537
"Never surrender"
Isn't that exactly what he did in order for that photo to be taken? 🤔
Its always been his entire schtick. Look at reality, declare the opposite, trailer parks in kentucky erupt into cheers, repeat
He could lamp a nun in the clunge and his people would cheer. The flies have picked a shit; now they like what he does because it's him rather than liking him because of what he does.
It's what you get for turning elections into sports matches.
I wonder if the writers for Galaxy Quest could sue him too! 😀
Mugshot merchandise being sold by him is insane. I hate this timeline.
The former president of America is selling merch of his own mugshot for a RICO felony racketeering charge, for stuff he allegedly did while he was the sitting president. That is a thing that is actually happening right now.
By the time this is all resolved, we might even have and answer to the question: can a president lose an election, organize a coup to overturn that election, get legitimately re-elected in the next election, then pardon himself for sedition for the election he tried to overturn?
Like it's a long shot, but the fact that it's even remotely possible to watch that play out for real is fucking wild.
Like it's a long shot
Is it though? I thought him winning in 2016 was impossible. I’m not sure of anything anymore.
load more comments
(2 replies)
People buying it is even weirder
Anything the government produces should be in the public domain.
I thought that was the case
Federally, yes. Not necessarily for state or other levels.
You hate to defend Trump, but that's absolutely fucked. As far as I know you can't refuse a mugshot, so you're essentially compelled to release the rights to your likeness if you're charged with a crime. I could see the logic if you're convicted (under the 13th, which is still fucked), but that's crazy before a trial/guilty verdict.
Anyway, just a layman's take. Would love to hear what an actual lawyer has to say.
People generally don't have rights to photos of them regardless of whether they consented to having them taken. That's, like, the whole thing with paparazzi.
US copyright law is unsalvageably fucked
IMO the difference between this and paparazzi is that you aren't legally compelled to allow the paparazzi to take photos of you. If paparazzi gets the photos then they're theirs, but you can at least try to prevent them from taking them.
US copyright law is unsalvageably fucked
Yes
load more comments
(2 replies)
“You’re prohibited from reproducing it, making a derivative work of it, distributing it without authorization, or that is to say distributing anything that isn’t the one copy you already lawfully have, and various other things. Making a public display of it, making a public performance of it, which opens up all kinds of fascinating possibilities here.”
Am I crazy or does this mean every single newspaper that has reproduced the photo (i.e. probably the majority of political newspapers in the entire world) should have asked Fulton county Sheriff's Office for permission to do it?
'Fair use' is a thing. It varies by country, and I'm not certain on where the US falls.
Selling copies on merchandise would definitely not be fair use.
Using it in news articles may be fair use under some circumstances, but probably only if you were commenting specifically on the mugshot.
News articles can use media for 'editorial' purposes which has a slightly different usage rights subset to 'commercial' purposes which tend to be much more tied down. Having said that, I would have thought that seeing it's his own mugshot and that it wasn't taken by professional creative photographer and that it was forced upon him and released to the public domain, that he would be entitled to use it as he sees fit. It's a picture of himself after all.
This almost feels like he's being picked on because he's so widely hated and that many people want to see him burn.
load more comments
(1 replies)
First of all, there is the fair use thing, and second, they probably have, and most likely there is even a clause in the Sheriff's Office' standard disclaimer that press use is OK.
mugshots. com needs to be sued out of existance.
The copyright is not with the person on the photo, it is with the photographer. Which in this case is the police department.
The only rights that Trump had were the rights on his own picture. Which is hard to control as a celebrity (public interest and such), and which he basically waived as he had those merch sold himself.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Whomever takes a picture owns the copyright. If you hand your camera to a stranger to take a family photo, legally that stranger owns the copyright on your family photo. In this case the county or county employee owns the copyright. And they should be suing anyone profiting from its use.
Edit: consent is irrelevant. That is a totally separate privacy issue.
I understand what you're saying, and normally I would agree with you.
However, when Trump was mad at Twitter, he pushed hard to revoke Section 230, which protects social media platforms from the content their users post.
Interestingly, he stopped caring about this as soon as he started his own social media platform, which he tried his best to steal without attribution from Mastodon.
Now he is selling an image he does not own the copyright on. He can get fucked.
load more comments
(7 replies)
like he gives a flying fuck
I heard he gives a 1 up mushroom. Not a flying one.
I hate that a shitty picture taken as part of legal proceedings is copyrightable. Just like research paid for by the government should be free and unencumbered, so should things produced by the government itself.
load more comments
(16 replies)
I almost want Trump to bite it just so I don't have to see any more of these headlines made by people salivating over an imprisonment that's just never going to happen.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Good. Copyright violations for commercial gain are one of the most mindlessly over-penalized issue in the books. This time, it could actually used for good. Making millions out of copyright violations in the US is probably next to gang rape and mass murder.
Copyright laws are usually just abused by corporations to endlessly milk profit and hinder small time artists and creators. I don't think it's comparable to gang rape.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Has anyone else ever, in history, released a merchandising line 5 secs after their mugshot process thing?
So throw a civil suit at him. I'm sure the taxpayers of Fulton County won't mind paying for a 10-year court case and appeals.
May have? The dude violates humanity by breathing. Fucking launch that pissfart into the sun and let’s be done with him.
I really can’t believe that he was a former president and “leader” of the most powerful military that ever existed.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wow they found enough idiots to buy that dumb shit to make $7 million?
They sold merchandise? I know I shouldn't be surprised, but damn that's weird
Didn't Geeen Day also sell t-shirts with his mugshot? Sounds like they broke copyright law as well, then.
They put "Nimrod" over his face to resemble their album, so that very likely falls under fair use as parody.
load more comments
(1 replies)
At this point, I'd be more shocked if some dumbass thing he does isn't breaking a law.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
537 points (94.1% liked)
News
23024 readers
3988 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS