White House Claims Copyright On Flickr Photos 169
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.'"
Not merely in contrast to "policy" (Score:5, Informative)
> ...in direct contrast to official government policy...
In direct contrast to law.
Re:It would seem... (Score:2, Informative)
To my knowledge, the Feds are only allowed to restrict image use based on its classified status.
I thought use of the presidential seal was restricted. I've not seen the photos so I dont know if they
have it or not.
I believe that the Seal has a special status to avoid misrepresentation of official statements.
These images, on the other hand, are not currently involved with any sort of misrepresentation.
I also believe that the protection of the Seal is inherited from similar protection given to the British Royal Standard.
Re:Par for the course (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not necessarily copyright (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder how you're going to feel when he's facing a real crisis and does the same thing.
The bottom line is that this could have been handled better. Maybe not by Obama himself, maybe he would have needed some help but it still could have been handled better. And to be frank, I don't think we've seen the limits of how far this will go. I think there is going to be a backlash from this that is going to reach non-commercial ventures. Just wait and see.
Wouldn't a better idea be... (Score:2, Informative)
...using Creative Commons like they already are [whitehouse.gov]? Creative commons already states that on most of their licenses [creativecommons.org] 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.
Public Domain Software (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not merely in contrast to "policy" (Score:5, Informative)
In direct contrast to law.
Specifically: Title 17, Section 105;
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.
Re:Not necessarily copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Do you think this would have prevented Chia Obama https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next [chiaobama.com] or Obama Fingers http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,612684,00.html [spiegel.de]?
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.
Re:Par for the course (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:1, Informative)
Just to be pedantic (this is Slashdot, after all), the proper citation for the U.S. Code would be 17 U.S.C. 105.
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:The statement says nothing of the kind (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:4, Informative)
Something missing... (Score:3, Informative)
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 [usa.gov])
I wonder if any of those caveats apply here.
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:1, Informative)
There are groups that will give you a free lawyer to protect important rights.