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.'"
Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how do you define "news organizations"?
Trying to define them seems like an infringement of Freedom of the Press.
Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:0, Insightful)
"news organizations"
As defined in the politics dictionary...
Anyone who donates more than $x to the current administration or has influence over y number of
voters.
x is defined as an obscenely large number.
y is defined as an obscenely large number.
This will all be forgotten . . . (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh, my Government owns it? No Problem Then! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to claim copyright on some images (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Copyright, yes.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
You vastly underestimate a politician's ability to burn through "hooker & blow" money.
Not necessarily copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hah. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at the actual statement on their Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/people/whitehouse/) you will see that they aren't making a copyright claim. They state why the photos have been uploaded (for news purposes—purposely vague I imagine) and then go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited—basically commercial use. There are more reasons that copyright to prohibit commercial use. Appropriating a person's likeness for advertising, promotion, etc. for example is not a copyright issue, but instead comes from privacy torts. There is no reason to believe that if the White House wanted to go after someone for using an image inappropriately that they would use copyright infringement as the basis for their case. The original article misread the language and assumed the White House was claiming copyright ownership.
Re:Not necessarily copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Government is a joke, so why do people want more? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wouldn't a better idea be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [copyright.gov] and walk out of the courtroom.
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Par for the course (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, both parties are equally clueless on copyright.
There's a good percentage of voters out there, though, who unfortunately believed that a politician groomed by the Mayor Daley's Machine would suddenly become a champion of human rights once he reached the Presidency.
Whoops.
It'd be interesting to hear what Lawrence Lessig has to say about this stunt, given that Lessig was/is a big supporter of Obama.
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
They [...] go on to indicate that certain uses are prohibited
Don't they need an authority (like being a copyright holder) to issue licenses like that?
Re:Par for the course (Score:3, Insightful)
And Slashdot readers continue their 100% perfect record of not questioning the summary if it says something bad about someone they don't like.
The actual claim on Flickr doesn't mention copyright at all. It says
"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. "
In fewer words:
- We made this available for particular purposes.
- You may not manipulate it.
- It may not be used in a way that suggests endorsement.
The second claim is wrong, because there's no basis for it, but the other two look correct. But there's no mention of copyright anywhere.
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:2, Insightful)
well there was a section symbol in there somewhere. Unicode-ignorant slashcode ate it.
"I copy mp3 music" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't a better idea be... (Score:2, Insightful)
> The issue is using Obama's likeness without his permission.
Tough. He's a public figure and does not earn his living selling his likeness.
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mark, I just looked at the site you've linked from your Slashdot profile: http://www.photo-mark.com/
Based on this link, you appear to be a photographer (unless someone is trying to impersonate you, and in that case I'm not talking to "Mark"), so I'm puzzled about your characterization of the Flickr copyright assertion made by the White House. It is true that the statement does not use the word "copyright." However, it is also true that declaring that a public domain photo can only be used by news organizations and cannot be modified is an attempt to assert "rights" - rights that we normally call "copyright."
As I've pointed out elsewhere (in this thread and in the article seeded above), the issue of using someone's likeness to imply endorsement is /not/ a copyright issue, The person who is the subject of a photo does not have a "copyright" to the photo (rights belong to the photographer unless there are other contractual arrangements, such as being employed by the federal government, in this case) but may have "rights" (as the USA.gov explanation details).
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:4, Insightful)
Couldn't you then sue them for knowingly sending a false DMCA takedown notice?
No, because I lack the finances to back a lawsuit.
Re:Left Something Out (Score:1, Insightful)
Common goose stepping stooge: if you question Obama suddenly you're nothing but a right wing kook. How trite. When are people going to stop treating politics like a fucking sporting event?
Re:It would seem... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Obama is violating U.S. Law regarding these images."
That's right, because the President of the USA never, ever, delegates stuff to other people. Every single decision in the entire Federal Branch is personally signed off by him, and him alone.
Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.
Re:It would seem... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes , the buck eventually stops with him, but I'll be willing to bet 10 bucks here and now that there are at least three layers of management between him and the person who actually made that decision.
So, the buck stops there, but he doesn't have to take any responsibility?
Would you like your cake in a doggy bag after you've finished eating it?
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
>>because copyright and likeness rights aren't the same thing.
Right, I'm not disagreeing with you on this. But likeness rights don't magically give you copyright rights on a work. If they say "no commercial use" on a photo, that is a copyright restriction, which they can't do because it is in the public domain. The likeness issue is tangential to this. There are commercial ways of using a photograph that don't imply endorsement. In fact, almost all of them do not.
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:3, Insightful)