Quantcast

OBAMA LAWYERS TO LIMIT COMMERCIAL USE OF PRESIDENT IMAGE

I am simply fascinated by this new claim that Obama is actually intellectual property that requires regulation. I guess the lawyers will try to trademark the slogan, 'Yes, we can' in order to maintain exclusive rights. They will of course be competing with, Bob the Builder. You cannot copyright a slogan or phrase but you can trademark it. This will be interesting how they limit free speech and the Free Market. Law suits will follow and we will have to create brand new department simply to monitor the use of anything Obama. Law suits will also pour in, claiming that their rights to Free Speech have been violated. This is the beginning folks of shutting down our First Amendment rights.

Interesting fact: Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation.

ARTICLE:
Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama’s popularity makes him a marketer’s dream. Now, the honeymoon may be over for those trying to profit from his appeal.

White House lawyers want to control the use of the president’s image, recognizing the worldwide fascination about Obama’s election, First Amendment free-speech rights and easy access to videos and photos on the Web.

“Our lawyers are working on developing a policy that will protect the presidential image while being careful not to squelch the overwhelming enthusiasm that the public has for the president,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Obama’s calls for change and his “Yes We Can” campaign mantra are being evoked to sell assembly-required furniture in Ikea’s “Embrace Change” marketing campaign, bargain airfares during Southwest Airlines Inc.’s “Yes You Can” sale and “Yes Pecan” ice cream at Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. shops.


inc sale pecan ice cream ben jerrys homemade inc shops
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • StarrGazerr 2009/02/02 01:54:01 (edited)
    StarrGazerr
    +11
    They are trying to limit the use of the President's image in situations where it may be implied that the President is endorsing a particular product. This is not at all a First Amendment issue, but simply a matter of fair use. As you point out, Ikea is using his image to sell furniture. By implying that the President of the United States is endorsing a furniture line they are violating the fair use provisions of the Copyright act. It would be no different than using a picture of Derek Jeter in an Ikea ad and implying that he endorsed the furniture.

    You should also note that this is nothing new. The White House has always taken steps to limit exploitation of the image of the President. From the same Bloomberg article: "The White House through the years has objected to commercial use of presidential faces, such as footage of President George H.W. Bush in a Cold War-themed 1989 television ad for cold medication."

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • prinzessin 2009/02/05 02:58:20
    prinzessin
    +1
    Individuals still have individual rights to their own image and uniqueness including intellectual property, i.e. slogans, wherupon Madison Ave was made. You don't research your facts and perspectives very well. Would you like something of yours bandied about the world for profit of others and cutting you out?I doubt it. Not in the real world.
  • Hula gi... prinzessin 2009/02/05 03:30:22
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    Not when they become President. He doesn't own his image when he's working for us. It's not his until he gets out of office. We own it and if he didn't like it then that's his problem and he can step down.

    He doesn't own slogans and besides he stole them from others they were not his. He just reused others.

    Presidents are in a totally different category than a private citizen. I know my research.
  • Stonewall 2009/02/03 09:24:46
    Stonewall
    So I guess I will just start trademarketing every thing I have ever said that way no body will be able to talk any more.
  • Epistemically Justified -- BN7 2009/02/02 16:50:50
    Epistemically Justified -- BN7
    +6
    This is a gross misrepresentation of the issue at hand.
  • Lunacat 2009/02/02 16:48:27
  • gfreeman BN-0 2009/02/02 16:44:56
  • Comrade Sean 2009/02/02 15:11:35
  • easy 2009/02/02 05:28:49
  • StarrGazerr 2009/02/02 01:54:01 (edited)
    StarrGazerr
    +11
    They are trying to limit the use of the President's image in situations where it may be implied that the President is endorsing a particular product. This is not at all a First Amendment issue, but simply a matter of fair use. As you point out, Ikea is using his image to sell furniture. By implying that the President of the United States is endorsing a furniture line they are violating the fair use provisions of the Copyright act. It would be no different than using a picture of Derek Jeter in an Ikea ad and implying that he endorsed the furniture.

    You should also note that this is nothing new. The White House has always taken steps to limit exploitation of the image of the President. From the same Bloomberg article: "The White House through the years has objected to commercial use of presidential faces, such as footage of President George H.W. Bush in a Cold War-themed 1989 television ad for cold medication."
  • Hula gi... StarrGa... 2009/02/02 02:33:33 (edited)
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +3
    They want to trademark Yes We Can. That statement has been around a lot longer than this president. He doesn't own it. He works for us...it's not his image anymore it's the American public's until we are done with him. That fact. Yes we can is not his....it's our language not his to stop.

    He's ours and a public official not a private citizen anymore.
  • StarrGa... Hula gi... 2009/02/02 02:36:11
    StarrGazerr
    +8
    There is nothing in the article that suggests they want to trademark "Yes We Can". They are talking about using the President's image in advertising.
  • Hula gi... StarrGa... 2009/02/02 02:59:47
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +3
    His image is ours. He gave it up when he ran for President. He's ours for 4 years. Just like every other President. It's ours to put in cartoons or where ever. He's ours bought and paid for.
    Read the bottom of the post it shows some Yes We Can examples.
  • nzapanda Hula gi... 2009/02/02 03:06:06
    nzapanda
    +5
    When you work as a police officer, a representative at a local, state or national level, you have officially become a PUBLIC SERVANT. So techinically you can follow a cop around all day while he is on his shift and video and audio record what he does and says all day long. Just as long as you don't get in the way of his job, you are good to go.

    As Hula girl mentioned above, they are OURS, and paid for. They SERVE US. We don't serve them.
  • gfreema... nzapanda 2009/02/02 16:47:51
    gfreeman BN-0
    +1
    I would like to see you follow around and video tape a police officer all day. It could turn out very interesting for you.
  • Hula gi... gfreema... 2009/02/02 18:20:26
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +1
    Ever watch the show cops. They have whole shows just doing that very thing.
  • gfreema... Hula gi... 2009/02/02 18:52:18
    gfreeman BN-0
    That is a bit different, the local cops allow the crew to follow them around. It would be a completely different case if a private citizen was doing it.
  • LeeVee gfreema... 2009/02/06 15:21:03
    LeeVee
    There is a private citizen that follows the cops around with a video camera. Most don't like it at all. He's been threatened many times. It's actually quite funny. He has a website, but I don't remember the URL, it was something I stumbled onto once.
  • gfreema... LeeVee 2009/02/06 15:54:14
    gfreeman BN-0
    I wouldn't recommend doing this, nor do I find it a particularly good idea.
  • LeeVee gfreema... 2009/02/06 17:58:39
    LeeVee
    This particular guy, does it out of a disdain for police officers. To that extent, I agree. He follows them around looking and waiting for them to make any mistake. We are all human and subject to making mistakes on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, there is a time and a place for most things and our police are not above the law. They should, try their best, to set the example of following the very laws they are hired to enforce. We, as citizens, have the right and the responsibility to expose wrong doing when necessary and possible.
  • gfreema... LeeVee 2009/02/06 18:43:35
    gfreeman BN-0
    I don't disagree with the idea. I do disagree with some peoples intentions. If I were a police officer I would not like someone following my every move. I personally find it disrespectful to the job that they are trying to do. I also agree with you that they are not above the law.

About Me

Hula girl - Friends not Followers

Hula girl - Friends not Followers

United States

2008/06/04 21:22:02

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics