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

  • kvasir476@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • mammut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      It seems especially strange since many products of the US government are automatically released into the public domain.

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Are people selling that stuff for profit to fund a political campaign? I wonder if they changed things. A lot of things are free for use, but not for people looking to make a profit.

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I submit to you copyrighted laws.

        It’s one example. I don’t remember exactly which state, but I remember clearly hearing that one state or more has the only law resource being a LexisNexis book of laws. Copyrightable because it’s technically “annotated”, but the non-annotated versions are not available.

    • ji59@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • fox2263@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Has anyone else ever, in history, released a merchandising line 5 secs after their mugshot process thing?

  • Jackolantern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    I really can’t believe that he was a former president and “leader” of the most powerful military that ever existed.

  • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • zib@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • kase@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    They sold merchandise? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but damn that’s weird