Skip to comments.Flickr Removes Obama-as-Joker Photo
Posted on 08/19/2009 9:42:10 AM PDT by pissant
It's rarely a good PR move when a social Web site decides to remove a politically-charged image--the InterWebs get angry. One such case came to light today: A Photoshop mockup of President Obama as the Joker from The Dark Knight, superimposed on the cover of Time magazine, has been removed from Flickr. The 20-year-old Chicagoan who made the photo got an email from Flickr, which is owned by Yahoo!, saying the it had been removed due to copyright concerns. Plenty of tech pundits are saying Flickr was strong-armed by Time, Inc., which didn't like its brand associated with something so subversive. Others are saying that Flickr removed the image voluntarily because it was the subject of too much public controversy: the image has been mocked up into a poster by an anonymous third-party and plastered around Los Angeles. Pretty much everyone agrees, however, that the issue isn't copyright. (Below, the derivative poster.)
(Excerpt) Read more at fastcompany.com ...
Flickr removed the image voluntarily because it was the subject of too much public controversy
Translation: We don’t like anyone to mock our messiah
I actually saw a couple of these plastered to a telephone pole in my community a couple days ago!
The base image is photoshopped from a TIME magazine copyrighted image. They have no choice.
I wonder how many Bush-Nazi photos were removed from this site?
Agreed. All those Bush=Hitler/chimp/etc. photos are considered free speech and, as thus, will remain indefinitely.
The genius is the person who captioned it socialism and put them around
LA. Hope it was a freeper!
Not to worry. Pissant and other have many, many more. :)
my advice to those on Flicker,( I am NOT!)...is to contact Yahoo or Flicker and COMPLAIN vigorously!
No worries - there’s plenty more on Flickr:
There is something to be said for neutral copyright protection on all sides of any debate, and also for the right of a private business to remove any post for any reason, just as the owner may do here at FR.
Why so serious?
I would imagine that there are well over 300,000 copies around the internet presently. I’ve got twice over on my blog site. So they can remove as many as they want...it’ll just reproduce.
How many Bush/Nazi photos on Flickr? Take a look:
Zazzle is where I got my little stickers.....1 1/2 inchers - suitable for even currency if desired.
Wow. Disgusting double standard. I’m cancelling my account.
No flames needed. See post 19. There’s many, many more on flickr as well. Such as
The YouTuber that made the mouth and eyes of that image move to a real Obama soundtrack was contacted for copyright too.
I sent him the Obama as Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter image and he was afraid to use it.
If it pisses them off, we’re on the right track.
The point is were the same caracitures of Gw Bush held to the same standards.
Akkk you beat me!
Yeah....if TIME pulls the string.
See post 19 and 23. You are correct
Pissant, you’re proving our point.
The fact that Flickr hasn’t removed anti-Bush TIME covers is consistent with the fact that TIME’s legal board is acting (as a bluff, really) to threaten only the anti-Obama uses of their copyright.
If anyone had the time (and money) to fight TIME in court, they could win on this basis of uneven enforcement.
But since the offenders don’t want to risk calling the bluff, TIME rolls.
See Post 30, you are wrong! =)
Well yes, I understand Time’s leftwing agenda and biases. But Flickr is a big boy, with gazzilions more users than that fading rag.
“The base image is photoshopped from a TIME magazine copyrighted image. They have no choice. “
I’m not so sure about that. Isn’t parody exempted?
That’s nothing. I had my account deleted and my IP banned from Photo Bucket for having anti-Obama photos in it.
There was nothing profane..just the same gifs and photos we see on FR every day.
(456 items) on Flicker
Agreed. But the zero-effort way out is to simply respond to Time, delete a page, move along.
It's like "zero tolerance" policies are just an excuse for principals to not have to make difficult common sense choices.
Isn’t parody exempted?
Yes. For original works of Authorship.
If the photoshopper had started from his own Obama image, or even a public Whitehouse image, and even if they'd made it look like a Time cover as a parody, then he'd own the copyright[note].
As a derivative work, though, he has to have approval from the original content.
[note] Keep in mind though, TIME is in the mood to bluff, so they could still threaten them on that, and probably successfully again, even though the parody should win in court.
I had better back mine up.
So what about this one, typical hypocrites?
778 items with the title "Bush Hitler".
After crack that the Son of OBama made about the post office they should issue stamps with the Joker Face as you have presented. No doubt would be a big seller.
It is good to find out now exactly who the communists in this country are.
Yes, but Time isn't the subject of the parody. Lord zero is. Time is being used and portrayed w/o any element of parody applied to them. They are being portrayed as a common news org.
Their failure to uniformly enforce the matter with regard to politics implies they are a political organization, not the "press" org they're claiming to be. Just more evidence that they are first and foremost, a propaganda operation.
Yep... I just placed an order with Zazzle.com as well. ;-)
Time Magazine has had Obama on the cover SEVEN TIMES since the election (not counting Michelle).
[The frequent cover appearances led even Jon Stewart, a Bush-hater who was thrilled by Obama’s election, to quip Thursday night on his Comedy Central show: Time magazine is like O magazine, like Obama has to be on the cover — it is like Oprah magazine. I think he’s been on like thirty times this year.]
Bump for later...
While I understand your frustration, again, using the example of FR, there are many more anti-Clinton and anti-Obama caricatures here than the reverse. Our job is to win hearts and minds to our cause, not to expect a "Fairness Doctrine" from privately-owned businesses whose point of view is not necessarily supposed to be neutral.
TV news should be neutral or at least balanced, because the airwaves are publicly owned. But image publications such as newspapers, magazines and web sites are usually privately owned. Many small newspapers make no secret of their leanings, calling themselves the "Wazoo County Republican" or the "Yahoo City Times-Democrat", etc.
Time to use photobucket or any other photo sharing site...