213

Trump has raised millions with his mug shot. Legal experts say it could be a big mistake (www.the-independent.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Guy A Rub, a copyright law professor at Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, says that the former president could face legal consequences for using the mug shot without the express authorisation from authorities to do so.

“The copyright in the shot obviously does not belong to Trump. Generally, copyright belongs to whoever took the picture of its organisation. In this case, it is probably the sheriff’s office or the state,” Mr Rub told The Independent.

Federal law does not allow the federal government to own a copyright for booking photos, effectively leaving them to the public domain. But that is not necessarily the case at the state and local level, where using such images can be subject to fair use limitations.

“If the Sheriff’s office (or the state) wants to enforce the copyright in the image, it can probably do it,” Mr Rub added. “Copyright infringement can entail various sanctions, including the profits that the infringer, meaning the Trump campaign, gained as a result of the infringement.”

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I hate these kinds of pointless clickbait articles. No, Trump isn't going to be arrested for reposting a picture of his own mugshot. They won't try to enforce such a law against a former president. Even if they did, it's already been shared and reproduced so many times that there's virtually no point in pursuing some copyright claim. All of this is moot anyway, because I can't imagine Fulton County actually gives a shit.

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's not about reposting the picture online, it's about the shirts and other merch he's selling for a direct profit.

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago

Yeah, but nobody is about to sue him for that.

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 26 points 11 months ago

I dunno. I never thought we'd ever see him actually charged for anything, yet somehow we made it this far.

A copyright suit would just be a cherry on top.

[-] Toto@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Beat me to it

[-] Neato@kbin.social 45 points 11 months ago

Feels like mugshots should be public domain. Not necessarily freely-shared, but definitely shouldn't be available for anyone to claim copyright over. That or the government retains copyright with a strict prohibition on using any mugshots for commercial purposes.

It would feel really weird if a state government started selling Tshirts with people's mugshots on them.

[-] Ubermeisters@discuss.online 25 points 11 months ago

It would incentivize law enforcement to arrest famous people if anything.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

That is the best argument for the government copyrighting mugshots

[-] shadearg@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

"Big gubmint tryna steal mah mug!"

[-] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 33 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Guy A Rub?

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

It's even better without the middle initial. Guy Rub can solve all your problems.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

That guy definitely lost the name lottery

[-] Zeram@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

At least he’s not Guy I Rub?

[-] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 22 points 11 months ago

It should count as proceeds from illegal activity, assuming a conviction.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Imagine a world where he gets away with insurection but goes to jail for a DCMA violation...

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Interesting and fair take.

If the buffoon is convicted for his crimes, profiting off his mug shot would then be profiting off his crimes.

Same reason a convict in prison isn't allowed to profit from a book they write relating to the crime.

That profit should be claimed back by the state. With triple damages if the law allows.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

If my name were "Guy A Rub", I would spend my 18th birthday first slapping my parents for giving me such a stupid name and then heading to the courthouse to have it immediately changed to almost anything else.

Seriously. Guy A Rub? Sounds like a name given to a joke character in a badly written SNL skit.

[-] smitty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

new name: Dick Rub

[-] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

In official capacity and on roll sheets he would be

A Rub, Guy

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Since I haven't seen anyone bring it up I think the most damaging thing about this for Trump will be that it shows no remorse.

This should be used as an excuse to throw the book at him.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

This prof sells handies behind the Wendy’s dumpster.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 2 points 11 months ago

I wondered if maybe Son of Sam laws applied, but they are often unconstitutional. So this is interesting.

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023

213 points (93.1% liked)

politics

18621 readers

3663 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News