1y ago

Trump may have violated copyright law by selling mugshot merchandise

nypost.com Trump may have violated copyright law by selling mugshot merchandise

The Trump campaign may have violated United State copyright law by selling merchandise featuring the former president’s mugshot, legal experts have warned.

75 comments

"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.
- People buying it is even weirder

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
  
  I have the right to my own image. I'm just built different.
- “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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  Why is a photo taken of someone by state employees copyrightable?
- 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.

Anything the government produces should be in the public domain.
- I thought that was the case
  
  Not in most states.
  
  Federally, yes. Not necessarily for state or other levels.

Trumps attorney: "Try not to break any laws on the way to the parking lot."
- His lawyer wasn’t even supposed to be there, that day.

like he gives a flying fuck
- I heard he gives a 1 up mushroom. Not a flying one.

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.
  
  I think they meant in terms of legal consequences.

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.
- I think anything that didn't start killing him (cancer for example) a decade ago is going to cause conspiracy theories all over the place.
  
  He has proven to be remarkably hardy for someone who subsists on big macs.

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.
- It is insane how one clown could cause so much havoc, not even a bright one at that
  
  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.

Wow they found enough idiots to buy that dumb shit to make $7 million?

At this point, I'd be more shocked if some dumbass thing he does isn't breaking a law.

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.
- I believe copyright resides with the person who took the photo, not the subject.

I tell you what he definitely did. Made normal people not want to wear it.

I wonder if he's selling any mugshot coffee mugs.

Lmao, they're right.

The department may decide it is “not going to undertake the expense and trouble of hiring copyright counsel and sending out takedowns and cease-and-desist letters, or in lawsuits,” Rosenblatt said.
On the other hand, MSNBC reports, the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office may decide the millions made off the photo rightfully belongs to it — at a time when it is in desperate need of funds to address the horrific conditions at the Fulton County Jail.
Oh, yes, please!

One of the very few based things Trump has done. Fuck copyrights fuck patents

75 comments