MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Saturday, August 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 80.0° F  Partly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

White House warns:

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

White House warns:

Postby doppel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:44 pm

The White House seems to be saying Executive based prior restraint is permissible. I think that's a bad idea. It's just one more of our rights slipping away. Anyone want to justify this. What are they afraid of? Disparaging art? Political opposition?

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/02/White-House-Warns-Don-t-Photoshop-Obama-Gun-Pic
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: White House warns:

Postby Detritus » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:54 pm

doppel wrote:The White House seems to be saying Executive based prior restraint is permissible.

Really? The phrase, even as reproduced on Breitbart, says:
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.

I don't see anything in there about executive restraint. It's a standard "rights reserved" notice. Furthermore, if you go to the original Flickr photostream, you will notice this notice appended to every photograph, so it has nothing particularly to do with that specific photo.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby doppel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:42 pm

Detritus wrote:
doppel wrote:The White House seems to be saying Executive based prior restraint is permissible.

Really? The phrase, even as reproduced on Breitbart, says:
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.

I don't see anything in there about executive restraint. It's a standard "rights reserved" notice. Furthermore, if you go to the original Flickr photostream, you will notice this notice appended to every photograph, so it has nothing particularly to do with that specific photo.


The only photos anywhere on Flicker I could find with this wording were taken from the Obama White House website owned photos. Why state "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used"... if he isn't worried about future artistic or political uses. If he isn't trying to fend off future use, why use Flicker? Why not publish it on the official White House site, where under Federal law, images cannot be copywrited? Perhaps it is not true prior restraint, but this is a world class attempt at manipulation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: White House warns:

Postby Steve Vokers » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:22 pm

Goddamn it! Impeach him NOW!!!
Steve Vokers
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:58 am

Re: White House warns:

Postby DCB » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:34 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:Goddamn it! Impeach him NOW!!!

Skeetgate!
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby doppel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:40 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:Goddamn it! Impeach him NOW!!!


Impeach him now? That's a pretty quick rush to judgement. I say we just let him shoot himself in his own foot. And judging by the way he is holding that weapon, no skeets were harmed in the making of this photo-op.
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: White House warns:

Postby Detritus » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:42 pm

doppel wrote:The only photos anywhere on Flicker I could find with this wording were taken from the Obama White House website owned photos. Why state "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used"... if he isn't worried about future artistic or political uses. If he isn't trying to fend off future use, why use Flicker? Why not publish it on the official White House site, where under Federal law, images cannot be copywrited? Perhaps it is not true prior restraint, but this is a world class attempt at manipulation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/

You need to go back and re-read the email from your handlers. You're supposed to be outraged by the photo being "obviously fake," and you didn't even bring that part up. I recommend you read through the comments on Breitbart to get a better feel for the correct approach.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby doppel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:11 pm

Detritus wrote:You need to go back and re-read the email from your handlers. You're supposed to be outraged by the photo being "obviously fake," and you didn't even bring that part up. I recommend you read through the comments on Breitbart to get a better feel for the correct approach.


You are probably better versed in "correct approaches" than me. Sorry, I have no handlers(I realize this is a set up line- easy my friends). Didn't read any comments. All original thoughts(easy friends). Rather than just attacking "good ole Doppel" let's get back to the topic at hand. Specifically, why do you think this was released through Flicker rather than Obama's official site?
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: White House warns:

Postby Detritus » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:45 pm

doppel wrote:Rather than just attacking "good ole Doppel" let's get back to the topic at hand. Specifically, why do you think this was released through Flicker rather than Obama's official site?

Because that's what Flickr is there for. Are you suggesting that government should be doing something already accomplished successfully in the private sector?

Incidentally, if you look at the entire photostream you'll see that the photos go back to 2009, and that they are all marked "licensed as a United States Government Work," and they all have the same reservation of rights. Just to nip in the bud the idea that this is somehow new to the photo of Obama shooting a gun.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby Donald » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:00 pm

I think this is hilarious. The lyin' right proved wrong once again, after getting its bowels in an uproar. Obama said he shot skeet, and right on cue, the right calls him a liar. They demand a photo. So, the photo is produced, and now...what?... These guys are black helicopter believers, borderline paranoid schizophrenics, so, of course we're about to hear a couple of months worth of off-the-wall conspiracy theories ABOUT A DAMN PHOTO.
Last edited by Donald on Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Donald
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2329
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison

Re: White House warns:

Postby Stebben84 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:55 pm

Image
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby Detritus » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:07 pm

Stebben84 wrote:Image

PULL!
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: White House warns:

Postby doppel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:11 pm

Detritus wrote:Because that's what Flickr is there for. Are you suggesting that government should be doing something already accomplished successfully in the private sector?

Incidentally, if you look at the entire photostream you'll see that the photos go back to 2009, and that they are all marked "licensed as a United States Government Work," and they all have the same reservation of rights. Just to nip in the bud the idea that this is somehow new to the photo of Obama shooting a gun.


Until you pointed it out, I didn't know that this was released originally on Flicker. And yes, Obama's White House has been doing this with some photos since 2009. I was unaware of all of this until today. I do believe that pictures published by White House photographers should be in the public domain. Others are posted on the Official White House site. These could be too. If they were all posted there, under Fedral law it would be illegal to copywrite them. The Flicker restrictions would not be and should not be an issue.

I find no justification in restricting their use. Just because something is being done sucessfully in the private sector does not mean the U.S. Government should hide behind its skirts. I believe that Obama's lawyers have found another legal way to shroud the veil of transparency that he promised to uncover. Just because restricting their use started in 2009 doesn't make it stink less.
BTW, if you reread my original post, I never mentioned the word gun. I was concerned only with prior restraint issues.
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: White House warns:

Postby fennel » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:54 pm

doppel wrote:Until you pointed it out, I didn't know that this was released originally on Flick[e]r. And yes, Obama's White House has been doing this with some photos since 2009. I was unaware of all of this until today.
So can you at least admit your original post was really just so much flatus?
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: White House warns:

Postby Detritus » Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:14 pm

doppel wrote:Just because restricting their use started in 2009 doesn't make it stink less.

Who said that? 2009 is when the White House started making the photos available on Flickr. Nobody has said what restrictions there may have been before 2009.

Honestly, it forever baffles me what people decide is evidence we're all going to hell in a handbasket. For instance, 114 children have been confirmed killed by U.S. drone attacks since 2004, the majority of them in Pakistan (a country which is technically a U.S. ally)--and the number is doubtless higher since the Obama administration has chosen to label any male 15 years or older a "militant." Yet you come to us all hot and bothered about boilerplate text that the White House has been attaching to photos since 2009? Really?
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Next

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar