Because conservatives said so! Now, stop acting so uppity and get back to work at one of your minimum wage jobs before supply-side Jesus gets mad again!
What?.. Whenever these two subjects are broached they are always only talking about government loans. While all of these loans are serviced by a company, the debt is owned by/owed to the federal government. So, loan forgiveness is a direct cost to the taxpayer. Claiming otherwise is just silly.
Looks like Florida chose to be the wicked son for Passover.
You should also “blunt his teeth” (speak harshly to him13) and say to him:
“It is because of this that I would fulfill His commandments, such as this Passover offering, matzah and maror14that G‑d acted for me when I left Egypt (Exodus 13:8)—for me, but not for him. If he [the wicked child] had been there, he would not have been redeemed.”
I thought it was mostly proven myth that any slaves or Israelites were building shit in Egypt. Also there’s zero record of any sort of Exodus or anything to corroborate the story of Moses
Yes, it might be a book of bullshit, but it’s a bullshit book we read every year and sing songs from about how we were foreigners and slaves and should be nice to foreigners and slaves. The fact that there’s even a part about “what if I question how trial and tribulation I’ve never known affects me?” And you’re supposed to essentially say, “bitch! God wouldn’t have saved you cuz you’re too much of a bitch!”
Eta: hell, there’s even a part where we’re like, “God killed the Egyptian oppressors, let’s dance and sing!” And then God, who could only speak to Moses, spoke to everyone all like, “look you ungrateful fucks! I may have made the Egyptians with my left hand while getting over a cold, but they’re my creations nonetheless! Quit celebrating and pour one out for your fallen homies.” Then we get rid of 10 drops of wine to resemble 10 drops of blood for the 10 plagues and how horrible it was that God made the Pharoh say no and then punished all the poor people for it.
On a yearly basis, multiple times per year, our parents dress us up and misinterpret the importance of all these holidays that are supposed to teach us empathy, apology, forgiveness, and patience. But fuck all that, right? Being a Jew is about… Checks notes …Banning books about actual slavery?
Usually you think of the extermination aspect, but yes there was some. But my point was that responding to me saying another book containing slavery with a historical event was kind of unusual. There’s been books written on it for sure by it’s mostly unrelated.
Everybody is blaming the driverless cars but who is blaming the ambulance for putting itself in that situation? A driverless car can’t be at fault, it always does what it should. Humans are the ones who make mistakes.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
The issue isn’t that the photo is copyrightable, it’s that a photo taken by a government employee, paid with tax dollars, taken with a camera purchased by tax payers is not copyrightable nor owned by Trump, and he can’t sell something he doesn’t have the right to sell.
The photo is in the public domain, which is covered by copyright laws.
That is not how public domain works, and the article contends that the copyright is owned by the law enforcement agency that took the mugshot. If the photo was public domain it would be free for anyone to use as they see fit.
Government entities should not hold the copyright to anything. The point of copyright was to incentivize artistic creation and protect creators from being taken advantage of by others. A mug shot doesn’t fall in the category of an artistic work and government employees that took that mug shot in the course of their duties dont need to be protected from others “taking advantage.” Tax payers paid them to do what they did and something tax payers paid for shouldn’t be treated as anything other than public domain. And the public domain is just that: public. Everyone can make use of it, even vermin like Trump. I fucking hate Trump. HOWEVER letting this nonsense slide because of that is not good. I would rather him be sent to prison for his crimes not punished for violating a copyright that I do not believe should exist.
I think in this case, a copyright is well-justified. They have to publish the mugshot for some reasons, but without the copyright, such a mugshot could be abused. Having the copyright at least enables the government to have some control over this.
Just imagine having your mugshot taken, and it later turns out you are completely innocent. Still, if the mugshot was in the public domain, your neighbor with whom you have a dispute over the height of cut lawn could just print your face on every billboard in the country.
Except it is the accused spreading the photo of their own accord. The argument that theyre being protected by prosecuting them for copyright infringement doesn’t make sense.
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.
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.
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.
I get that the copyright is traditionally held by the photographer and not the subject. I guess the issue I have with it is how Trump (or anyone charged with a crime) is legally compelled to allow it to be created.
Also, if we assume Fulton County Jail owns the copyright, could they sell mugshot merch? If yes, that’s horrifically dystopian. If no, are they entitled to claw back any money made from the sale of mugshot merch?
Personally, I would like to live in the world where jails can’t profit off the mugshots of their inmates.
It’s public record anyone can use it so long as they don’t do so for profit. Ie. He can use the mugshot all he wants he just can’t make an profit from it.
Also, if we assume Fulton County Jail owns the copyright, could they sell mugshot merch? If yes, that’s horrifically dystopian. If no, are they entitled to claw back any money made from the sale of mugshot merch?
They could sell mugshot merch from the copyright perspective, but there would be a load of other issues that would prevent them from doing so.
But technically, they could sue whoever is responsible for selling them and could claw back profits and damages, as this was undeniably copyright infringement for large-scale commercial gain. Look at this: Up to five years and up to 250k per offense. And that’s only the punishment. The damages are between 750 and 30k, 150k if it was “willful”. Plus all the usual stuff like paying lawyers and courts. The Sheriff’s Office down there could buy their own donut factory from the proceedings…
When you run for office (of any kind) you become a “public figure” and as a result the rights to your likeness are considerably diminished. If you win your rights to control how your likeness is used are even further diminished. Furthermore, if you run for a Federal office and get elected your rights are even more diminished.
Then there’s an even lower level where you basically lose all rights to control your likeness: When you become President. Presidents are special from a likeness perspective because as long as they live they are, in fact, President or former President and as such cannot make claim whatsoever that their likeness is copyrighted because while they were in office their likeness became public domain (all works of the US government are public domain unless classified or given special exception).
So the day the White House updated it’s website with an image of Trump any copyright claim to his likeness went out the window.
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 think the problem is, that the system was set up on the assumption that you’d have to be a semi-reasonable person to end up as president. Like there are checks an balances set up to reign in your dictators and evil genius types, but they didn’t really account for a complete moron getting in there and just running hog wild.
It’s a bit like setting up a really elaborate security system to catch any kind of sneaky burglar, and then someone just flattens your house with a tank for no reason.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.