ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep Links

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep Links

White House Photos ? Does the Public Need a License to Use?

By hugh

ADVERTISEMENTS

The White House has recently unveiled its Official White House Photostream on Flickr, posting dozens of stunning photos by official photographer Pete Souza. In posting the photos, the White House chose the least restrictive license available, a Creative Commons Attribution license — which means the public is free to download, copy, and re-mix freely, so long as the original photographer is credited.

While this is certainly better than releasing the photos under the usual copyright rules (no use without permission, specific license and compensation), the license made us wonder: if these are official photos by the official White House photographer, aren't they government works? If so, they aren't copyrightable, which means they needn't be licensed at all, but should instead be flagged as public domain. (All the photos we've looked at were by the official White House photographer; however, to the extent that any are provided by non-governmental third parties, we've no quarrel with the CC-BY license for those.)

So we did a little investigation. As it happens, there is a kind of public domain option on Flickr. Photos in the Flickr streams of other public institution such as the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress are accompanied by text that reads "No known copyright restrictions," with a link to a page explaining that the photo is either public domain or is owned by an institution that is not exercising control over the image.

The White House should reconsider its licensing approach, and work with Flickr to flag these government works in the same way. This Administration is pioneering the use of the Internet to reach out to citizens — and part of the precedent it should set is a clear recognition that publicly funded government works should be free to the public, without the burden of copyright and licensing restrictions.

Flickr, for its part, should open up the "no copyright restrictions" option to the rest of us. As it stands, it appears that is only open to specific institutions. Flickr has been a pioneer in this area, and deserves credit for helping people put Creative Commons licenses to use. We hope they'll consider allowing the public access to the same "non-license" being used by the Smithsonian and other institutions, or at the very least add a public domain license to the list of options.

Full post as published by Electronic Freedom Foundation - Deep Links on May 01, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0029 secs (from cache 10/31/26 16:29:01)