Here's something I hadn't thought of: can the president hide behind copyright?
The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is “free.” But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?
That's from an interesting article by Lawrence Lessig in Wired Magazine that asks which takes precedence, the public's right to criticize the president or the copyright notices at the end of talk shows?
What's best for the public and for democracy is obvious, but which side will the courts take?
I'd love to be able to vote for a president who'd come out and say “No matter the forum or the form, you may always reprint my words and my image to discuss how I'm doing and how our country is doing. Democracy requires that, in fact it insists upon it, and frankly I'm a big fan of freedom.”
But those sort of people don't get elected any more. We just want people who look good on television.
