Trump Mugshot Copyright Infringement

[Nostra]

"Various legal experts have noted, Trump’s sale of that mug shot, taken by the Fulton County sheriff, may violate U.S. copyright laws. This could mean that theoretically, the millions he is making off that photo may rightfully belong to the Fulton County sheriff — an entity that just happens to be in desperate need of funds to address the horrific conditions in the Fulton County Jail," he wrote.
Bolstering his case he added, "Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, recently explained to Spectrum News 1 Ohio that the copyright owner of Trump’s mug shot is likely the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office."

Now that is something to ponder. Does the Fulton Sheriff own the rights to Trump's mugshot? Some say so.
Now wouldn't that be something?

MSN

Should CNN have to forfeit their ad revenue for “copyright “ infringement?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/24/politics/trump-mug-shot-analysis/index.html

 

[scruffy]

Nope

Yes.

 

[scruffy]

That's the overwhelming evidence based on precedent and law.

If mug shots weren't public they'd have to taken down every internet background site. And there are hundreds of those.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually the creator retains ownership.

Not unless it is signed away, dumbass.

There are two different assets here.

There is the copyright, which is owned by the creator. In general, government isn't allowed to copyright its creations, so a government-produced work would be in the public domain.

Then there is the personality right of any individual depicted in a creative work. This is completely separate from the copyright on the work itself; and belongs to that individual, not to the creator of the work.

The copyright holder of a creative work cannot use that work for commercial gain, if it recognizably depicts an individual, unless that individual has given the copyright holder a signed model release, granting the privilege of making such use of the work.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If that were the case I could sue everyone who takes pictures/videos of me and my band if they use them without permission.

If they use them for commercial gain, then yes, you can.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It depends. If the picture was taken in a place accessible by the public and used for the purpose of proving you were in that place you have nothing to say. This is paparazzi privilege. You still own your likeness. If you wanted to use that picture yourself you could.

Paparazzi is covered under “news”. Ethically, it's a rather dubious principle, but objectively, there's no real way to distinguish it from otherwise legitimate news reporting. The right exists to take pictures of people doing things in public, that are deemed newsworthy, and to include those images in coverage of that “news”, without regard to the personality rights of those so depicted. It's covered under the First Amendment's “freedom of the press”.

But if you are using someone's image for commercial gain, in a manner that cannot be construed as reporting news, then you need to have a model release from that individual; or else that individual can sue you for appropriating and expositing his identity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think Trump will become surprised when Fulton County SO comes after him.

Given all the abuses of government power that have been rather blatantly perpetuated against him by this point, I doubt if any further such abuses will be any surprise to him or to anyone else.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Paparazzi is covered under “news”. Ethically, it's a rather dubious principle, but objectively, there's no real way to distinguish it from otherwise legitimate news reporting. The right exists to take pictures of people doing things in public, that are deemed newsworthy, and to include those images in coverage of that “news”, without regard to the personality rights of those so depicted. It's covered under the First Amendment's “freedom of the press”.

But if you are using someone's image for commercial gain, in a manner that cannot be construed as reporting news, then you need to have a model release from that individual; or else that individual can sue you for appropriating and expositing his identity.

Either way. Trump's mugshot as an inmate record is in the public domain. It can be monetized by Trump.

 

[Rawley]

Too bad. Then they shouldn't have published it making it available world wide. It is now in the public domain.

Not really

 

[Missourian]

"Various legal experts have noted, Trump’s sale of that mug shot, taken by the Fulton County sheriff, may violate U.S. copyright laws. This could mean that theoretically, the millions he is making off that photo may rightfully belong to the Fulton County sheriff — an entity that just happens to be in desperate need of funds to address the horrific conditions in the Fulton County Jail," he wrote.
Bolstering his case he added, "Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, recently explained to Spectrum News 1 Ohio that the copyright owner of Trump’s mug shot is likely the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office."

Now that is something to ponder. Does the Fulton Sheriff own the rights to Trump's mugshot? Some say so.
Now wouldn't that be something?

MSN

I love the smell of liberal desperation.

It smells like...victory!

 

[westwall]

Not really

Yeah...really....dumbass.

 

[my2¢]

After reading the OP's linked Spectrum News article, I gather from the Case Western Reserve professor that there is rare chance that even if the county owns the copyright, it would be unlikely they'd risk spending an arm and a leg to pursue any action.

Another waste of 0's and 1's by MSN.

 

[Rawley]

Yeah...really....dumbass.

Publishing something does not put it in the public domain, "dumbass"

 

[westwall]

Publishing something does not put it in the public domain, "dumbass"

No, it doesn't. Who created it does. The GOVERNMENT created it, thus WE paid for it, thus it is OURS, dumbass.

 

[Rawley]

No, it doesn't. Who created it does. The GOVERNMENT created it, thus WE paid for it, thus it is OURS, dumbass.

If it was the Federal gvt. State gvts can own copyrights.

You're batting 0 for 3 "dumbass"

 

[westwall]

If it was the Federal gvt. State gvts can own copyrights.

You're batting 0 for 3 "dumbass"

State government is paid for by taxpayers too, dumbass.

 

[Rawley]

State government is paid for by taxpayers too, dumbass.

Doubtful you have much standing to bitch about what the State of Georgia does with it's copyrights, "dumbass"

 

[okfine]

Doubtful you have much standing to bitch about what the State of Georgia does with it's copyrights, "dumbass"

Or for the matter, Fulton County

 

[westwall]

Doubtful you have much standing to bitch about what the State of Georgia does with it's copyrights, "dumbass"

Doubtful you have a brain, dumbass. ANYTHING paid for by taxpayer dollars, federal, state, county, it doesn't matter, is PUBLIC DOMAIN, you ignorant twat.

 

[Rawley]

Or for the matter, Fulton County

It's a public record. I looked at it quickly, GA has a law that a subject of a mugshot can prevent, under certain circumstance, commercial outfits from using the mugshot. I don't see how that law can be used to prevent Trump from commercializing his own mugshot.