News
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
Yes
I have the right to my own image. I'm just built different.
Not being charged with a couple few dozen felonies does that for a guy
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.
As far as I see, the mugshot is being used all over the place, not just for illustration as you describe. It's become too iconic/memetic...
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.
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.
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.
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?
Simple: The Copyright lays with the Sheriff's Office.
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.
No, and it doesn't need to, as they are unrelated.
They do own the copyright. The basic intention is to protect the innocent, but it does not rule out any other uses.
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.
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.