What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
141 Comments
- ThantiK, on 08/21/2009, -6/+141I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire - Ymeg, on 08/21/2009, -17/+118Flickr is a private group. You don't have any free speech rights when using their service.
- mdhenshaw, on 08/21/2009, -15/+76True, but the public has a right to know that Flickr is only suppressing speech they find offensive. It's obvious that Obama is off limits and Bush was fair game.
- spionkopred, on 08/21/2009, -15/+70Flickr are getting more and more powercrazed by the day and are inconsistent with their censorship. They were quite happy to keep a pic of Bush the vampire - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pantufla/114081011/
- mogebier, on 08/21/2009, -45/+90Liberals are the champions of free speech.
As long as the speech agrees with them. - uncertainty, on 08/21/2009, -3/+43I think he meant "free speech" as an idea, and not actually invoking the first amendment. Everyone knows that a private company can do whatever they want with their resources. That's not the issue.
The issue is that flickr is pissing everyone off by being biased and using the DMCA as their shield. There's nothing wrong with informing consumers about the companies they use. It allows people to choose which companies the public can bring their business to. Either the company changes or they fail. - spookyttws, on 08/22/2009, -2/+32While I actually think the Obama picture is pretty well done, I don't get the Joker-Socialism connection. If anything the Joker would want anarchy. Hell, the last thing he would want is a public option for health insurance. (well, maybe no the last thing, but it's up there- we all saw what he did to that hospital in The Dark Knight.) And if they are (VERY subtly) trying to say Obama is a 'joker' that's just lazy social commentary.
- vogelshock, on 08/22/2009, -3/+26Riiigght. Because the ACLU only champions politically popular causes.
- reaper527, on 08/21/2009, -11/+33i don't host any images on flickr, and now i'm glad i don't use their services. they clearly have a politically charged agenda here
- sinrtb, on 08/22/2009, -5/+26I am a staunch supporter of Obama and i will never use flickr again and will criticize any of my friends that use flickr. The picture was quite obviously political satire and what our freedom of speech was founded for. I do not have to agree with what you say but i do have to allow you to say it.
- FitteMas, on 08/22/2009, -2/+21The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. -David Ben-Gurion
- eleete, on 08/21/2009, -4/+21"And I don’t think there is a lawyer in America who would argue that Alkhateeb isn’t perfectly within his rights to create and distribute this image under fair use and parody defenses"
Someone clearly underestimates the morality of lawyers. - diskoh, on 08/22/2009, -3/+20No kidding. I LOLed at the last line in the article claiming that the image is powerful political commentary,
Only to people who have no idea what socialism or the Joker are.
The image is the equivalent of taking a photo of the blue sky and writing the word "orange" under it. It's completely arbitrary. - JohnnyHuh, on 08/21/2009, -6/+21I miss the old carefree and fun Flickr. It has grown too big for its britches and is trying to censor critics who actually have pretty valid criticisms.
- NoticeDesign, on 08/22/2009, -4/+19I am not in support of the decision. I think the image easily falls under fair use. But those are 2 completely different cases. The Bush image is an original work. The Obama image on the other hand has several issues of intellectual property.
1. The photographer who took the original image could claim infringement.
2. Time could claim trademark infringement.
3. The owners of the batman license could claim infringement.
Again, not that I think any of these are legitimate issues in this case, but nobody could even make a claim against the bush image. - Shadic, on 08/22/2009, -3/+17What the ***** are you on? It's a private website.
- tenio, on 08/22/2009, -1/+15but it is a company...we do have a right to "slag" them by not using their service....
- crossmr, on 08/22/2009, -5/+17sure they do, but claiming this is a free speech issue when it clearly isn't is muddying the waters. People have the right to be called on it when they spout *****.
- soley, on 08/22/2009, -3/+15I, too, am also a liberal & feel that Flickr was out of line here. If it's okay to do it to Bush, it should be okay to do it to Obama.
Digg me down if you must, but I find this to be a lot like most Christians I know. - inactive, on 08/22/2009, -0/+12I'd like to see absolutely everyone start ignoring the DMCA. I know that'll never happen, but it would make me so happy.
- Bigballa5412, on 08/22/2009, -7/+18People no longer read the user agreements?
Strange. Its all in there.
Seeing this article bring up the constitution made me shake my head in disbelief, Flickr is not the United Stats of America. Do we superpose our rights onto internet websites based in other countries? It's a ridiculous arguement, one that I cant help but sigh at. - rblancarte, on 08/22/2009, -0/+10Don't tell me that I can't slag them without being a hypocrite. Because that isn't true.
I am a democrat and Obama supporter. I think that the Joker Obama picture is disgusting.
If they remove the picture because of a legitimate reason (copyright or complaint), fine, no big deal. Show me the complaint and/or where the copyright infringement could be.
But if Flickr is removing it because of their support of Obama, while allowing like pictures of Bush (see Vampire Bush) to persist, then they are selectively applying their TOS, and that is not right, not fair, and really imposing their views unfairly on their user base. - EverySam, on 08/22/2009, -6/+16Here's Flickr's response, which I think is worth reading.
TechCrunch immediately dismissed it as an "excuse" without any rational argument against it.
<a class="user" href="http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/103784/#rep ... rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/103784/#rep ...</a>
---------------
"I understand Flickr is canceling accounts of users who post the famous 'Joker' picture of President Obama."
No.
Flickr must be compliant with all local laws within the 21 countries where we are. The Yahoo! Terms of Service in all of those regions outlines what the process is for dealing with infringement of copyright. In this intance, the Yahoo! Copyright Team here in the US received a complete Notice of Infringement as outlined by the DMCA (Digitial Millenium Copyright Act). Under the DMCA, an individual may choose to file a counterclaim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
Whether you love or hate the DMCA, that is a whole 'nother conversation (and one that really should include a glass or two of some frosty beverage).
There appears to be a whole lot of makey uppey going in the news and blogosphere about this event. The Flickerverse is a huge, wild and wooly place where our members come from many different walks of life. We very much value freedom of speech and creativity.
I don't know how this crazy game of telephone got started, but we sure have ended up in a unique eddy of thought. I'm not sure how complying with the law has led to the idea that we (the Flickr team) have a particular political agenda.
Please keep in mind our Privacy Policy precludes the team from discussing specifics of the action that we take. As such, many things that you hear or read about are just one (or in this instance many sides) of the story.
---------------
I don't have any trouble believing this. There's no reason to assume a sinister, elaborate political agenda or censorship here. The copyright explanation is much simpler (Occam's razor).
The reason no one's filed DMCA claims on any other pictures is because the Obama picture had the TIME magazine logo on it. It was much more easily recognizable as being based on a specific, copyrighted picture. None of the Bush pictures had logos on them.
Flickr cannot, legally, ignore a DMCA takedown notice. They either have to comply or file a counterclaim. The response above clearly indicates that Firas Alkhateeb is free to file a counterclaim if he wishes. For some reason he's expecting Flickr to do that for him, which is silly.
Everyone knows there are fair-use provisions for parody, but it is not Flickr's obligation to take every single takedown claim to court. There is absolutely no reason why they should be expected to do that. In case anyone hasn't noticed, Flickr is a free service. - JDoorjam, on 08/22/2009, -1/+11I'm a liberal and think they were probably overly sensitive here, and maybe even politically biased. I fully support anyone's right to host and distribute this image which I also think is stupid and distracting (... probably because it's powerful and evocative).
Careful with that broad brush there, Jackson Pollock. - HonoredMule, on 08/22/2009, -3/+12The DMCA can't require ***** when it's misused on invalid grounds. Complying with clearly illegitimate notices is either the height of laziness or cover for ulterior motives.
- NoticeDesign, on 08/22/2009, -3/+12I can not believe some of the comments here. Did you guys even read the article? This is not a liberal / conservative, bush / obama issue.
If you own a company and you are notified by someone's lawyer that something you are hosting infringes on their intellectual property you have 2 options. Take it down or pay a bunch of lawyers to fight it. What would you do?
A similar thing happened with Shepard Fairey and the famous Obama illustration. The AP claimed infringement because the illustration LOOKED like one of their photos. This is a photoshop directly on someone's photograph.
I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is TIME having a problem with trademark infringement.
If this were a wholly original work I would jump on board with you, but it isn't. Several people could claim infringement. Intellectual property is very subjective. I don't think this is a conspiracy. - wendymartyn, on 08/21/2009, -4/+12flickr has become a landmine of dont's coupled with drastic account deletion without defense or recourses for it's consumers. The worst part is the blatant favoritism and claims of ignorance regarding what the staff likes or enjoys, which any opposition to is laughed off.
- specsaregood, on 08/22/2009, -2/+10I just want to know who supposedly initiated the DMCA takedown request.
- Atario, on 08/22/2009, -2/+10Well, has anyone filed DMCA takedown notices on the Bush pictures? If not, then there you go.
Everyone seems to be missing the real issue here, which is that the DMCA is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys that needs to be repealed posthaste. - DrCyclops, on 08/22/2009, -0/+7I hoped I wouldn't have to come back and explain that the ACLU (in)famously defended the American Nazi Party's right to hold a march in Skokie, Illinois in 1977.
Clearly I was mistaken.
Bonus fun fact: The ACLU appointed a Jewish lawyer to the case. - digghasnoethics, on 08/22/2009, -0/+7Surely you mean "overestimates"?
- monodelasno, on 08/22/2009, -6/+13Flickr is a private corporation and can basically do whatever the ***** they want, within the confines of the law.
This isn't a free speech issue per se. - kanojo1969, on 08/22/2009, -5/+12I am a supporter of the left in general, and while I'm a bit disillusioned, I still feel Obama is a better president than anyone on the right.
Just so you don't think I'm some wingnut.
What I think happened, and I think techcrunch have missed this entirely, is that the DMCA takedown request never happened. All that happened is that some obamabot threw his toys out of the cot when he saw the image a couple of weeks ago, and at some point decided to excise it from flickr's servers in a fit of pique.
This of course suggests that someone who supports Obama is capable of such an intolerant, childish act, but I'm sure there's a few crazies on our side too.
So if Flickr wants the whole issue to go away, they will say that, and say they have fired his ass, and leave it at that. After restoring the image.
There's no way a DCMA notice on that image should be upheld, it's perfectly fair use if there ever was one, and the identical image and other similar are all over the 'net already anyway. - inactive, on 08/22/2009, -1/+8@Ajajadude
Yes it does. Parody laws? - Vodd9, on 08/22/2009, -0/+6If you came on a forum I had just created and I had fun editing your posts because you're retarded, do you REALLY think you could sue me???
- klij, on 08/22/2009, -2/+8"One thing I’ve learned over the years is this - screwing over your users while yelling “the lawyers made me do it!” rarely ends well. Particularly when the lawyers are just being lazy, and free speech rights are at stake."
i find it funny that this quote perfectly sums up something that happened on reddit about sears. - inactive, on 08/22/2009, -10/+16You know, I really am afraid this generation is going to grow up thinking that Free Speech is about being able to say whatever you want, wherever you want, any time you want and to whomever you want... and Fascism is when you can't.
- k3nnyd, on 08/22/2009, -2/+8Hopefully this just starts a giant photoshop contest using Obama pics having him doing every ridiculous and offensive thing you can possibly imagine.
- JDoorjam, on 08/22/2009, -0/+6Bottom line: if they did it for political reasons, that's disappointing. If they did it for copyright reasons, that's silly. As a private entity they're within their rights to do either, but it'd be nice to think better of them than this no matter what their actual cause.
- Focushon, on 08/22/2009, -2/+7reposted on another Flickr account, and still up.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613 ... - wshs, on 08/22/2009, -5/+10The DMCA requires them to take down whatever's complained about. They are not allowed to analyze the complaint to see if it has any validity. They are not allowed to care if it's fair use or not. Such is that ***** law. The funny part, though, is that someone sent a takedown for a doctored pic of Obama.
- inactive, on 08/22/2009, -1/+6This article did not bring up the constitution at all. Sure, a private company doesn't need to respect the first amendment. But when they start censoring *****, we're still gonna call them on it.
Also, just once I'd like to see someone get sued for a frivolous DMCA claim. But of course, that'll never happen because Flickr wants to see this image go. It's ***** ridiculous. - joshmoney, on 08/22/2009, -0/+5@turkeyssr
Coming from a family of gun owners and hunters who use guns responsibly, I am a very strong supporter of the second amendment. However, this does not mean I think that there should be no regulations at all. Considering the technological advancements in weaponry I think the ACLU has a pretty sensible position on this issue.
"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even sub-machine guns, are arms. The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide." - sageerrant, on 08/22/2009, -0/+5The DMCA is backed by the courts, which lands it in government territory.
Flickr was free to take the image down, but the Notice of Infringement was an abuse of the law. - pleen, on 08/22/2009, -1/+6Now, if only both the left and the right would adhere to those principals instead of corralling protesters into "free speech zones".
- Kadayi, on 08/22/2009, -1/+5Clear case of copyright infringement. People who quite clearly don’t understand such issues shouldn’t attempt to write about them.
Why was the image removed? Undoubtedly at the request of the copyright holder. It is not the responsibility of Flickr to make judgement calls regarding what is fair use, or to defend their users rights of expression. It is up to the users to do that themselves. The most Flickr can do is comply with the request as they are legally obliged to.
This idea that Flickr actively removed the image for political reasons, is a convenient fiction. Flickr don’t remotely have the manpower or resources required to actively approve every image that gets uploaded onto their servers given the size of their user base. The only way the system is policed is reactively. IE:- I in response to user complaints. A legitimate complaint was made regarding copyright infringement, they responded to it.
Why are flickr not removing copyright infringing pictures of George Bush? Is it down to political bias or is it more likely down to the simple fact that no one, not even the copyright holders of those images actually gives a *****?
Seriously, this article is an embarrassment to Journalism. - Kadayi, on 08/22/2009, -0/+4This.
People don't seem to quite understand that if I take a photo of George Bush and then Photoshop a clown suit on him I'm well within my rights, because I created it. This on the other hand is a mashup of others peoples work, and unless you've sought their permission to use the imagery then they are entitled to object to it. Its got very little to do with politics but a hell of a lot to do with copyright infringement (fair use my ass).
Undoubtedly there are people out there, making and selling T shirts, mugs and all sorts of Paraphernalia that utilise this image, all of whom completely bypass payments to the original creator. It's theft nothing more. - roger7178, on 08/21/2009, -7/+11Wonder what the odds are that it was removed on an anonymous complaint. What a crock.
- sageerrant, on 08/22/2009, -0/+4He did dress as a nurse at one point.
The subtlety in this piece is amazing.
/s - kinseyincanada, on 08/22/2009, -2/+6Flickr is a private company they can take down anything they want, its not like you can really get rid of anything on the internet, theres billions of places you can put a picture.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is