categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

dear white house: kiss my ass

So apparently the White House has gone and released a photo of Our Glorious President, Barack Hussein Obama, allegedly shooting some skeet; no mention was made of whether or not he actually managed to hit them.  Whatever.  Given Obama’s long and sordid history of being anti-firearms, this is rather like a racist individual claiming to have black friends, and in that vein, I never would have even bothered to comment on this… 

… If it were not for this disclaimer to go along with the picture

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 would like to take a moment to introduce the White House to 17 United States Code § 107 (a document that residence probably owns countless copies of… all with perfect spines), specifically: 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

(Emphasis added.) 

And given that this is an “official White House” photograph, I would like to introduce the White House to the copyright terms said photograph is published under

A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person’s official duties.

It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:

  • reproduce the work in print or digital form;
  • create derivative works;
  • perform the work publicly;
  • display the work;
  • distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.

For clarification, Pete Souza, the man behind the lens for the skeet photograph, is the current “Chief Official White House photographer” and the “Director of the White House Photography Office”, and, as such, an “employee of the United States government” taking pictures of the President “as part of that person’s official duties”.  In other words, this picture was taken by a public servant, of a public servant, using taxpayers’ money.  I dare say we can do with it as we please. 

With all that in mind, I am sure the warped 4chan minds (link defintionally NSFW) behind these derivative works were merely criticizing or commenting on the quality of the photograph or the subject contained therein:

obamaskeet1

obamaskeet2

obamaskeet3

obamaskeet4

obamaskeet5

obamaskeet6

obamaskeet7

obamaskeet8

obamaskeet9

obamaskeet10

obamaskeet11

obamaskeet12

obamaskeet13

obamaskeet14

obamaskeet15

obamaskeet16

obamaskeet17

Like I said, I created none of those, and I lack the imagination or motivation at the moment to try my hand at it myself, but I do believe in preserving them for the time being. 

Given that idiotic disclaimer, though, I would imagine this is only the tip of the iceberg. 

(On a note unrelated to the White House being staffed by imbeciles, however, I have only been shooting clay pigeons once, and my shotgun was never pointed that low… but I do no know if I was shooting skeet, trap, or whatever.  According to what I am reading, though, the target point skeet are launched at is an altitude of about 15 feet about 27 yards 0in front of the shooter.  I think.) 

(And on a second unrelated note, it is worth observing that the firearm Our Glorious President was discharging is significantly more powerful than an AR-15, and will either leave a single massively larger hole in the target, or 8 to ~300 holes of varying size.  This just goes to show how idiotic the notion of “assault weapons” really is.) 

18 comments to dear white house: kiss my ass

  • there’s a great GTA drive by shop in that thread too.
    I will be glad when this is over, that shotguns are more dangerous bs is getting on my nerves.

  • MichaelB

    First, thanks for doing the leg work on listing the USC that makes this pic useable for whatever the hell taxpayers want it to be used for.

    Second, that’s funny shit right there.

  • Phssthpok

    I prefer “Lave My Nethers, Neglecting NOT the Taint!”

  • Ah, /k/. I’m glad they are on our side.

  • Obama holding the drone is so beautifully sublime. It’s absurd *and* scathing political rhetoric, all at once. Goddamn, it even brought a tear to my eye…

  • This is absolute proof that we are two countries only separated by a common language. And he is not ‘one of us,’ nor is anyone in his administration.

    So he poses for a picture while shooting at skeet (wait, isn’t skeet usually *up* and not at eye level…whatever…) for a *single* picture, which says absolutely zero about whether or not he’s done it ‘all the time’ or even ever. Then you insist that no one modify it or use it for any purpose other than what you want, when you can’t legally demand that (like ‘legal’ has ever mattered to this Communist).

    Wait. Put a picture out in the wild on the internet and expect that no one modify it, when it has no copyright protection. This president has no knowledge of our culture. We are unruly and cannot be ruled. We relish disobeying those who think they have the authority to demand our obedience.

    Crikey, you’d think he’d at least be aware of the Streisand Effect.

  • Ken

    Here’s how skeet works, particularly in this case:

    “PULL”
    “BANG”
    “SHIT!”

  • Is it just the left handedness that make that picture look so awkward?

  • @ dave w: Yeah, I just yanked the ones that looked funny to me, since 4chan’s built in half-life will make them vaporize eventually.

    And I had no idea Obama was left-handed, and he is “shouldering” that thing in a way that is going to hurt like hell tomorrow, so that may be the awkwardness.

    @ MichaelB: Eh, Wikipedia pointed me towards the USC – it sucks as a primary source, but at least it can point you to the right ones. Periodically.

    @ Phssthpok: Also acceptable :). Rather like inviting people to self-fornicate; always good for a stop-and-think.

    @ Nyanman: Inasmuch as they have sides, yeah, I am thankful it seems to be something approximating ours :).

    @ Erin Palette: Yeah, the drone one is pretty much awesome. It is an interesting legacy he is building for himself.

    @ markofafreeman: Yeah, this whole idiocy just bugs the hell out of me. Oh, he skeet shoots, huh? That is why this is the first we have ever heard of it, right? Hell, this imbecile keeps trying to build his credibility as a firearm owner, and he is just now whipping this out?

    Yeah. Ok.

    But, yeah, this is all just stupid political theater, which is why I was not even going to bother with it… until the arse went and Streisanded himself.

    Hell with that. He chose this job, his photographer chose his job, and both of their jobs involve being public servants. This means they answer to us, and this means their products, such as they are, are functionally public property, for us to do with as they please.

    If they do not like those terms, they are more than welcome to find employment in the public sector.

    @ Ken: Heh, it does seem to be a source of frustration for a lot of people ;).

  • Rolf

    My very fist thought when I saw the picture was “Man, he’s got a bad stance!”
    My second thought was “Bullshit. Staged photo-op if there ever was one.”
    Third thought “I wonder how many on the left and in the media (but I repeat myself) will believe it completely?”
    Fourth thought was “man, that ‘do not alter’ copywrong will absolutely ensure that it’ll get creatively modified in record time”

    Not sure which is worse – that the prez can think so many of us are total chumps, or that so many voters act like they ARE chumps.

  • The more I look at the picture, the more it bugs me… unless there was absolutely no load in that shell, there should be some manner of recoil force working on his shoulder by the time the picture was taken, especially given his stance, and damned if I can see any indication of that.

    Certainly not going to say that it was a 100% photoshop job, but I do think it was staged to try and build the Pres’ credibility as “one of us”. Too bad we know better.

    And, yeah, the President Streisanding himself? Priceless.

  • Rolf

    Another thing. It looks like a Browning Citori over-under. Ummm… Shouldn’t there be a choke tube insert on the bottom barrel, too? Not being overly familiar with variable-choke setups like that (I keep my scatter-guns simple, like a Mossburg 500), what sort of damage would shooting a load of shot through a tube with no insert do to the threads?

  • MAJMike

    Gotta be posed. THE WON would most certainly crap his mom jeans if he heard the report of a shotgun.

    For the record, I’m the world’s worst skeet and/or dove shooter. Anytime I’ve hunted dove, I’ve witnessed the miracle of resurrection with each shot I’ve taken.

  • @ MAJMike:
    I used to love shooting at pigeons, i very rarely hit one, but the funky dodge and dance they did in flight always made me think i had hit it and then it just kept on going…..

  • @ Rolf: So I asked about having a choke tube in one barrel and no tube in the other, and folks on GBC indicated it would not be uncommon… I assume you could stick a thread protector in there. Do cylinder chokes stick out past the end of the actual cylinder?

    @ MAJMike: Hell, from the looks of them, those are not even that nice hearing protection…

  • B.C,King

    ABC news has been showing the picture tilted at angle and above the waist of Obama in a pathetic attempt to make him look like a real skeet shooter.

  • Sendarius

    I read that paragraph accompanying the release, and it CLEARLY says:

    “…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…”

    Despite the injunction “… may not be manipulated in any way…”, I don’t see any prohibition on use of it to suggest DIS-approval of the President or White House.

    Am I missing something?

  • @ B.C,King: Had not noticed that.

    @ Sendarius: Heh. Yeah, aside from the blanket “you may not use” clause, I certainly do not see anything indicating you could not generate up some images with the President expressing some strong disapproval of something… ;)

    And, as far as I can tell, that whole clause is so much garbage, so…



web analytics

View My Stats