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.
anything that is part of news corp (Score:2, Funny)
anything that is part of news corp
There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Work for hire (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:There are actually several kinds of "law" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you don't matter and might as well not exist.
What? Someone has been telling you differently? Who was that - your mother? And you believed her?
"I copy mp3 music" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
well there was a section symbol in there somewhere. Unicode-ignorant slashcode ate it.
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: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?
Right of publicity (Score:2)
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual language is an assertion of copyright and is in violation of the public domain notice that is also linked.
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.
Moreover, the issue of using a photo of person's likeness to imply an endorsement is NOT a copyright issue. As I noted in the referenced article (doesn't anyone /read/ the links anymore?) better language might be:
A reminder that photographs may not be used in any manner that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House, whether the endorsement is commercial or political in nature.
Re: (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 organizati
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [flickr.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's most often how news is made - pointless recent events, with lots of drama added. Say something relevant and of consequence, and the newspaper has to take a stand or have trouble with someone who doesn't want it published. Say it without drama, and the public won't care about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>>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.
Which they can't do, because the photos are in the public domain. They have no ability to manage the rights on them at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If I find a public-domain photograph of you, photoshop it to show you using my product and then run an ad campaign using your name and likeness to promote my product, you know what? You'd get to own my ass in court, because copyright and likeness rights aren't the same thing. And, really, that's what this whole thing is apparently about: people are seeing "public domain" and thinking
Re: (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: (Score:2)
An interesting illustration of this case is Buzz Aldrin suing Bacardi over using a photo of him on the moon taken by Neil Armstrong on a rum bottle label. You're not likely to find a clearer case of a work by a government employee as part of their official duties. Anyway, Aldrin is a recovering alcoholic and was none too pleased that a liquor company was using his likeness to promote alcohol.
Bacardi settled, and while this may not have included an admission of guilt, suffice it to say if they could have g
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how do you define "news organizations"?
I don't see them as trying to define news organizations. The issue seems to be commercial use of the photos for product endorsement and that's what they're trying to curtail.
There was a time no company would disrespect the office of the president like that so I doubt it was even considered when the image use guidelines were established.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how do you define "news organizations"?
No offense, but forget that -- how do you define "copyright bullshit"?
This is what happens when the RIAA takes over the DOJ.
U.S. Code -- Title 17, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you define obscenely in this context?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll know it when you've paid it.
Re: (Score:2)
The bribes are big enough to keep the politician in hookers and blow perpetually.
Re:Does this fall under Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
You vastly underestimate a politician's ability to burn through "hooker & blow" money.
Re: (Score:2)
"The bribes are big enough to keep the politician in hookers and blow perpetually."
I guess we can safely force government workers (Senate, etc.) down to a $1/yr salary, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Not merely in contrast to "policy" (Score:5, Informative)
> ...in direct contrast to official government policy...
In direct contrast to law.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> Law has become something about which those in power can emote.
It always has been. Judges, however, don't do much of that.
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.
Bah (Score:2)
Oh, my Government owns it? No Problem Then! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You never did get me that tank, so I'm not sure I believe you this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is not true. The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway). This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.
So how's Disney going to screw THIS up for us?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is not true. The material the US government produces is not copyrighted, it is in the public domain (domestically, anyway). This means there is NO copyright holder and therefore no possibility of any license agreement with them.
So how's Disney going to screw THIS up for us?
For the time being, the US government is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney. So, for now, Disney doesn't care. I suppose they plan to cross that bridge when they come to it...
Copyright, yes.. (Score:3, Interesting)
But restrictions, no.
Assuming the judges aren't paid off ahead of time, the first suit will have this nonsense struck down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
Most of them do not. [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought use of the presidential seal was restricted.
Common misconception. There is actually no presidential seal; it was replaced by a sea lion in 1963.
Re: (Score:2)
It bugs me that I can't find it right now, but I'm certain there's a federal law prohibiting businesses from using the President's image or likeness either as an explicit or implied endorsement. So, not only does the law differ from what his administration is trying to claim, there's already a law to deal with the abuse that they're trying to curb.
I like Obama and I voted for him, but every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Obama and I voted for him, but every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver.
I don't understand this analogy. I use screwdrivers with sturdy handles to tap in small nails all the time, or to get larger ones started.
I might have a car one however, it looks like the administration is trying to move semi trailers with sedans.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I like Obama and I voted for him, but every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to pound in nails in with a screwdriver.
I don't understand this analogy. I use screwdrivers with sturdy handles to tap in small nails all the time, or to get larger ones started.
Okay, how about this one: Every single time I turn around, it looks like his administration is still trying to screw you with a hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
As a side note, I think "national security" secrecy is itself very often a way of covering stuff up that people don't want in public view for other reasons. Sometimes one reads of multi-million dollar scandals involving defense agencies squandering money. As if the money is even a drop in the bucket. It seems that most people have no idea what goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
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.
Par for the course (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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, ema
Re: (Score:2)
if the feds aren't making a copyright claim, then on what other basis can they limit usage of the photos?
There are a million other laws besides the copyright law that also don't apply. How do you expect me to pick one?
Re:Par for the course (Score:4, Interesting)
s/Democrats/elected officials/g
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: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.
Re: (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 rea
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'm waiting........
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're spot on. The article focuses on copyright, which as I understand is not the end-all-be-all for speech (which is what we're really talking about here, not copyright).
Talking about copyright is entirely missing the point. The full statement from the Whitehouse is:
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: (Score:2)
I do note that your link to the chia figures shows them currently for sale, so I guess he shrugged it off just as you'd have him do. Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it, but surely you don't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech, do you?
There IS a big difference between that sort of thing and trying to imply that Obama is either personally or in his capacity as President endorsing a product. Failing to clamp down on that would have some nasty legal and political im
Re: (Score:2)
Note that plenty of OTHER PEOPLE have made a big deal about it, but surely you don't claim that Obama should have denied their free speech, do you?
Of course not. There are very limited reasons where the government can curtail the speech of citizens and that certainly wouldn't qualify
There seems to be a lot of assumption that Obama wants to clamp down on people / companies using these images to prevent using them to make it appear that Obama has endorsed something. Firstly, that does not really fall under copyright laws, that would fall under fraud. Secondly, some time spent searching the net yields no clear cases of this having happened, except for
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the one in TFA, there's PETA [google.com], and a few fairly cheesy commercials I have seen on late night TV here (I have no idea what they're for anymore, I like to defeat the point of commercials that way).
A fair number of other cases going back to before he was even elected are named Here [bloomberg.com].
Since at least November (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
If the government uses someone else's copyrighted work, it abides by the existing copyright or negotiates the permissions and licensing as part of the contract... often, those contracts for work paid for by the government dictate the creator/author retains no rights and the work will be public domain. The purpose of requiring government works to be public domain is in part transparency and in part the fact that The People paid for the work and have a right to use it freely. Imho, contracted work should be
Government is a joke, so why do people want more? (Score:2, Insightful)
Public Domain Software (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> ...most contractors retain all rights to that software...
They don't retain all rights. The government gets a non-exclusive license.
The policy's intent is to preserve the incentive (Score:2)
If the government doesn't grant itself exclusive rights to photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities, then what incentive will the government or its employees have, to produce photos as part of their job responsibilities?! They need exclusive rights in order to recoup their investment without competing with knockoffs.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government doesn't grant itself exclusive rights to photos produced by federal employees as part of their job responsibilities, then what incentive will the government or its employees have, to produce photos as part of their job responsibilities?! They need exclusive rights in order to recoup their investment without competing with knockoffs.
I sincerely hope you're going for ironical subtle humor, because the government's incentive to publish photos is... to publish photos. They were _Asking_ for them to be used in things other than the Flicker pages.
Re: (Score:2)
> I sincerely hope you're going for ironical subtle humor...
Doesn't seem subtle to me.
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: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama, can't even pronounce "Corpsman" correctly.
The guy was a "corpseman", one of those guys from Monty Python and the Holy Grail who would yell "Bring out yer dead!"
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a partial copyright. Either the images are public domain and any attempt by the government to claim otherwise is contrary to the law. Period.
Re: (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