than look at the facts.
As for death tool, the Lancet study was based on performing a survey of households. I can't see how this would be really relevant. If I was oppose to one side, I could merely claim that side killed X people.
From Wikipedia:
The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.[5]
Some support the study, and some oppose it. I don't claim to have accurate numbers, but I think the basis of their study is a bit suspect.
Regardless, even the Lancet study claims that only 31% of the casualties were caused by Coalition forces (again according to survey which just boggles the mind) but people want to place the blame for the entire death toll on Coalition forces.
If the opposition weren't using car bombs, using human shields, hiding in civilian locations, etc. we'd have a very different situation.
Perhaps we should place some blame of opposition forces that target civilians primarily. By placing that blame on coalition forces, you're validating the tactics of terrorists.
don't blame Flickr (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you been to America recently? Anybody who publicly bash The President will be met with iron fists from the righteous people.
Oh yeah, and the author was actually pro Obama. Yeah right. That's convenient, otherwise his life will become a living hell.
This is what your country has become to, and you can't be happier.
So, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
So... This is ok:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/ [flickr.com]
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/ [flickr.com]
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/ [flickr.com]
but not this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/ [flickr.com]
Got it...
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Republicrats and Demoricans both use the same techniques and methods against one another and against 3rd parties.
2. You act as if anyone "playing fair" has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. They don't.
Everyone is about scandals and smears. They are more interested in Britney Spears's vagina than they are about her music. They care more about who makes the most convincing speeches than any truth and care nothing about fact-checking.
I'll say this -- Bush's presidency brought in some really ugly laws and practices. Obama's presidency has so far failed on its promise to undo them. They both suck.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
link to one that uses material that is in copyright?
Have you seen the picture in question? in infringes on Time and the Joker...which is owned by a member of the MPAA. People known for suing people all the time.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the guy who created the image is a rabid leftist. He dislikes Obama because he's not liberal enough.
Or are you suggesting that a Dennis Kucinich supporter is a "teabagger"?
Dude! The guy who made the original image, and the guy who took that image, removed the Time Magazine parts and slapped the "Socialism" caption on it then hung them up around LA were two different people and the GP was referring to the latter.
You think a Kucinich supporter is going to use the word "Socialism" in a way that equates it to the anarchic socio- and psychopathic evil of The Joker? HUH?!
You must have read TFA somewhat to get the part about him liking Dennis, but seem to have missed every other salient point! Good shootin', Tex!
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones GP mentioned were repealed in 1802, and the most recent sedition act was repealed in 1920. Subsequent Supreme Court cases make it very unlikely that anything similar would survive judicial review today.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he cherry picked intel, why did Kerry, both Clintons, Gore, etc. all support the same intel? Bill Clinton said he looked at the same intel for 8 years and came to the same conclusions.
You can nitpick the Lancet all you like but all studies float aroudn the same ballpark: HUNDREDS of thousands of lives. Ok, lets say they are off by 100k, its still around 400 to 500k lives killed. All civilians. Incredible!
I've never said the death toll wasn't that high. What I'm saying is that Saddam had embargoed food from major cities, shut off water, etc. 30 million people's lives were in jeopardy.
And unless someone stabilizes the situation, how many generations of people die or live in constant fear for their lives?
Wake me when you make a single statement supported by logic and/or facts.
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your "teabagger" statement kinda proves the point. Anyone who disagrees with Obama must be "teabagger".
No the only thing proven here is that you didn't actually read TFA too closely.
Conservative activists co-opted the photo and began using it as conservative propaganda. If they hadn't started printing off anti-Obama posters then the Photoshop job would have probably gone largely unnoticed--certainly wouldn't have had a newspaper article run on it and therefore wouldn't have come to the attention of Flickr who said "Hey wait a second... that's a magazine cover. Copyright infringement... delete."
Re:Take off the tinfoil hat (Score:4, Insightful)
If media was liberal then how the hell does this happen: [commondreams.org]
That half or more Americans think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- perhaps the most media-covered event in our history -- stands as a horrific indictment of U.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can't be found in other countries.
Americans who are fundamentally misinformed about 9/11 provide the bulk of those tallied in polls as supporting Bush and the Iraq war. Subtract them from polls and Bush is an unpopular president -- widely seen as having accomplished a bait and switch, redirecting U.S. anger and vengeance toward a country that did not attack us.
Is the image a parody? (Score:3, Insightful)
Parody is fine under copyright law.
It's not particularly clear the image is a parody. What is it mocking / poking fun at? If it's Obama, then the copyright problem you're dealing with is the use of the image of the Nolan/Ledger Joker. If it's the Joker... you're going to have to explain how exactly that's working here.
(If it's the concept of equating the current president with socialism or nihilistic anarchy, I think you may actually have a case)
Flickr has no problem with copyrighted images of Bush being photoshopped.
That may or may not be true, but this isn't a good direct comparison with which to asses that issue, partly for the reasons I mentioned above (the significant copyright issue likely isn't with the image of a public figure)... and partly because this image has a really high visibility right now.
If you want to make that point, you'll need a comparable image where of Bush (under copyright protections not mitigated by law about images about public figures) photoshopped with an image from a highly successful commercial work with the level of distribution that the Obama-Joker image is getting.
This isn't to say that there aren't some larger points about copyright protection vs speech that could be made, or that Flickr's true reason for removing the image is their given reason. Just that it's plausible.
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite.
whiteface is not "criticism" -- it's racism
How can you seriously attempt to claim that this parody is racist because the face is white??? Was the original joker racist too because he wore white makeup? Are mimes racist because of their makeup? If the only photoshopping done was to paint his face white then I might agree. But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across. Why must every criticism of Obama be related back to racism?
I know this is hard for you to fathom, but maybe some people just don't agree with his policies. And I bet if someone of a different race had the exact same policies, that group still wouldn't like them. Not everything is about race.
But the real story about this guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
... is that he recognizes that Obama is a political ghost ("lacking substance") and that Dennis Kucinich should have been the Democratic (or at least SOME party's) nominee. The guy deserves some serious modding-up for that, regardless what people think of his Photoshopping skills or subject matter.
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think the problem is that if there is no criticism, then the approval ratings will never drop. This is a reasoning behind removing criticism.
It wouldn't be that bad if the US government didn't have contracts with Flickr and use their services as a means to communicate with the population. This is as unacceptable as if Bush used "only" Fox News to fulfill his communications and public disclosure requirements. Actually, it's a little worse because Fox news will discuss criticisms even if there seems to be a slant on it.
Re:So, let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if you'll still feel that way when Congress flips again.
Who is complaining about them? (Score:1, Insightful)
> Search for 'joker' then, there are thousands of pictures of the Joker, some straight from "The Dark Knight". If it was truly for copyright violations they'd take these down as well wouldn't they?
They can't be bothered to hunt down infringing photos on their own, and there's a fair use argument possible when it's only a tiny portion of a movie (rather than when the work is a photograph and you're reproducing the whole thing).
In other words, they don't bother taking stuff down unless someone complains or it attracts lots of attention.
This is why the DCMA is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you don't think "information wants to be free" or think that DRM isn't all that bad, can we at least all agree that it's a ridiculously large loophole to suppress speech you don't like? Not only that but you're obligated to report copyright violations so you're being a good citizen by doing it; talk about doublethink.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
>Bill Clinton said he looked at the same intel for 8 years
Clintons intel was from his term so his intel is 8 years old. Sure Saddam had some Iran/Iraq war relics in 1996 but not in 2003. Contrary to the lies of the Bush administration: the UN inspectors did their job as they claimed and there are no WMD in Iraq during the invasion. Hows that for facts for you?
Ive done nothing but provide you with facts:
1. Bush claims WMD: false on their face. A suppression of contradictory intel and punishing those who went to the press (Plame).
2. Condi claims nuclear war: False. That aluminum was not used in any reactor and Plane knew it.
3. Cheney: Atta worked for Saddam thus Saddam had a hand in 9/11: False. A recent poll shows Fox News viewers still believe this.
4. Fact: 500k people lost their lives in this conflict. Thats like a 9/11 every work day for a year.
6. Fact: This administration went to war on lies.
What you are doing is trying to salvage Bush's reputation by comparing him to Saddam, a vicious dictator. Anyone short of Pol Pot or Stalin looks good compared to that guy. In the end your argument is unconvicing for these reasons:
1. No one knows how many people would have died under Saddams rule. History shows us that it would have been less than the 500k the US killed.
2. No one has the moral right to pull a number out of their ass, say "these people will die, so lets go to war."
3. The war was never sold as saving Iraqis, but as a security measure to prevent nuclear and biological castrophe. The "proof" was the intel report Plume debunks and Powell's bullshit about smallbox trucks.
You can retcon Bush into anything you like, but the facts are out there. Your delusion is pathetic. Bush should be remembered for taking us to war with false justifications and someone who liberate 500k people from their bodies. In the end the left was right: No WMD, Bush lied, and no cakewalk. In the end your side is wrong.
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Contrary to the lies of the Bush administration: the UN inspectors did their job as they claimed and there are no WMD in Iraq during the invasion. Hows that for facts for you?
Seriously? Iraq routinely refused to allow inspectors to view certain sites, and kept kicking them out of the country. Iraq told inspectors what they could look at, and when they could look. Should I be shocked that you consider this a valid and absolute inspection?
You have no basis in reality. I am entirely done with you.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
But then the first amendments only really prevents government control of speach. If I want to have an all out <ideology> website, I can erase <opposing ideology> posts with impunity. It is, after all my own website. It's just
that the government cannot make a law saying I have to delete <opposing ideology> posts.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, except that those photos of Bush on Flickr, they're all still up. Do you understand the distinction?
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find funny is that the hordes of Obama-worshipers are now coming out trying to defend Flickr and everyone else involved in this blatant censorship, simply because the "speech" involved is critical of their messiah.
Hang on, where are you finding those "hordes of Obama worshippers"? Admittedly I haven't looked very far, but there don't appear to be any here on slashdot, and the article linked in the story is filled with dozens of comments saying "SOCIALISM IS TEH EVIL!!!!!1111111" or "OBAMA IS HITLER AND SATAN COMBINED", only with worse spelling.
Re:Not clearly fair use (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it isn't really the use of the Joker's likeness that is at issue here, but the clear use of the trademarked "Time". The image is essentially claiming to be a cover from Time magazine. Just because you are parodying something doesn't mean you can pretend to be them. It is probably this infringement of Time's trademark that got the photo pulled, not any of the other BS people have been spouting.
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across.
That's the part I don't understand. The Joker, specifically the one depicted, is certainly a "well-known" character, but he's not a socialist. He's pretty clearly portrayed as at best an anarchist, and at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever. The artist seems to have gone out of his way to choose provocative, rather than relevant, imagery. For instance, a Stalin mustache would have fit this alleged "point" better, and not have garnered nearly as much controversy. I'm not attacking his right to do so, I'm just saying the end result is transparent and cheap, manufactured for the sake of shock rather than any real critical message. That doesn't necessarily have to do with racism, either, he's being compared to a murdering psychopath. I don't recall seeing that too much, even with our last President. A Stalin comparison would at least reflect other ideas, about power gone wrong, etc., but with the Joker there's not much to the guy: he's a raving, homicidal lunatic. What are you supposed to think the message is? Does anyone really, truly agree with that, if you take a second to de-polarize from any political bias? That the President = the Joker? I disagree with this being taken down but I also disagree with the knee-jerk response that this is high art and shouldn't be scrutinized. My mind was open to this image, I thought about it, and came to my own conclusions. Free speech is worthless without free thinking, if that makes any sense.
Actually, that's kind of funny, even if everyone disagrees with me I'll feel like I got my point across...
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=time+magazine+parody&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&num=50&aq=f&oq=&aqi= [google.com]
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
As for Flickr, they're a private company and they do what they want.
Re:the parody exemption does not apply here (Score:3, Insightful)
"You're only allowed to use copyrighted characters and images that belong to the object of parody. This means that if you're mocking Disney, you can use Mickey Mouse, but you can't use Mickey Mouse to parody someone not associated with Disney."
If you wanted to show Obama was a terribly president, you might show him as Mickey Mouse president. If you wanted to show Bush as a warlike president, you might put him in a Rambo poster. I'm not sure why you think you can only use Donald Duck to parody Donald Duck.
Clearly, your personal interpretation of the law doesn't pass the common sense test.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trial by a military court doesn't allow for very many of the silly technicalities that frequently get bad guys off the hook in civilian courts
I think the technical name is "due process". Some folks may not like Innocent Until Proven Guilty (and similar anachronsims), but I think most of us think it's a heck of an idea. I hope it comes back in style soon. Those "silly technicalities" also keep innocent people out of jail at least as often as the guilty ones, after all.
Law & Order and CSI have done a great deal of damage to the public's belief in the justice system, and it makes me sad.
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whiteface? Give me a break. It's obviously the joker and has nothing to do with race. You can find the same picture with GWB in it.
Play the race card when it's appropriate man, this is just ignorant.
Say it proud... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Color Blind audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
The author of the flickr photo didn't put the socialism on it. [latimes.com] Someone else removed the "TIME" word and labeled it with socialism. That wasn't the picture on Flickr, the one mentioning time was. [latimes.com]
The author said he wasn't really making any political statement, he was learning to use photoshop and followed a tutorial on how to "jokerize" any photo. A couple hours later, he liked what he saw and posted it to his Flickr account. The author also said that he believes he needs to keep low because he lives in Chicago "Alkhateeb says he wasn't actively trying to cover his tracks, but he did want to lay low. He initially had concerns about connecting his name with anything critical of the president -- especially living in Chicago, where people are "very, very liberal," he said." But he also has a photo of Rahm Emanuel [flickr.com] with criticisms of him. His lack of willingness to show a point may be because of where he is and how he is now associated to the photo.
The author did state "After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him." which might play into your discussion concerning the character of the joker being used. You know, lack of substance "at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever".
I suspect there was probably a political motive behind posting the original picture and perhaps the author is afraid to disclose it.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a better question should be: "What did we expect to happen when all of our shit is on hardware owned by someone else?"
Crap like this will become increasingly common as we move info to "the cloud". Hope it was worth saving the $25/mo. hosting fee.
Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to get useful info off the internet is like trying to send a 6 year old grocery shopping. Unless you give it EXACT instructions and handle the results very carefully he's going to come home with a shopping cart full of poptarts and cereal.
Re:the parody exemption does not apply here (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I appreciate your watching over me.
Unfortunately, the link you gave doesn't actually go anywhere. It says text needs to be added; I don't know if you were trying to solicit my help to fill it out? In any event, here's a link that works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc [wikipedia.org].
It's interesting that you would cite this, but probably not relevant since the circumstances are different.
But to help even more, what the supreme court gave as guidelines for fair use for fair use:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(taken from Wikipedia, so maybe it's made up)
Anyway, if this is correct, not only is the original picture a parody of the Time cover passing your test (using Time to parody Time), but it is also political speech, and since there really is no attempt to commercialize the image, I think the odds are stacked against this being a copyright violation. You never know. Our courts seemed to be ruled by Captain Morgan these days, so you never know what you'll get when you start to litigate things.
The best explanation is probably that Flickr doesn't want to defend against any sort of lawsuit regardless of the merits.
Here's a few mainstream political images that *gasp* uses mickey mouse!
http://arttalksback.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b3d8d970c0112796d38be28a4-320wi [typepad.com]
Damn. Disney should sue!
Re:the parody exemption does not apply here (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, BTW, the Disney/Mickey ears are copyrighted & trademarked.
My advice is not to try to make them and sell them on the street. I wouldn't even sell pictures of them.
But if you want to put them on a picture of Obama to make a political point, it's Katy-bar-the-door.
Bush as Dracula in a French Dracula poster:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/a/T/bush_dubcula.jpg [about.com]
Bush in a Rambo poster:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushrambo2.htm [about.com]
Obama as Dumbo:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20dumbo/darthdilbert/Blog/obama_dumbo.png [photobucket.com] (this one should rile the faithful, eh?)
Bush as Custer:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/images/graphics/Custer.jpg [seedsofdoubt.com] (although the copyright has expired, so not a great example)
Making fun of the republican symbol (probably a TM)
http://kisrael.com/m/2009.01.23.dumbo.png [kisrael.com]
Point is, it's pretty well accepted to used TM'd & copyrighted images to make a political point. Does that make it legal? You'll have to talk to Captain Morgan to find out...