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

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

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    28·
    1 year 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.

        • Hobbes@startrek.website
          3·
          1 year ago

          It may not be allowed to use NASA images for commercial purposes though.

          Edit: looked into it. Not only is it allowed, permission is not even required to use it commercially.

    • merridew@feddit.ukEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Federal government works generally aren’t domestically copyrightable. They are considered to be in the public domain within the USA.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States

      ETA: I will add that that USA has some of the best protections for Fair Use. But Fair Use definitely doesn’t extend to selling it at that scale.

      These are the tests for Fair Use:

      • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [very commercial]
      • the nature of the copyrighted work; [photographic, publicly available]
      • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and [100% of it]
      • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [Effectively eliminated the value to the copyright holder]
        • merridew@feddit.ukEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            It is a federal law that only applies to federal works. This is a state case with a state mugshot that is a state work.

            • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Woops I didn’t realize you were referring to the upper level comment and not the main post. My apologies!

                  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    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?

    • radix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      The government office could try to assert copyright, but it would be an uphill battle.

      As a matter of public policy “the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decision, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials.” U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 313.6©(2).

      https://garson-law.com/can-state-governments-own-rights-in-copyright/

      A mugshot isn’t a law, so maybe this doesn’t apply cleanly, but the copyright office clearly isn’t rushing to hand out rulings in favor of publicly created works.

      • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year 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.