What Kind Of Permission Do I Have To Get To Sell Images Of President Barack Obama?

LBaldwin wrote in post #11427056
Actually since POTUS Is public figure you do not need any release at all.. regardless of usage.

As pointed out by aphphoto above, that is not at all true.

Isn't there always enough from the press corps that travel with him to satisfy any media needs. I would think that the only thing one might be able to market was something very unique which the shot the OP provided is anything but.

If you do have something unique by the time you took the time to post here and wait for answers your opportunity is probably gone. It doesn't appear that the OP is answering any questions but I would like to know what makes this one special.

aphphoto wrote in post #11426651
From a New York Times article when coat maker Weatherproof used an AP image of Obama wearing one of their coats for a billboard in Times Square:

"A spokesman for Obama told the Times, “The White House has a longstanding policy disapproving of the use of the president’s name and likeness for commercial purposes." A White House aide is expected to contact Weatherproof today to take the ad down."

So you're telling me that the president approved the Chia Obama? Both the happy and determined models?

LBaldwin wrote in post #11427056
Actually since POTUS Is public figure you do not need any release at all.. regardless of usage.
However if this image isn't yours.... you could get a legal smackdown from the copyright owner.

No, it's not true--there is no such "public figure" concept that removes the need for a model release for commercial use.

They're banking on the fact that it's not politically convenient for the president to send his lawyers after small-time dealers.

LBaldwin wrote in post #11427056
Actually since POTUS Is public figure you do not need any release at all.. regardless of usage.

Posting at 2AM apparently isn't a good idea. Public figures have full control of the use of their photographic image for commercial purposes. That even applies to elected officials.

I'm so not touching this thread. Oh wait...
:p

What is true is that the US federal government has no copyright of its own products. Any work directly created by a federal agency is not copyrighted.

However, there are darned few pictures of the president directly created by the federal government. A work contracted by the federal government (such as the picture of the presidential family taken by Annie Leibovitz) is still copyrighted by the contractor. Moreover, the federal government itself is obligated to defend the copyrights of its contractors. So if someone infringed on Leibovitz's picture of the presidential family, the Department of Justice itself is obligated to sue the infringer.

But as we know in the photo business, just having the copyright of the image does not give the photographer the right to use the image commercially without the model's permission, and that is true regardless of the celebrity or public office of the model. Holding federal office does not remove the office holder's state-endowed right to publicity.

Wow I leave you guys for a few hours and the subject takes a toll road to nowwhere. Elected officials are public persons and as such you are not required to get a models release if you want to market a product with their mug on it.

i am sure there are some provisos addendums and exceptions to this. But Generally speaking, POTUS or the visage of POTUS belongs to the people of the United States. They are quite literally gov't property while in office. The same with your men and women in uniform. You don't think that Lockheed Martin gets a models release each and every time the shoot a soldier or airman next to some whizz bang new airplane do you?

This issue actually goes all the way back to the very beginning of our country. Folks used George, Ben, Abraham, Teddy, JFK for all kinds of COMMERCIAL products. POTUS cannot make bank on products with his visage, nor can prevent anyone from using it either. It's called free speech and free enterprise.

You really don't think that POTUS signed releases for every freakin t-shirt vendor in the US during inauguration do you? Do you think Pres. Obama authorized his mug to be used to sell cheesy gold plated coins on late night TV?

RDKirk wrote in post #11428438
What is true is that the US federal government has no copyright of its own products. Any work directly created by a federal agency is not copyrighted.

However, there are darned few pictures of the president directly created by the federal government. A work contracted by the federal government (such as the picture of the presidential family taken by Annie Leibovitz) is still copyrighted by the contractor. Moreover, the federal government itself is obligated to defend the copyrights of its contractors. So if someone infringed on Leibovitz's picture of the presidential family, the Department of Justice itself is obligated to sue the infringer.

But as we know in the photo business, just having the copyright of the image does not give the photographer the right to use the image commercially without the model's permission, and that is true regardless of the celebrity or public office of the model. Holding federal office does not remove the office holder's state-endowed right to publicity.

Sorry bucko {JK} but not true, the US Gov't has several photographers on staff and a pool stations around the US. The whitehouse has a photo staff that is NOT press. POTUS has several grip and grins per week, and they are shot by staff shooters. The current Chief Whitehouse photographer is Pete Souza. Look him up and see his imagery. It's great.

And you've seen this written where? Nowhere. The concept does not exist.

The right to publicity is granted by the state or territory in which the commercial use occurs, and no state makes any such provision for the loss of the right to publicity for "public persons," nor is there any federal law that abrogates state laws in this regard. None. It's a myth.

You'd better believe they must! And I know that for a fact, having been in uniform for 26 years and having gotten gigs like that for some of my younger troops when I was stationed in Hawaii.

Actually, it's illegal for a military person to appear in official uniform in any commercial use, whether he'd be willing to sign a release or not, unless specifically permitted by the military. Those depictions of "military personnel" you see "in uniform" in advertisements are either:

A. Actors not in the military, or

B. Actually military personnel in incomplete costumes lacking the "distinctive acouterments" that would make it an official uniform, or

C. Military personnel given special permission to appear in circumstances where the military deems that its association with the commercial venture is in the best interests of the military.

In all those circumstances, the model release is still required when the state requires it. And all states do.

Actually, no. That's a reprehensible idea and certainly not "literal." Elected officials, appointed officials, civil servants, and military personnel are certainly not chattel.

LBaldwin wrote in post #11429304
Sorry bucko {JK} but not true, the US Gov't has several photographers on staff and a pool stations around the US. The whitehouse has a photo staff that is NOT press. POTUS has several grip and grins per week, and they are shot by staff shooters. The current Chief Whitehouse photographer is Pete Souza. Look him up and see his imagery. It's great.

If you check more carefully, you will see that Pete Souza is not civil service--he is contracted, and as such he owns the copyright of his work.

If you go to his website, you will see that the photographs of the president are copyrighted to Souza. He has been releasing his work under Creative Commons license, which is his right to do so as copyright owner. If the photography fell under some kind of "public person" rule, Souza would not have the right to establish a Creative Commons license.

Yes, there are staff photographers (civil service) doing grip and grins, but that does not make up most of the photographs you see of the president.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that there is a distinction between public figure and a public, yet non-"public", figure (like Brad Pitt for example).

Some kind of battle of declaring people (again like Brad Pitt) a 'public' figure.

The basic contestation being the licensing of images. Apparently a public figure doesn't enjoy the same copyright protections type of thing.

So suddenly pics of Brad Pitt are free game for sale and the SAG/Hollywood etc were (had?) fought it to prevent that from happening.

??

.

If you really have to ask this question you have no hope in trying to market the photo until you understand editorial vs. commercial, what licensing an image really means, etc. There are so many images of the president out there that it's almost useless unless very unique. You do understand the WH has a photo stream that is public domain right? People can get images of him and what he's doing from a team of photographers lead by one of the best in the world, Pete Souza, and use it editorially all they want right?

Info on works created by the photo team there...
http://www.usa.gov/cop​yright.shtml

...each photo has this info attached.

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.

Anyways, the POTUS is just like anyone else under laws protecting his likeness, problem is many companies get away with using his(her someday) image because it causes more controversy to sue, it draws more attention to the ad and that's not what they want to do. Look at the billboard of Obama in the weatherproof jacket, they just ask it to be removed and gave the company two weeks to come up with a new ad campaign instead of suing and making them do it immediately. The WH is always going to error on the side of "please stop" instead of get sue happy, no matter who's in office (OK, maybe if it was Nixon).

Lastly, everyone who said this looks like it was captured off the TV is right - I mean seriously, did you take a photo of your TV and want to market it? SERIOUSLY?! Really hoping there is a joke here somewhere, if not then something is just seriously wrong and I'm going to need at least 2-3 beers to not just put my head through a wall.

RDKirk wrote in post #11429396
If you check more carefully, you will see that Pete Souza is not civil service--he is contracted, and as such he owns the copyright of his work.

If you go to his website, you will see that the photographs of the president are copyrighted to Souza. He has been releasing his work under Creative Commons license, which is his right to do so as copyright owner. If the photography fell under some kind of "public person" rule, Souza would not have the right to establish a Creative Commons license.

Yes, there are staff photographers (civil service) doing grip and grins, but that does not make up most of the photographs you see of the president.

You should note that this was changed and flickr added a new category just to the WH photos that now state no copyright attached. Pete originally had his copyright in his photos posted there, they are not there anymore...and he's the one taking those meet and greet shots, not some other civil servant. Watch the Presidents Photographer.

danpass wrote in post #11429408
I thought I remembered reading somewhere that there is a distinction between public figure and a public, yet non-"public", figure (like Brad Pitt for example).

Some kind of battle of declaring people (again like Brad Pitt) a 'public' figure.

The basic contestation being the licensing of images. Apparently a public figure doesn't enjoy the same copyright protections type of thing.

So suddenly pics of Brad Pitt are free game for sale and the SAG/Hollywood etc were (had?) fought it to prevent that from happening.

??

What are you talking about? You can take images of ANYONE in public, as long as you are not breaking the law to obtain them and remain on public property. Once you take the photo only a judge can rule for you to not sell, distribute and can even make you destroy all copies if found to obtained it illegally or there was an expectation of privacy.

Only thing that can think of you might be talking about is that, the expectation of privacy. Brad Pitt they (pappo) get in a helicopter and take images of from above they may say he's a public figure so allow it, but if you did it to Joe Schmoe they may say not and not allow the release of the images. But on say a public street, anywhere in public, you can take images of anyone you want as long as there is no expectation of privacy.