It sure looks like Trump watches are breaking copyright law
It sure looks like Trump watches are breaking copyright law
The company behind Trump Watches prominently features an iconic image of the presidential candidate on its timepieces. There’s one big problem: It’s not allowed to.
The company behind Trump Watches prominently features an iconic image of the presidential candidate on its timepieces. There’s one big problem: It’s not allowed to.
…
According to the Associated Press, though, TheBestWatchesonEarth LLC advertised a product it can’t deliver, as that image is owned by the 178-year-old news agency. This week, the AP told WIRED it is pursuing a cease and desist against the LLC, which is registered in Sheridan, Wyoming. (The company did not reply to a request for comment about the cease and desist letter.)
Evan Vucci, the AP’s Pulitzer Prize–winning chief photographer, took that photograph, and while he told WIRED he does not own the rights to that image, the AP confirmed earlier this month in an email to WIRED that it is filing the written notice. “AP is proud of Evan Vucci’s photo and recognizes its impact,” wrote AP spokesperson Nicole Meir. “We reserve our rights to this powerful image, as we do with all AP journalism, and continue to license it for editorial use only.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean I'll lead by saying "fuck Trump" however I would be a little annoyed if I wanted to use a depiction of myself and someone came to yell at me about it.
Actually no, when you go to a professional photographer to have your picture taken, you pay for it. Because they put in the work and need to be compensated for it. By that logic people would never have to pay photographers for portraits, weddings, none of that. Just because you’re in a picture doesn’t mean you don’t owe a debt to the person who took it.
Yeah, but if I then want to put that picture of me on my social media page or a website or the back of a cheaply-manufactured wristwatch or what have you, why is the photographer allowed to tell me no?
Well if you want an argument based on ‘first principles’, because the photographer actually put work into producing this picture, let alone their knowledge, likely expensive equipment, and hard earned skill to take a truly great shot, whereas you did nothing for it. Unless you are a professional model, but then you probably got compensated for your work as part of a deal.
Now the uses you describe are very different. Some are more casual and non-commercial in nature. Courts will consider such factors in a copyright infringement case.
Now does the above mean you have absolutely no say in what happens to a picture of you taken by someone else? Not exactly, you can also prevent third parties from using the likeness of you for purposes that might be damaging to your dignity or reputation, again, in some jurisdictions, I do not know the details. I am not a lawyer and it was a long time ago I studied these subjects. But basically my point is that the fact that it’s you in the picture may matter to an extent, depending on laws protecting personhood in your country, but not in the way you assumed where every photo of you is yours for the taking.
Because you don't own the image. You are not images of yourself. Are you one of those people that thinks cameras steal a part of your soul or something? This isn't difficult to understand.
Considering it's me in the picture, and thus my reputation on the line if it gets misused, I think I should have some say.
Thanks for strawmanning me though.
Well. You don't.
Well, that's stupid.
Hm yes, but if someone takes a picture of me without me asking for it that's different
It is different only in that - in some jurisdictions at least - you can ask for the picture to be taken down or destroyed, and then not if you are a public person appearing in public like Trump is in this case. But that still does not give you the right to use the picture for your own gain without compensating the photographer. Because then you clearly not only have no objections to the picture being taken, but you value that picture, want to use it publicly, commercially even, and again, you owe a debt to the person who took it and in fact depends on people paying for their pictures for their livelihood.
Only if you're in a public place without a reasonable assumption of privacy (or whatever the specific legal wording is).
You're not coming up with some clever loophole, all of this has been litigated already in the past.
One of the first lessons we learned when I took a photography class in high school is that it's legal to take photos of people in public places. Just try not to be a dick about it.
Yeah try getting copies of a copyrighted portrait made. Wedding photos, school portraits, you name it. Not yours.
Well yes and no.
A famus artist may sell a picture of theirs to a company, them RHAT company has the copyright, not you.
Lots of artists don't own their music, don't own their likeness either.
This would decimate the photography industry.
Regardless of how I feel about Trump, I'm not even convinced that the plaintiff has a real case. From what limited knowledge I have about copyright law, the image might not violate it based on how much of it has been altered. The watches' images aren't even in color. There's also been selective cropping, and some shading has been added in. I think it might be different if they include the original image in the marketing material but I'd consult an I.P. attorney if I were a defendant in such a case.
That's not transformative by a long shot. It adds no new meaning and is for commercial purposes which has a higher bar in the first place.
Isn't this the same as that Obama red and blue pic?
Which was settled out of court with a sharing of rights to the AP. And that image was more transformative than this. Cropping the subject of a photograph and engraving it on the back of a watch just conveys the subject matter of the photograph. It's a loser in court.
being an impression or an engraving of photograph is pretty transformative. This claim is a loser in court.
Changing medium is not transformative if you're explicitly copying the subject matter of the original.
Edit: one thing that is funny is that there's a note in the picture of the article that they can't use a photo of the back of the watch for some watch review site because they don't have the rights from the AP. In that case, however, they're wrong because a picture of the back of the watch to make a point that the watch is similar to the original photograph is, hilariously, transformative. It, in conjunction with the article, has a completely different meaning than the original image and is fair use. If you used the image just to talk about the event or about Trump though, that would not be fair use because you're just using the image's composition in its entirety.
I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that. There are far too many example of just that in everyday life.
Unless you are a judge on the case your disagreement doesn't matter.
And the only examples that matter is case law.
Well I agree with you on that but unless you have verifiable credentials as an authority on the subject then your judgement and seeming disagreement on the subject also doesn't matter. To go around cavalierly making unverfiable claims (like I'm also responding to) about the judgements over intellectual property law does nothing good for anyone, but leaves many susceptible (including yourself) to Dunning–Kruger.
So if I produce a movie based on a book without a license, I would be ok in your mind right?
This would be like producing an engraving based on a altered photograph, and as I said earlier, it would be worth consulting with an IP attorney.
So are you saying yes or no that changing the medium from a book to a movie, which completely alters how the work is consumed, is fair use transformative or not? Because it would be very informative to how far off the copyright test that the supreme court has handed down you are.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for changes in media (photograph to sculpture) with alterations and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith for a more recent case where an upper body back and white photograph was cropped to only included a head, transformed to silk screen, and colored by hand if you want a clear idea here as to whether minor cropping and figure redrawing for engraving in a different medium is considered transformative(it is not).
Agreed. Hate to be that person but I definitely agree with you. It's literally a picture of himself. I detest the man but this is dumb to be fair.
I do some professional photography. If I take a picture, I own it unless there's a written agreement that says otherwise. You can't claim ownership rights of a photo just because you're in it - especially a photo taken in a public space.
Unless you take a picture of an.... copyrighted landmark...
That's how you exit the matrix
Sure. But it's my understanding also that a picture in a public place of me would be fair game. But if someone were to monetize it or use it to promote a product I thought this needs permission. Otherwise why do I usually sign a release when the photo of me is going to be used for advertisements by my workplace for example. The people that asked this of me were professional photographers as well and we were in a public space. I guess I just wonder what release forms and things are for
They have you sign the release so you won't annoy them with a frivolous lawsuit which will still cost them money to use a lawyer to fight it.
They don't have to do it.
It's really not dumb. If copyright law worked that way, no photographer who included human subjects would be able to make a living. Artists deserve to be able to sustain themselves from their labor.
no photographer who included human subjects would be able to make a living.
Sounds great to me! But then, I'm a deranged lunatic from the Taliban
Welcome to copyright law