Why Obama's Flickr Photos Aren't in the Public Domain
The White House is making unprecedented use of consumer web technologies but those technologies aren't always well suited to fit the government's needs. They aren't always well suited to fit anyone's needs - but maybe if Obama leans on them a little bit things will change.
Today the White House launched an official collection of photos depicting Obama's first 100 days in office on Flickr. The Creative Commons Foundation asks why these photos are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution (meaning you have to credit the source) instead of being in the Public Domain free for use in any context, as data created by the Federal Government usually is.
The answer to the question? The photos aren't Public Domain because Flickr doesn't offer Public Domain licensing as an option. That's a shame for every photo publisher, not just he White House. Creative Commons licensing makes it really easy for people who want to re-use photos to do so quickly and easily by allowing content creators to communicate their conditions for re-use ahead of time. If you just want to get your photos out into the world with absolutely no restrictions, though, Flickr doesn't offer that option. Or, if you're a government agency that wants to publish photos on the best photo sharing site on the web and make them Public Domain like you ought to - you're out of luck.
We're going to guess that the White House will be added to the list of selected partners participating in the Flickr Commons, where organizations like the Library of Congress have photos posted under a special "no known copyright" license. That won't solve the problem for the rest of us, though, and it's probably not a scalable solution for every government agency that would like to publish to Flickr.
Hopefully Flickr will be prompted to change its licensing options; other users have asked for Public Domain as an option for some time. We've asked the company for comment and will update this post if we get a helpful reply. Flickr's support for Creative Commons has been fabulous. The next logical step is to support publishing photos to the Public Domain.
UPDATE: Since posting this we've been pointed to an active conversation on Flickr about Public Domain, where we found a link to site co-founder Stewart Butterfield's explanation four years ago for not offering Public Domain as an option.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
We're doing something right if Creative Commons is now too restrictive.
I asked the guys from Creative Commons about this at SXSW, they said Public Domain cannot be enforced worldwide, so Yahoo [ Flickr ] can't offer it. Every country has different laws, PD not recognized everywhere.
Creative Commons has a CC0 license designed to provide a full copyright waiver, equivalent to dedicating to the Public Domain in the US and to waiving rights in other jurisdictions. This could be a good option:
http://creativecommons.org/license/zero/
Hey Marshall,
Any active Flickr member who has been in the conversation regarding Public Domain could explain the issues to you.
If you're interested in participating in the ongoing conversation, this isn't a bad place to start.
Thanks Kellan, I've posted that link as an update.
@AdamD, that's a really interesting way to look at it and I have to agree. It should just how far the world has changed in a few years.
I recently discovered WikiMedia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_page
They offer an interesting complement to CC on Flickr when I'm looking for blog post photos. They support public domain as well as CC, and I think partly because of that have a much better collection of historical and reference photos.
I think we're talking about two different things here.
1. Generally speaking, if an original photo is created using government resources, then in principle in the U.S. it is public property unless the government can show a compelling reason not to allow the public access to it. Flickr doesn't have anything to do with this. If a White House Press Office staffer shoots a pic of Obama and the dog in the Rose Garden, that image exists somewhere in the possession of a government agency, and if I as an American am persistent about seeking access to it *from that agency*, I'm going to get it (again, this is a general statement, and government agencies can drag on the process for a very long time indeed). The press office can upload the image to whatever online service it pleases, or upload it to none, and my right to images and documents created with government resources remains unchanged.
2. A problem is that what appears on the Flickr page and is stored on Flickr servers *isn't* the original at all, it's a copy to which Flickr becomes another rights-holding party as soon as the copy is uploaded. As a de facto international entity, Flickr's rights, privileges and obligations regarding the dissemination of content are complex, and it's not their job to retain or grant access to public documents.
If you want a government photo, go ask the government for it.
Well, if they won't give us public domain then they certainly won't give us Kopimi. Which is a shame.
hello buddy i read your comment dear this is very intresting way according to me he is young and he is so handsome so thats why
=================================
neil johnson
=============================
real estate-real estate
The Library of Congress has a Flickr account. Their photos have a "No known copyright restrictions" tag on them in place of any copyright. Couldn't these first 100 day photographs have the same thing put on them?
You wrote: "The photos aren't Public Domain because Flickr doesn't offer Public Domain licensing as an option."
That is not accurate.
Your title seems sensationalist and misleading.
Even though I'm not a lawyer, I can read the law: Copyright law is clear on this, the rights extended do not apply to these photos - as they are the result of official duties of the government. From the statute: SS101 and 105 cover it: "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties... Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government"
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105
It seems the Flickr tagging is simply wrong. No matter how they are tagged on the site, according to statute, they are in the public domain in the US.
Personally, I think Obama and is uppity uppity wife are too full of themselves.
RT
www.anonymity.ru.tc
There's a lot of grammatical errors on this article, editor sick with swine flu?
Note that if these photos are actually a product of the US government rather than an individual, then the license claimed on Flickr doesn't really matter, since the govt has no right to claim an attribution license -- they would be public domain regardless. On the other hand, if they are the product of a non-employee (for instance, if Michelle Obama took them) then they are hers to license as she chooses.
Why Obama's Flickr Photos Aren't in the Public Domain http://bit.ly/Id2W2 [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/1650357173]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
May 24, 2009 10:35 AM
Excellent work!
This is my first visit to your website, and though I've missed the date to enter your blog into that competition (by 23 hours!), I've bookmarked you for next year (you've got my vote!!). :-)