That may well be the issue, but asserting copyright on a pubic domain photograph is not the proper approach. There are other laws that prohibit the use of a person's likeness without permission in an implied endorsement.
The administration shifted from a CC license in May 2009 to an acknowledgment of their public domain status. As @dsoltesz notes, the federal government cannot copyright its works: they are public domain upon creation, so long as the creator is an employee performing job duties. There are exceptions for work performed under contract.
Hi, sjames -- there are already laws that prohibit unauthorized use of a person's image in a manner that implies an endorsement. Copyright is not the tool to use to prevent unauthorized use, as copyright does not rest with the person who are photographed. And the instance of Obama and the billboard was an AP photo, not a WH photo.
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
Thanks! I did a Google search but everything I found related to the May decision to go public domain. I'll add your links to the article.
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
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
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.
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)
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
