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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          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.