President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
from the copyfraud dept
You may have heard that, over the weekend, President Obama released a photo taken late last week with him and Olympic medal winning gymnast McKayla Maroney, doing the "not impressed" pose:
Cute. And, of course, nice to have a President not so out of touch that he's unaware of internet memes.
Except... as lawyer Venkat Balasubramani quickly noted, the restrictions on use are somewhat questionable. Beneath the photo on the Flickr account, it states:
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.This is, of course, not a new thing. In fact, we reported on this exact phrase on the White House Flickr feeds three years ago. As we noted at the time, there had been some controversy when the White House first started using Flickr in the early days of the Obama administration, as any Federal US government created work is automatically public domain. Yet, Flickr did not have a "public domain" license option. In response, Flickr actually created a special license to indicate that the work was a US government work. That license explicitly states that "anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws... create derivative works."
And yet, the White House is ignoring what that license says in claiming that the photograph "may not be manipulated in any way." That's clearly untrue under the law and a form of copyfraud, in that they are overclaiming rights.
But, in this case, it's especially ridiculous, since the entire reason the "McKayla is not impressed" meme became so popular was the memegeneration of putting her displeased face into various other images.
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: copyright, derivative works, mckayla maroney, memes, not impressed, president obama, public domain, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would hope the Presidents office has the ability to maintain his likeness for the use of promoting products etc....
Furthermore they shouldn't have to parse every photo and say..... this photo is acceptable in the use of promoting a meme.... but these here aren't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not correct. Photos produced by the government are public domain. Photos of the president taken by someone else are automatically copyrighted by the photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know that look
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you mean to be Ironic (Socratic even) or it's really total ignorance ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CREATIVE COMMONS
Maybe we need clarification?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we're going to cite IP cases here
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: "We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
I'm more suspicious of corporation motivations than I am government motivations, so I will periodically point out that big corporations aren't necessarily looking out for our interests either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Yes, and if Techdirt were a bulletin board, group, or Facebook page that's exactly what I would have done. But I'm not sure how to post stuff that isn't exactly tied to specific Techdirt topics.
As we dig deeper into politics and copyright, I'm always going to lean toward an anti-corporate position. As for politics, if I could get corporate money out of campaign funding and lobbying, I would.
I don't embrace the concept that private business = good, government = bad. As I have pointed out before, I like the P2P Foundation approach to the world. It is very pro-commons, but commons are often governed by groups of people, so it does involve government in a broad definition of the word. It isn't an Ayn Rand type view of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Here's the direct link in case you can't find it: https://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
Is Google in the pro-copyright group? I didn't realize that.
While the company does try to stay safely within the law, it has been my impression that Google has funded, in various ways, vocal opponents to IP protection.
So is Google pro-copyright, anti-copyright (and anti-IP in general), or something in-between? Or maybe it's taking all sides of the issue as a political tactic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
True, a company can be anti-copyright and yet pro-trademark, but I have seen Techdirt take to task companies that legally try to protect their trademarks, so I have assumed that it's a subject that finds some disapproval within anti-IP circles.
I'm skeptical of Google's IP purity in that I think the company would like to do away with copyrights because doing so would allow it to post content without hassles, while doing away with trademarks wouldn't have any benefit for Google.
I'll support doing away with various IP laws, but I am interested in it within the context of reducing the power of big business in general. Replacing Big Hollywood with Big Tech isn't my goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
It's trademark bullying that gets disapproval. The examples of companies appropriately protecting their trademarks I would think just aren't very interesting, so we don't hear about them much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're going to cite IP cases here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be accurate, a "work of the United States Government", which is excluded from copyright, is limited to works prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.
Moreover, while copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government, the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
It is thus important to ascertain the relationship of the photographer to the US Government and the circumstances under which the photograph was made. If copyright does pertain, it is possible that the limitation associated with the photograph is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that clears it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
BTW, I did not originally comment to be critical of the article here, but only to point out that not everything emanating from the USG is necessarily within the public domain. For example, it is doubtful that the "works" of elected officials are governed by Section 105 of the Copyright Act because they are neither officers nor employees of the US Government. I can think of many names with which I associate elected officials, many not at all complimentary, but officers and employees are not among them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently you DO....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I told you so...
And they say this president doesn't care about the U.S. Constitution. Here is proof that he looks at it at least once a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://cheezburger.com/6792392192
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[i]The White House has recently unveiled its Official White House Photostream on Flickr, posting dozens of stunning photos by official photographer Pete Souza. In posting the photos, the White House chose the least restrictive license available, a Creative Commons Attribution license — which means the public is free to download, copy, and re-mix freely, so long as the original photographer is credited. [/i]
Is Techdirt against the photographer being acknowledged if a photo is used. Isn't this one of the few if any examples of a photo that would be manipulated. Is it now worthy of vilifying them for wanting the Photographers name listed whenever republished.... and they failed to waive that request once on a photo that unlike other photos will most likely be heavily remixed???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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. "
Which is NOT Creative Commmons, despite whatever box they may have checked, and
B) Understand that all photos of a sitting US President are PUBLIC DOMAIN and they cannot restrict usage by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The story is that the claim, stated by a government employee, is wrong and falls into the copyfraud part of copyright law - claiming rights you do not have.
Since the work was created by a government employee as part of their official duties, it is automatically a public domain image, and no one, not even the government or the photographer can make any claim over it.
Techdirt is not villifying anyone for wanting the photographer credited - TD is saying that claiming such a right on a public domain work is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're just wrong. Did you go to the VERY FIRST link?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8191317327/in/photostream
It very clearly says "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way" among other things. They do not have the right to prevent people from manipulating the photo. When they say "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" they might be on firmer ground, but that would hold true whether or not they said so on the photograph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Memes do not follow any of those catagories. Making a meme of this photograph is not a political statement, it's political satire, which is clearly missing from the statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not if the image is public domain. If it is public domain, then anyone, anywhere, can use it for anything they damn well please without fear of the government or the photographer being able to stop them on copyright grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On copyright grounds, yes. But if they used it to actually say the President ENDORSED something (and I'm not talking about a meme screenshot) that would violate the President's rights which have nothing to do with copyright. Like, Wheaties can't just put the picture on their cereal boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml
"It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:
•reproduce the work in print or digital form;
•create derivative works;
•perform the work publicly;
•display the work;
•distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McKayla Maroney Who?
I must have a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]