Obama Gets His Gun

"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."

Except that all US Government works are in the public domain, and it says "Official". The White House is claiming rights they don't have.
 
the White House has warned people to NOT photoshop photos of Barry.....
not only are photographs taken by government employees during the course of their employment PUBLIC DOMAIN by definition....
but PARODY is covered by FAIR USE even if they WERE copyrightable....
F*** YOU WHITE HOUSE....
I shouldn't be, but I am struck by the stupidity and arrogance of such an attempt to license it in that way...

So, ignoring the glaring, amateurish legal error in believing that their license has any force in the face of the issues you mention, there is the matter that they can on the one hand ignore the principles of the Constitution itself, from which Copyright (specifically government enforcement of it) derives its force and hold people indefinitely without trial or even execute citizens without trial, while on the other believe that a principled stand on Copyright has any meaning at all?

Talk about detached from reality?
 
Nice!

BTW, isn't the shotgun muzzle pointed a bit low for skeet? Maybe he's pulling a Cheney. [rofl]

That's EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw the pic.

Also, since the muzzle blast is clearly shown, shouldn't there be some visible recoil around his shoulder? It should have pushed him back at least a bit.
 
That's EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw the pic.

Also, since the muzzle blast is clearly shown, shouldn't there be some visible recoil around his shoulder? It should have pushed him back at least a bit.

Soooo many questions... [laugh] [thinking]


[rofl]

90YDdm2.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw the pic.

Also, since the muzzle blast is clearly shown, shouldn't there be some visible recoil around his shoulder? It should have pushed him back at least a bit.
It's loaded with rock-salt so he didn't hurt himself... [laugh]

Were it not for many creative actions of the Secret Service such as this, he might have also started WWIII already owing to his frequent pounding of "the button" while watching Glen Beck...
 
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."


Did you all read this?

Don't worry, no one here approves...so the pics are fair game.
 
I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. If your tax dollars paid for it, its in the public domain.

Actually, you are wrong.

Copyright always remains with the photographer in all cases. A salaried photographer typically will grant a license to their employer for all images made. However, copyright lies with the photographer.

So, unless you have also been granted a license by the photog, all parodies are copyright infringement, and are fair games for a copyright lawsuit if the photographer choose to pursue it.
 
Good article on the topic:

White House spreads misinformation about copyright law

White House spreads misinformation about copyright law | Washington Times Communities

Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on The White House and Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing are not copyright protected. By law, standard copyright laws do not apply to photographs taken by government employees as a function of their official duties. Flickr acknowledges that these pictures are “United States Government Work.” According to USA.gov:
“A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties. 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.” (Emphasis added.)
 
Actually, you are wrong.

Copyright always remains with the photographer in all cases. A salaried photographer typically will grant a license to their employer for all images made. However, copyright lies with the photographer.

So, unless you have also been granted a license by the photog, all parodies are copyright infringement, and are fair games for a copyright lawsuit if the photographer choose to pursue it.

Its different when you work for the government. As has been amply cited already.
 
Its different when you work for the government. As has been amply cited already.

Was this a photo taken by a White House photographer?
Not trying to bust balls, but if the image was taken by a staff photog, cool.

I don't see a credit though. It is possible it was licensed by te White House, which is why they stated "this image is not public domain".

Either way, lots of folks are making this a way bigger deal than they need to.

Edit: after reading the "warning" I would bet that's the case. It sounds like try are listing terms because it may have been terms on a license agreement.

I would watch the parodies and posting of parodies. It would be a simple way for a photog to troll a whole shit ton of freebee copyright infringement lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
You aren't seriously suggesting that anyone OTHER than the President's staff could have been present at Camp David standing not 20 feet from the president, on a skeet range?

All I am saying is it would be an excellent troll by Obama to have the staff photog's camera handed off to his buddy who snapped the photo and is going to make a shitton of cash.
 
Flickr feed clearly credit Pete Souza the Chief White House Photog and creator of the Flickr feed. He's a .gov employee and from New Bedford, MA [rolleyes]

see Pete Souza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "not for commercial endorsement" part rings true because using someone's likeness for an implied commercial endorsement goes beyond photography reproduction rights. but the rest is just legal intimidation BS.
 
Actually, you are wrong.

Copyright always remains with the photographer in all cases. A salaried photographer typically will grant a license to their employer for all images made. However, copyright lies with the photographer.

So, unless you have also been granted a license by the photog, all parodies are copyright infringement, and are fair games for a copyright lawsuit if the photographer choose to pursue it.

no YOU are wrong, government employees, taking photographs DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT DO NOT HOLD THE COPYRIGHT IN THE PHOTOS THEY TAKE....
read the shit i quoted a few pages back.

and parody is NEVER copyright infringement because it falls under fair use.....
wherever you got your law degree and C&P degree, you need to get your money back 'cause they ripped you off
 
no YOU are wrong, government employees, taking photographs DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT DO NOT HOLD THE COPYRIGHT IN THE PHOTOS THEY TAKE....
read the shit i quoted a few pages back.

and parody is NEVER copyright infringement because it falls under fair use.....
wherever you got your law degree and C&P degree, you need to get your money back 'cause they ripped you off

Modification of an image is not "parody" If it uses any part of the original image. Think rappers who use samples of past works.

Read my post, I stated I did not know the photographer. I said "if" it was a private photog, their statement would be true.
 
Was this a photo taken by a White House photographer?
Not trying to bust balls, but if the image was taken by a staff photog, cool.

I don't see a credit though. It is possible it was licensed by te White House, which is why they stated "this image is not public domain".

Either way, lots of folks are making this a way bigger deal than they need to.

Edit: after reading the "warning" I would bet that's the case. It sounds like try are listing terms because it may have been terms on a license agreement.

I would watch the parodies and posting of parodies. It would be a simple way for a photog to troll a whole shit ton of freebee copyright infringement lawsuits.

or you could go to the white house flickr page where they posted the image and READ THE LICENSE THEY POSTED IT UNDER.

if you don't know WTF you're talking about, don't guess, that's how misinformation spreads.....
 
Modification of an image is not "parody" If it uses any part of the original image. Think rappers who use samples of past works.

Read my post, I stated I did not know the photographer. I said "if" it was a private photog, their statement would be true.

Fair use has a broad meaning. You are absolutely incorrect here.
 
Modification of an image is not "parody" If it uses any part of the original image. Think rappers who use samples of past works.
Read my post, I stated I did not know the photographer. I said "if" it was a private photog, their statement would be true.

"IF" my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle..... and yes, modification of an original image IS parody even if it uses the entire image....
please tell me where you're getting your knowledge of copyright law, because i'm a photographer and i know the law... and you have no frakking clue....
 
or you could go to the white house flickr page where they posted the image and READ THE LICENSE THEY POSTED IT UNDER.

if you don't know WTF you're talking about, don't guess, that's how misinformation spreads.....

Yea. And under the first paragraph in "exceptions":
"Other people may have rights in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Privacy and publicity rights protect the interests of the person or people who may be the subject of the work. To learn more about the difference between copyright and privacy and publicity rights, see the Library of Congress website."

So. There may be other rights in play regarding use of the image. What are those other rights?
 
Back
Top Bottom