6 ms·

Flickr yanks image of Obama as Joker

21 points by miked 17y ago

hughprime 17y ago
If true, they haven't done a very good job of it: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obama+joker&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obama+joker&m=...
vinutheraj 17y ago
This will become another example of the Streisand effect most probably - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
socratees 17y ago
Is this frickin China?
- kragen 17y ago
  Oh come on. When was the last time you heard about someone getting their stuff deleted in China over something so trivial as copyright infringement?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I think they're worried more about Time Warner claiming rights on the original than what the White House thinks. I campaigned for Obama and have no problem with the thing, in fact I thought it was clever political commentary even though I didn't agree with the sentiment expressed. For fun and japes, I made this: http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/1362354-remix http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/1362354-remix I'm sure within a week someone will make a joker-fication website that automatically gives any image the joker look (indeed, if I knew how I'd have done it already).
tjic 17y ago
This so clearly falls under Fair Use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- _pius 17y ago
  A lot of people don't realize this, but Fair Use in the United States is not a "right," but rather an accepted legal defense to copyright infringement. There is a difference.
  - ynniv 17y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyright infringement? The logical extension of what you're saying is that "Fair Use" should not be invoked until there is a lawsuit. AFAICT, there will never be a lawsuit, as Flickr preemptively removed the "offending" content. Since Flickr is effectively acting as judge and jury in a closed doors case that the defendant wasn't invited to, when does he get to use his clearly applicable "Fair Use" defense?
    - _pius 17y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyright infringement? Not at all, but your response betrays the fundamental misunderstanding here. It's not Flickr's job to adjudicate copyright disputes or have any "interpretation of copyright infringement." No, the point here is that Flickr is not infringing some "fair use" right. That right doesn't exist. The right that does exist is Flickr's right not to host the picture. If someone complains to Flickr that a user's image is infringing their copyright, it's certainly not incumbent upon Flickr to pre-emptively argue "fair use" on the user's behalf. If Flickr is truly concerned that the picture is infringing a copyright, why in the world would it be their job to absorb that legal risk on some user's behalf? If the user is so confident that it's a fair use, they can host the image on their own server and be prepared to make that defense in court, rather than expect Flickr to go to court and argue it for them. This is not to say I agree or disagree with the photo being taken down; I'm going to remain agnostic on that point. But implying that Flickr has to defend someone's mythical "fair use" right is nowhere near accurate.
      - 17y ago
msie 17y ago
So what? I've heard of television stations and publications refusing to show certain political ads. I've heard of a bus company that won't carry atheism ads.

21 points by miked 17y ago

If true, they haven't done a very good job of it: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obama+joker&m=text http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=obama+joker&m=...

vinutheraj 17y ago

This will become another example of the Streisand effect most probably - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

socratees 17y ago

Is this frickin China?

kragen 17y ago
Oh come on. When was the last time you heard about someone getting their stuff deleted in China over something so trivial as copyright infringement?
anigbrowl 17y ago
I think they're worried more about Time Warner claiming rights on the original than what the White House thinks. I campaigned for Obama and have no problem with the thing, in fact I thought it was clever political commentary even though I didn't agree with the sentiment expressed. For fun and japes, I made this: http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/1362354-remix http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/1362354-remix I'm sure within a week someone will make a joker-fication website that automatically gives any image the joker look (indeed, if I knew how I'd have done it already).

tjic 17y ago

This so clearly falls under Fair Use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

_pius 17y ago
A lot of people don't realize this, but Fair Use in the United States is not a "right," but rather an accepted legal defense to copyright infringement. There is a difference.
- ynniv 17y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyright infringement? The logical extension of what you're saying is that "Fair Use" should not be invoked until there is a lawsuit. AFAICT, there will never be a lawsuit, as Flickr preemptively removed the "offending" content. Since Flickr is effectively acting as judge and jury in a closed doors case that the defendant wasn't invited to, when does he get to use his clearly applicable "Fair Use" defense?
  - _pius 17y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyright infringement? Not at all, but your response betrays the fundamental misunderstanding here. It's not Flickr's job to adjudicate copyright disputes or have any "interpretation of copyright infringement." No, the point here is that Flickr is not infringing some "fair use" right. That right doesn't exist. The right that does exist is Flickr's right not to host the picture. If someone complains to Flickr that a user's image is infringing their copyright, it's certainly not incumbent upon Flickr to pre-emptively argue "fair use" on the user's behalf. If Flickr is truly concerned that the picture is infringing a copyright, why in the world would it be their job to absorb that legal risk on some user's behalf? If the user is so confident that it's a fair use, they can host the image on their own server and be prepared to make that defense in court, rather than expect Flickr to go to court and argue it for them. This is not to say I agree or disagree with the photo being taken down; I'm going to remain agnostic on that point. But implying that Flickr has to defend someone's mythical "fair use" right is nowhere near accurate.
    - 17y ago

msie 17y ago

So what? I've heard of television stations and publications refusing to show certain political ads. I've heard of a bus company that won't carry atheism ads.