Does The White House Have Any Legal Right To Demand No Modifications To Its Photos?
from the doesn't-appear-that-way dept
You may recall earlier this year that there was a fair bit of controversy when the White House started putting photos up on Flickr. Or, rather, there was controversy over the licensing. Everyone thought it was great that the White House would have its own Flickr channel and constantly post photos -- but since Flickr only had certain licensing options that you could put on a photo, there was a problem. Even though the White House chose a Creative Commons Attribution license at the time, that was still too much. Government documents are not covered by copyright, and the photos clearly should be public domain. After a bit of back-and-forth, Flickr created a special public domain license so the White House could properly designate the photos.And yet... it appears that the White House is now trying to claw back some rights over these photos that it just doesn't have. Tim Lee points out that along with these officials photos is a licensing claim that goes well beyond the public domain, stating:
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.The problem is the White House has no right to say that you can't manipulate the photo, since the photo is public domain. It's really unfortunate that, once again, we're seeing how little people seem to understand (or value) the public domain.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: obama, photos, public domain, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I disagree.
I disagree. This is probably a case of smart people who understand know little people understand about the public domain, and are using that knowledge in their attempt to keep people from doing things that they wouldn't like with those photos.
I wouldn't assume that the people who posted that notice don't actually understand public domain until I see them file a lawsuit when someone does exercise their rights and use those photos in an attention-getting way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree.
1) It's wrong. They don't have the right to prevent such activity. (And any lawsuit would find the same.)
2) It only further complicates the issues of Copyright and Public Domain to a public which already has enough trouble in that area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I disagree.
Public domain is simply a pair of words used to describe the non-space and non-rights of the public at large. Your gov (by corporations, for corporations) owns it all--and if you disagree hard enough they'll send cops/FBI/CIA/Guantomo Bay guards/National Guard (other, etc, ad nauseaum) and physically force you to see it their way. Face it, if you live in the USA then you live in a fascist republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I disagree.
I disagree with the sentence that I highlighted, which seems to conclude that this notice was added by people who don't understand the law. I disagree. I think it's probable that they understand the law and are just taking advantage of the fact that Joe Sixpack does not understand the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree.
I agree. It looks like a pretty obvious case of copyfraud by the Obama administration to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they'll dust it off and show it around, let the people get a good look at their past achievements. Unless it breaks INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY laws. Then that small slice of human culture should remain locked down.
People might share it. Can't have that. Shouldn't share culture. It isn't right.
It isn't proper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHAHA. Totally incorrect. The fact that this is coming from the top however, is pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum."
1. This country is RIFE with radical and authoritarian nationalism: All that Buy American, love the American Way, You're either with us or against us, flag waving rah rah rah bullshit is THE definition of nationalism.
2. I can't believe someone who has exhibited intelligence in the past would argue that we don't have a corporatist economic system.
3. Even with the Dems now in power, we're still on the far right of the spectrum in terms of global politics. And I mean FAR right. Plus, if you're like me you believe that the whole Democrat vs. Republican is simply a control mechanism created solely for public consumption.
Sorry to disagree again, but we're a fascist nation, no two ways about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat. Wikipedia has slathered the definition up with some post-modern philosophizing, but the classic definition of fascism includes true authoritarianism which requires a single dictator a la Hitler / Mussolini / that dude in Spain who ruled until the 70's that I can't remember right now.
If the PotUS has absolute power without being beholden to the congress or SCoTUS, then they make a pretty good show of covering up the process.
That's not to say I want to blow sunshine up anyone's CEO, on the contrary, we do give all appearances of being a Corporate Republic (by large corporations, for large corporations). When Congress talks about the People they seem to talk about "consumers" a lot more than they talk about "citizens" these days... to me that's the tip-off.
There is a lot similar to fascism in the way things are run, but it doesn't come off as fascism as defined in the classic sense. We would need someone like The Helmet to abscond with the Presidency and dissolve (i.e. replace) an elected congress and the SCotUS before we reach that pinnacle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Close, but incorrect. The definition requires authoritarian rule by a single or SMALL NUMBER of individuals. And there is nothing in ANY of the definitions that require that ruler or rulers be known to the ruled. Fascism dressed up as democracy is not only still fascism, but is probably the most effective form of it.
"If the PotUS has absolute power without being beholden to the congress or SCoTUS, then they make a pretty good show of covering up the process."
That'd be impossible. Instead, perhaps those truly in power control it all and allign their pawns so that it appears that the people are well represented by adversarial parties (Dems vs. Reps that essentially are the same are another example).
"we do give all appearances of being a Corporate Republic..."
Benito Mussolini famously said that the key to fascism was the convergence of state and industry, and that the early stages of fascism would better be called corporatism. With the Axis powers, the state ended up controlling industry. No where does it say that industry controlling the state would result in any difference.
"but it doesn't come off as fascism as defined in the classic sense."
No, it doesn't "come off" that way, because we're constantly bombarded with the idea that we're free. We're not. Sorry.
"We would need someone like The Helmet to abscond with the Presidency and dissolve (i.e. replace) an elected congress and the SCotUS before we reach that pinnacle."
You're joking, and it's funny, but that isn't the way it would be done anymore. Lessons were learned from the early part of the century. You don't dissolve anymore, because that draws too much attention. You simply take over. I've suggested books in the past. I suggest reading them. You might not completely agree with them or me, but they're well sourced and they might change how you think to one degree or another....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would also still argue that the reality of corporations controlling the government does not fall into the original context of a state/authoritarian controlled economy that defined fascism.
Call me a Grammar Nazi, as that's the role I'm playing here. All I'm saying is that it is because of the images the word "fascist" conjures, calling the current method of government pandering to corporations "fascist" would mislead the common, somewhat educated person who would be looking for a pronounced dictator to verify the claim of "fascism".
The word fascism carried with it a certain... I don't know... penchant (in the past before it was over-used) for creating a "moral panic", and thus it was favored by the hippies and follow on practitioners of modern liberalism (I'm not identifying "The Democratic Party" here... not by a long shot).
However I think the modern practice deserves a better, more precise word/term to define its nature. If we need a term that evokes more loathe than "Corporate Republic", perhaps "Shadow Government Fuck The Little Guy Raporism" would suffice? I'm not that great of a wordsmith, however.
I also agree with Lobo's assessment of the President being more image and puppet than executive or even CIC.
We do both agree that it is a small number of people who wield true power in government, and they don't seem to play for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Free your mind, your ass will follow". Live free as best you can no matter where you live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care about the afore mentioned images. Fascism is a word, and it has a definition. I've yet to hear any reason why that definition wouldn't apply to American today (other than maybe we aren't far enough to the right end of the spectrum, something I just don't agree with). In Fascism, the state and industry are one. That applies to the States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state" (Rao, B. V. History of Modern Europe Ad 1789-2002. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2006. p. 215). A corporate state is one with a political culture of corporatism in which the corporate group is the basis of the state, as exemplified and developed by Benito Mussolini.
That sounds a lot like what we have today. So, are you really trying to say that Mussolini wasn't a fascist by your standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom.
Check.
...which requires a single dictator a la Hitler / Mussolini / that dude in Spain who ruled until the 70's that I can't remember right now.
Nope, that's a dictatorship. Now a dictatorship can also be fascist, but the two terms are not interchangeable. However, speaking of Mussolini, Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state".
Check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, and you've got something on your helmet there.
Oh and on number 3 you're just completely wrong. Like WAY wrong. Except for the last sentence, yeah that's about it.
Like I said earlier, we swing back and forth from fascism to socialism and are currently a really ugly interspecial thing that probably should cover its face with dark, opaque head gear - oh uh, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe this is just one of those things we'd have to disagree on then, because I sure as hell do. Even most folks in government will generally agree that we are a relatively conservative people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, not on the far right. If we really wanted to talk reality, then we're probably fairly central and swing back and forth in a really odd, sort of extremist way that defies the notion of what is a moderate.
I'll only disagree with you on odd days of the week, but I reserve the right to determine which those are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, I see the problem, you're talking about our median score on the spectrum (which, btw, is probably the right measure of what I said), when I'm looking at us based on our mean political spectrum score throughout the world. In other words, no we're not far right if you take the most right/left examples throughout history and call that the spectrum. My spectrum is more about averages in the world, and chops off the outliers (like most good statistics do). In which case I stand by what I said.
"No, not on the far right. If we really wanted to talk reality, then we're probably fairly central and swing back and forth in a really odd, sort of extremist way that defies the notion of what is a moderate."
But does that actually happen, or are we fooled into thinking so with pretty words like republican and democrat? I'm not so sure I see a great deal of difference during these idealogical "changes". More so I simply see the steady march forward. I have my suspicians as to who is behind this, but they're extreme enough that most folks laugh, which is their right of course.
"I'll only disagree with you on odd days of the week, but I reserve the right to determine which those are."
Heh, fair enough, but all of my days are odd, so I'm not sure how much that helps me ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The photos may be "public domain", but the people in them are NOT. They have the right to control their image, and the use of their image and likeness. So no matter how much the images themselves are in the public domain, you cannot scrub off the rights of the people appearing in them.
It's two different things, and sort of indicates that you might not truly understand everything that goes into image rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While he may be the President, he still has the same rights that your or I have when it comes to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The photograph may not be manipulated in any way..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I invite you to look at this image from the White House Flickr stream. Please point out the living person whose likeness is being controlled by the licensing statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, that was awesome, but only becuase I read your comment first and tried to figure out what could possibly be in that photo that would infringe on Larry King's personage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that does not change the fact that the photos are public domain and can, in fact, be modified.
They have the right to control their image, and the use of their image and likeness.
That is not quite true under US law. It depends on the situation and the state, but for the most part, they DO NOT have unique control over their image and likeness. Depending on the local laws, they may have control, especially in commercial situations, but the license goes significantly beyond that.
So no matter how much the images themselves are in the public domain, you cannot scrub off the rights of the people appearing in them.
Right. Nor do you get to make up non-existent "image rights" that do not exist within the law, as you appear to have done. There are state-level publicity rights issues, but a blanked claim by the White House is simply incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are right, celebrities and public figures do not have unique control over their images. Tabloids can snap whatever images they want and run it, however unflattering. BUT, i think you will find that the celebrity/public figure can protect their image with regards to product endorsements.
I can't just take a picture of Michael Jordan, stick it next to my hypothetical new line of shoes and pass it off as a protected use.
I agree the pictures are public domain, but i think the right asserted to limit the image use in "commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President" is correct. You can still use the images for whatever purpose, including commerce and satire, but you can't put it next to a product to suggest an endorsement. I feel that's reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So no matter what kind of crap you want to make up, we already HAVE scrubbed those 'rights', or more specifically THEY scrubbed those rights (namely the right to privacy) when they decided to be public figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure there are lots of people who with that were true, but it isn't. At least not in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or perhaps copyright isn't the only right involved?
And in the case of photos featuring identifiable people, you also need a 'model release' from the subject of the photo for some uses.
And this all has nothing to do with copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or perhaps copyright isn't the only right involved?
They're tired of all the adds about what Obama wants you to do, especially the ones that crowd their Facebook pages where they get all their important decisions made.
HOWEVER, the existing laws already cover this and they are using the verbiage of the blurb, or as I like to say, the blurbiage, to tack on MORE rights that they DON'T have - namely telling you that you can't 'manipulate it in any way' and by saying it's "ONLY" for the "News Organizations" which obviously they intend at some point to exclude FOX (mostly sarcasm there I think, but not totally sure).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or perhaps copyright isn't the only right involved?
But that does mean that they cannot be modified, as the White House is claiming with these photos.
And in the case of photos featuring identifiable people, you also need a 'model release' from the subject of the photo for some uses.
"Some" uses, not all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you nbot paying attention Mike?
In particular they are only saying you can not suggest official approval or endorsement of any modifications. As long as you don't imply such, you can stil do as you please with the photographs. They are still public domain.
They are just covering their legal obligations, not expanding copyright. After all, it is illegal to 'impersonate' a government official, they're just clarifying the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you nbot paying attention Mike?
"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..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you nbot paying attention Mike?
AND THAT to say nothing of "being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." which, contrary to your empty assertion, most certainly asserts both copyright and license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moreover, note that the statute does recognize that the USG may hold copyright in works transferred to it by assignment, bequest or devise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, there is that little "United States Government Work" bit right on the page there, now isn't there? So why, other than having the natural inclination of a copyright shill, would you suggest otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bored
Mike, can you post something a bit more upbeat, where it actually looks like people of our like-mindedness are winning the fight, instead stories of the Internet being fought over at by people who know nothing about technology?
Is anyone else getting far too depressed reading Techdirt arcticle after Techdirt article?
This is by no means a troll, but I am honestly wondering why I come here to read these stories; I see no light at the end of the tunnel, just illogical acts being made into law and whatnot.
What I mean to say is, if I want to be depressed when reading an article, I'll just go to CNN!
:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bored
Heh. We do post "upbeat" articles pretty frequently, of content creators who get it and are doing well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DUH, No story here, you should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil Disobediance
Anyway. Folks who are crying about how wrong this is, I invite you to put up or shut up. I have. The White House; you have my email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]