Flickr says 'Obama Joker' image removal complied with takedown request

The now-infamous "Obama Joker" picture. Credit: Firas Alkhateeb

After a Chicago student gained national fame for editing a picture of President Obama in the image of the Joker villain from "The Dark Knight" and posting it to Flickr, some of the focus, especially among the tech community, quickly shifted to Flickr for removing the image.

On a site forum, Flickr, a Yahoo property, says it isn't banning accounts for posting the altered version of a Time magazine cover.

However, the company did receive a notice of infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, which sparked the removal, wrote Heather Champ, Flickr's director of community.

When asked who filed the request, Champ wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "We aren’t able to give that information out." Even the artist, Firas Alkhateeb, is left guessing -- though, he assumes Time was behind the notice.

"Under the DMCA, an individual may choose to file a counterclaim," Champ wrote in the posting. "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)."

The Times noted in its profile of Alkhateeb that his picture disappeared from the site shortly after we had found it and that Flickr had sent him an e-mail about the removal, citing copyright concerns. The potential of copyright lawsuits from DC Comics or Time magazine became Alkhateeb's primary concern.

In that same story, a representative for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends digital rights, said Alkhateeb has a legitimate fair-use argument for the image. Alkhateeb says he's been in touch with the EFF and plans to file a counterclaim.

"More than anything, it's a free-speech issue," Alkhateeb said on the phone today. "I really don't think it should have been taken down in the first place."

Many commentators online agreed and wondered aloud about Yahoo's ulterior motive.

"I don't know how this crazy game of telephone got started," Champ wrote. "I'm not sure how complying with the law has led to the idea that we (the Flickr team) have a particular political agenda."

[Updated at 2:55 p.m.: Added comments from Firas Alkhateeb.]

-- Mark Milian

Follow my commentary on technology and social media on Twitter @markmilian.

Comments

[Joseph Blosch]

Well it looks like Yahoo is supporting the Free Speech violations. Shepherd Johnson is another victim of Flickr's political action. I do believe it's time to stop using my yahoo email account and services at this time.

[mj loehrer]

The kid was a Kucinich backer, Palestinian, college student and from Chicago. He was not a white, conservative, tea partier. Guess we'll never hear about this story again. by the way, where was the hullaballoo when GW Bush had the same portrait paraded around; the Hitler comparison shown on TV and the blogs? Oh wait, of course, we're talking Obama-man. Shhh-don't say anything bad about Obama-man.

[rosenlundkv]

Thin skin is a problem with the Jr. President. This was more than likely asked to be taken by Axelrod for he has all of the media connections.

[Lewis Cunningham]

You'd think Obama was made out of glass the way the liberals freak out whenever anyone says or does anything against him. He's a big boy. He's not harmed by this. Get over it and let the guy post his picture.

Ultra liberal Time just had a knee jerk over protecting Obama's image. This wasn't about copyright or anything like it. It was purely teh fact that they have some power and their golden boy wasn't being shown in the best light.

Obama himself could put an end to this kind of stuff just by asking his supporters to stop over reacting. He won't do it though. He likes the chaos that covers up his own deeds.

LewisC

[john brown]

bad news gang

it was money. flickr tends to look the other way; when these matters come up. however time warners property was used to depict the president as the joker. ok np.

however sumone (whos still in the shadows) took that picture and posted it outsde of the net. again no biggie.

however two "bright boys" decided to make a profit off of the poster.

congrads

u just killed ur exemption to make a profit. smartest thing evar

[Eric]

Parody is covered under Fair Use, and since innocent until proven guilty, the altered image should not have been removed.

But since it was, it must not be a parody and Obama is secretly a serial killer!

[Thomas Hawk]

When asked who filed the request, Champ wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "We aren’t able to give that information out." Even the artist, Firas Alkhateeb, is left guessing -- though, he assumes Time was behind the notice.

Aren't able to give that information out? Or won't give that information out. Mark, did you ask "why" they aren't able to give you that information out? Could you have asked if they at least felt the request came from someone with a legitimate IP interest? Flickr has a history of responding to bogus DMCA requests and perhaps the reason why they won't give this information out is because they don't want to look foolish if it turns out that it was issued by John Q. American at 111 Main Street. That question should be probed harder.

[Thomas Hawk]

I'm collecting a list of links to coverage of this incident by the way. You can see this expanded coverage including links to all the Times stories here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/dmu2/discuss/72157621959329465/

[Barack Obama]

Unless you are Obama or anyone who personally knows him, who cares?
Unless you just want something to whine about.

[Tom]

Guess what? Flickr is a private company and not the federal government. Flickr does not have to bend over backwards for your freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with anything, images get removed daily. Liberals just like to bitch because its Obama and conservatives love love love love love to bitch because they somehow think they are losing all their rights because the other team (that was democratically elected) now have their turn at bat.

[Will Merydith]

Flickr did the right thing - they complied with a DMCA notice. It's the responsibility of the creator to file a counter claim.

Flickr has to act to protect everyone's rights not just it's users.

[YeahIsaidit]

It is amazing to me to see how all the "White" people are slowly but surely reverting to their true nature...when they were so previously scared of being labeled a racist, etc... Get over it, there is a black president, albeit a half black president, something you'd probably never understand. Minorities in this country have faced so many indignities from equal rights to discrimination, just because there is now a generation that has never had to live through that, does not mean it did not happen. Ask yourself in your truest heart what is your anger from, what is it really from? I think you know the answer....

[Kracker]

@YeahIsaidit: "It is amazing to me to see how all the "White" people are slowly but surely reverting to their true nature..." So "all the 'White' people" would mean that we are all racist? Not true sir, at all. And where in the article at any point does it ever refer to race as being the issue? Please, show me, or maybe your just reading whats not really there to be argumentative? Its a copyright issue, not a race issue. Time or the photographer has rights to the original image and Warner Bros.owns the rights to the Joker and "any and all likenesses" of the character.

[ieakuna]

When people make jokes, cartoons or comic's character about famous peeps,it means they'r very popular and loved(or at least liked).But if someone banns this kind of action agains particular person,means that,that person is not very popular,loved or even liked.This is my personal point of view.

[Jared]

It's not even a good photoshop job