4 ms·

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

by falien 17y ago

thwarted 17y ago
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?
- quant18 17y ago
  Note that flickr only has Creative Commons and All Rights Reserved options Apparently it's possible to put "No known copyright restrictions", e.g. how the New York Public Library does it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nypl/4058784908/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nypl/4058784908/ Anyway yes, use of photos like this runs afoul of a rather separate area of the law known as "personality rights". However to my knowledge these are enforced more lightly (and also less well known) in the US than in other countries --- e.g. in Korea, some photographers taking general street scene photographs in public places often get approached by people who end up in their shots and demand that the photos be deleted, get threatened with lawsuits, etc.
- wooster 17y ago
  "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/ 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 http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Well, it's nice that Flickr provides other options, but I only bothered to test my own account and I only see CC and All rights reserved, and there is no indication that any other option is provided or special exceptions are made for specific accounts. If I was downvoted, whoever it was, for not having access to the flickr account of the US government so I can see all the options provided to that account, I apologize.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      A quick Google search shows: http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov http://www.flickr.com/photos/fccdotgov 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_practices_guide.pdf https://forum.webcontent.gov/resource/resmgr/flickr_best_pra... Which is a US government document describing the use of Flickr for government works.
      - InclinedPlane 17y ago

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

by falien 17y ago

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

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?

quant18 17y ago
Note that flickr only has Creative Commons and All Rights Reserved options Apparently it's possible to put "No known copyright restrictions", e.g. how the New York Public Library does it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nypl/4058784908/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/nypl/4058784908/ Anyway yes, use of photos like this runs afoul of a rather separate area of the law known as "personality rights". However to my knowledge these are enforced more lightly (and also less well known) in the US than in other countries --- e.g. in Korea, some photographers taking general street scene photographs in public places often get approached by people who end up in their shots and demand that the photos be deleted, get threatened with lawsuits, etc.
wooster 17y ago
"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/ 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 http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml
- thwarted 17y ago
  Well, it's nice that Flickr provides other options, but I only bothered to test my own account and I only see CC and All rights reserved, and there is no indication that any other option is provided or special exceptions are made for specific accounts. If I was downvoted, whoever it was, for not having access to the flickr account of the US government so I can see all the options provided to that account, I apologize.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    A quick Google search shows: http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos http://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov http://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov http://www.flickr.com/photos/fccdotgov 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_practices_guide.pdf https://forum.webcontent.gov/resource/resmgr/flickr_best_pra... Which is a US government document describing the use of Flickr for government works.
    - InclinedPlane 17y ago