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.
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.
Employees of the federal government generate IP that generally goes into the public domain. States can decide whether their employees, or municipalities ’ employees’ IP goes into the public domain or not. By default, it does not, and from briefly looking into it, it seems most states accept the default, and very few put it into the public domain, or allow for broad use of state-generated IP.
It makes sense, and it isn’t a rule narrowly targeted at mugshots, but I’m not sure how to interpret it as a good thing. More government workers’ IP going into the public domain seems like it would better serve the public interest. Even if it allows Trump to do nonsense like this.
Yes exactly. It isn’t in the public domain, and so is still protected by copyright, and arguably fails the test for Fair Use. But OP’s earlier comment suggested they were not aware that federal works sit in the public domain.
This isn’t accurate as there is no such thing as a federal work or state work nor is there any actual court case. The law covers the whole country and it’s explained in the first sentence of the article:
Donald Trump’s campaign may have violated United States copyright law by selling merchandise featuring the former president’s mugshot, legal experts have warned.
US Copyright law is a federal law about how copyrights are protected, but the posted regulation is about what federal work is copyrighted and NOT applicable to how state work is copyrighted. It even says it right there in the title: “Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States.” The jail photographer is not an employee of the federal government, nor is the trial an activity of the federal government. This photo was not a work by the federal government.
No worries. The big issue is how does Georgia law apply to photographs taken by a state employee as part of the stated job functions for their official job. It’s one thing for an employee to take a photo while on the job, but when their specific job is to take an official photo then I think it would be ridiculous for that person to own the copyright and it not be public property (like NASA images). Should DMV employees own the copyright to license photos?
I’m not a lawyer but my layman’s opinion is that the state should retain ownership over the photo. To give an example, where I live a company began scraping mugshot photos and then compiling them into a newspaper that they distributed and sold for profit. It became really popular but it also drew a lot of negative attention since this company was earning money by spreading photos and arrest records of people that hadn’t even been convicted of a crime. The solution here was to just stop posting mugshots online, which was effective, but didn’t address ownership of the photos at all.
This isn’t exactly a 1:1 comparison since Trump was the subject of the photo and also the one selling merch, but I think there’s a valid argument against allowing people to privately sell products based off work/production funded by the public.
I think the reason for this copyright is so nobody can massively shame the convinced. But nobody thought anyone would be proud about it so much to share it themselves.
He’s not proud of it. He’s just saying he is, so that people stops laughing at him. The fucked up pay is that he’s making money out of it. But you bet he’s seething over that mugshot. Especially because he said Hilary Clinton would be in jail. And he was technically in jail first.
The reason for the copyright is that you automatically get a copyright on any photograph. It seems unlikely the sheriff’s office would want to enforce it. This is all wishful thinking.
Naw, practically everything is copyrighted if it meets some fairly simple rules. Copyrighted is the default and the rules exclude works from being copyrighted.
Copyright can’t stop what you’re saying. People obviously are shaming Trump and other criminals. News articles typically use mugshot photos. Copyright can’t stop memes (and trying to do so usually just causes the Streisand effect).
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.
You and everybody else. Hillary was the DNC’s second coming. I dont think I knew anyone aside from dyed in the wool democrats who actually liked her. Many of those wgo did vote for her did so begrudgingly and many wgo stayed home did so because the media had been pounding the “hillary is a shoe in” line since she announced her candidacy. Why vote for someone who leaves a vad taste in your mouth if you already know they are going to win.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.