
White House Makes Full Copyright Claim on Photos - AndrewWarner
http://themoderatevoice.com/62020/white-house-makes-full-copyright-claim-on-photos/
======
wooster
The second sentence of the disclaimer in question:

"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."

is clearly about "approval or endorsement". It's not saying the photos can't
be manipulated, it's saying the photos shouldn't be used to imply "approval or
endorsement".

Various information supporting the White House's position, including
references to case law, can be found here:
[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html)

~~~
jsz0
Including the _political materials_ clause is important. The official White
House photographer(s) shouldn't be doing press work for the next DNC news
letter.

------
autarch
Whether what the statement says is in accordance with the law is a subject for
lawyers, but it's quite clear that the statement is not about copyright.

However, it is written in a very weird way that attempts to imply that you
can't do certain things with the photo - "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."

Ok, that's nice. I could still print one out and use it to wallpaper my house
or wipe my butt if I felt like it, based on my understanding of the law, but
IANAL.

It also says that the photo cannot be manipulated in any way. I'm not sure on
what basis that could be enforced other than copyright.

However, the full statement never actually makes a claim of copyright.

------
falien
I would have thought that using the photos to imply endorsement ran afoul of
the law for reasons other than copyright.

~~~
thwarted
It may very well be that copyright is the only enforcement, or the most
effective, for any usage restrictions. People, like those at ad agencies,
understand copyright. Note that flickr only has Creative Commons and All
Rights Reserved options. There is no entry for public domain, nor for the
kinds of restrictions that the government would like to put on these photos.
No Derivertives is not necessarily strong enough to avoid implied endorsement.
As a citizen, while I agree that the works should be effectively public domain
(or copyright free, if there's a difference), I don't want to see the public
works I've paid for misused like are outlined in the OP.

The definition of "news organization" is technically in flux at this point in
history too.

I was wondering why this is just coming up now (vs since the whitehouse press
first released photos of the president). I suspect that the office of the
president was in a more respected position in the past, such that no one would
even think that implying presidential endorsement was a good thing to do, or
people just aren't offended enough about misappropriation of public content
that this wouldn't work as an advertisement. It was the Whitehouse that had
them take down the ad in Times Square. In some respects, I consider it
unfortunate that nothing is sacred anymore, but I can see where this would
lead. Where do you draw the line between commentary/satire and commercial use?

~~~
wooster
"Note that flickr only has Creative Commons and All Rights Reserved options.
There is no entry for public domain, nor for the kinds of restrictions that
the government would like to put on these photos."

This is not true. Please read the copyright status next to the image here:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4333446300/>

which clearly indicates the photo is a United States Government work, and
links here: <http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml>

~~~
InclinedPlane
That's nice. How many flickr accounts have the option to set "US Government
work" as the license for their photos? No one other than the whitehouse
account, so far as I'm aware.

~~~
wooster
A quick Google search shows:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos>

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov>

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/fccdotgov>

The usage of this copyright designation (which apparently has to be set
manually by Flickr) is described here:
[https://forum.webcontent.gov/resource/resmgr/flickr_best_pra...](https://forum.webcontent.gov/resource/resmgr/flickr_best_practices_guide.pdf)

Which is a US government document describing the use of Flickr for government
works.

~~~
InclinedPlane
So, out of several million (>10mil according to most estimates) Flickr users 3
of them have one additional setting available. This is roughly equivalent to
the EPA allowable limit for cyanide in drinking water, which is to say:
comparatively insignificant. For everyone else (>99.99997% of flickr users)
the only licensing options available on flickr are "all rights reserved" and a
few variations of the creative commons license.

------
hzzn
I only flipped through about ten pages of thumbnails, but as far as I could
tell every photo on their stream is accompanied by a link entitled _United
States Government Work_ which points to <http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml>

    
    
        A work that is...prepared by an officer or employee of the United
        States Government as part of that person's official duties, is
        not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no
        U.S. copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works,
        distribution, performance, or display of the work.
    

I agree that the notice on their profile could be worded better, but I think
they make the copyright status of the photos crystal clear by consistently
linking to that summary of the relevant laws.

------
DannoHung
IANAL either, but I'm confused about something here: Note that the licensing
link on the photos points to this page (<http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml>)

Should the paragraph attached to the whitehouse page flickr photos be treated
as an addendum to this page? If so, why not place the addendum on the page?

It would seem that the specific claim attached is based on the first caveat
listed: That of publicity rights of the the Obamas.

Since the Copyright terms page EXPLICITLY states that derivative works may be
prepared, my non-accusatory instincts suggest that this is really just poor
wording in an attempt to prevent further publication of these images, in whole
OR manipulated, for any advertising purposes without express permission by the
Obamas.

------
waterlesscloud
This will be challenged very quickly, and the White House will have to back
down. Bad move all around.

