using a copyrighted material in satire or parody is allowed
without permission of the copyright owner. Which is why
Weird Al was able to make Amish Paradise without
permission (he normally asks out of courtesy and so he can
collect royalties).
Flickr changes tune over Obama Joker image
Summary
Flickr has adopted a less severe way of handling copyright infringement claims after heated debate erupted about a photo of president Obama modified to look like The Joker from the film of DC Comics' The Dark Knight.
Topics
The Obama Joker image still is widespread on Flickr. Screenshot credit: Stephen Shankland
Flickr has adopted a less severe way of handling copyright infringement claims after heated debate erupted about a photo of president Obama modified to look like The Joker from the film of DC Comics' The Dark Knight.
Previously, certain copyright infringement complaints were met with the removal of an image. If the complaint was overruled, the Flickr member who posted the image was allowed to repost it. However, after the Joker Obama case, Flickr decided to merely replace the image in question with a message, a move that means the discussion below the image is preserved, which eases republication if the removal is overturned.
The move illustrates the complexities that have arisen in the digital era where photos can be transferred and modified with ease. Copyright law is a much older concept than the internet, although it has been renovated a bit relatively recently with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Under the DMCA, a party holding copyright to a photo or other work can request that a website remove content posted by a third party that infringes the copyright; the website can avoid liability in the matter if it takes down the work in question when it receives the notice of infringement. The DMCA also includes a provision to allow the third party that published the content to challenge the claim.
The Joker Obama image was swept up in this DMCA process in August. The resulting discussion led the Yahoo photo-sharing site to change its policy on Tuesday.
"Upon receipt of a complete NOI [notice of infringement], the US Copyright Team will replace the image with a new static image that bears the following copy: 'This image has been removed due to a claim of copyright infringement,'" said Heather Champ, Flickr's director of community, in a comment.
The change was the suggestion of a Flickr user, The Searcher, and Flickr said it liked the idea.
The Obama Joker image was posted on the Flickr site of Firas Alkhateeb, who told the Los Angeles Times he created the Obama Joker image using Photoshop and a Time cover photograph. The Obama Joker image spread farther after somebody else created a poster with the image and the word "socialism".
However, Flickr removed the image after it received a DMCA notice of infringement, Champ said in a forum posting.
Among those to criticize the move were Thomas Hawk, an outspoken critic of what he sees as Flickr censorship and the chief executive of Flickr rival Zooomr. He argued in a blog post that the image qualified as a parody under the fair-use provision of copyright law, which permits some uses of copyright material.
"Whatever you may or may not think about this image and its appropriateness, the image would absolutely and unequivocally be considered parody, and parody has always been one of the most effective defenses against any copyright complaint," Hawk wrote.
TechCrunch's Mike Arrington said in a blogpost: "In the past, Flickr has deleted accounts of users who are critical of president Obama, but as far as I know, nothing like this was done to users who were critical of Bush. It's clear that the Flickr team wanted to take this image down."
However, image copying and modification permissions can vary according to context. While creating a parody from an image might be permitted under fair use, copying that parody might not be.
And there's evidence some original rights holders are not involved. Photographers' blog Photo District News reported that Time and DC Comics both said they hadn't sent Yahoo the DMCA notice, and that the office of the original Obama photographer, Platon, wasn't even aware of the controversy.
Hawk also quoted the DMCA notice Flickr sent Alkhateeb in a letter that identified the infringement complainant as Edward Przydzia.
Yahoo has yet to detail its rationale for removing the image, saying its privacy policy forbids it from discussing particulars of the situation. However, it did indicate politics were not involved.
"There appears to be a whole lot of makey-uppey going in the news and blogosphere about this event," Champ said in a forum post. "We very much value freedom of speech and creativity… I'm not sure how complying with the law has led to the idea that we [the Flickr team] have a particular political agenda."
This article was originally posted on CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 19 Talkback(s)
-
frgough3rd Sep 2009 -
I agree with that
And I am quite the Obama fan who disagrees with this picture's message. We can't choose sides on this issue dependent on who is being made fun of.
Michael Kelly3rd Sep 2009 -
RE: Flickr changes tune over Obama Joker image
How hypocritical of Flickr and Yahoo, it speaks volumes of their management. So much for their support of the 1st Amendment.
sswannus@...3rd Sep 2009 -
Obama Hope poster?
Are they taking that down too? Not only does it violate
AP copyright, posting it also violates whatever copyright
claims the artist has on it. Where's the debate about
that? There is no debate because as long as you're pro-
Obama, there is no problem.
AstralisLux3rd Sep 2009 -
RE: Flickr changes tune over Obama Joker image
Would anything like this have happened if it were Bush instead of Obama?
Gotta love "equality". Want to see hypocracy in action? Ask your liberal neighbor if you can borrow their "He's not My President" bumper sticker.
aureolin3rd Sep 2009 -
It did happen.....
to Bush in as major magazine. He was altered to look like Joker also.
Erroneous3rd Sep 2009 -
Deliberate Miss?
You missed the point. (Deliberately?) When this happened to Bush, there was no controversy. "Everyone" - i.e. the press - accepted this mockery as normal and good. When it happens to Obama, they have kittens.
Equality: Use taxpayer's money to fund pro-Obama-healthcare commercials, and then deny opposition commercials any airtime.
aureolin3rd Sep 2009 -
Didn't miss a thing.
The way things are if you are a democrate you can do what you want without consequences. If you are anything else you are either a racist, mean spirited, or wrong and you will be removed from office, tarred and feathered, then drawn and quartered and used as an example for future generations.Erroneous3rd Sep 2009 -
Revisionist History
If you do some research, you will see that both
side dish it out and both sides complain that
that other side gets away with it. You can
easily find cases of either side receiving the
treatment you suggest.
More directly to your point, I remember that
during the 2000 campaign, after GW Bush was
elected, after 911, during the 2004 campaign,
during the 2008 campaign that a host of
conservative/Republican pundits, politicians,
and main stream media bashing (without any
evidence) democrats/liberals as unpatriotic
traitors, etc... and without any consequences.
And they continue today.
meb994th Sep 2009 -
Probably the same thing...
My guess is that if a Bush parody had been posted and someone had sent in a DMCA take-down request, they would have taken the image down just as fast. Avoiding liability by complying with the take-down is very important to companies that host user-generated content.
Nobody has presented any evidence of unequal treatment of the two presidents...
sepreece3rd Sep 2009 -
Equality?
Duplicate post. Idjut javascript controls. :-Paureolin3rd Sep 2009 -
Equality
So, you're saying that the "it's OK to bash the Republican but not the Democrat" attitude is your idea of "equal"?
Do you even hear yourself?aureolin3rd Sep 2009 -
Payback
Some of it is payback for the last 30+ years of
Republican-bashing of the Dems. I don't agree with
the bashing of Republicans by Democrats, any more
than I agree with Democrats bashing by
Republicans. But, come on, Republicans (with the
main stream media in their pocket) have enjoyed a
huge advantage.meb994th Sep 2009 -
What rock are you living under?
The mainstream media is demonstrably - and more important, measureably - pro-liberal and pro-democrat. They regularly let Obama off on things that caused a furor when Shrubby did them.
The only "advantage" Republicans have is that most people don't believe the news any more.aureolin4th Sep 2009 -
But they didn't yell
Your comment illustrates a good point.
What does it say when one side believes in freedom of speech, accepts the parody and doesn't complain,
but when things are turned around
be prepared for the wrath of liberals descending to squash or overwhelm the discourse.
dlsweb4th Sep 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
