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.”
As usual, this probably won’t amount to even so much as a slap on the gold-plated wrist for him
Well, that’s kind of what a cease and desist is. It says, in a formal but mostly polite way, “stop doing that or we’ll become less nice”.
The watch website says the final version may not look like the pictures. Also they don’t have a production or delivery timeline and no promises of delivery.
And why the fuck should it result in more? This is petty bullshit that doesn’t matter.
You’re a Trump supporter. Your position makes sense in that context.
I don’t agree with them, but you can’t just call someone a nazi without evidence.
This guy doesn’t even know how to breathe without doing something illegal, does he…?
“Lemme tell ya folks, people say I have the best lungs. Truly spectacular. I can inhale carbon dioxide and exhale fresh, clean oxygen. They tell me this is illegal. That I’m a Russian house plant. They’re just jealous.”
tbf not owning images of yourself is very counter-intuitive
Any image of you in public belongs to the person capturing it. Imagine what it would be like if that wasn’t the case. All the pictures you ever took, if there are people in them other than you, you need a signed model lease.
I think for commercial use, that would be fair. IMO photographs should be considered collaborations between the one who took the picture and anyone (recognizable) in it. If you don’t want to get consent from everyone in a photo, blur out their faces.
France has something similar in their books. But it’s not enough for you to be recognizable, you sort of have to be both recognizable and the subject of the photo. But that would just mean neither party gets to use the photo unless they agree on terms. There are exceptions for journalism and other situations.
It’s quite complicated. There’s a reason most places don’t follow that model. And you can always cover yourself in public if you don’t want people to see your image. It’s a point where the freedom of two parties collide and there’s no clear answer on where one ends and the other begins. The law has to draw a line somewhere.
Add it on the pile hoss, there’s a lot of shit to shovel
Trumpers razor, the correct solution is most often crime
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 and confirmation bias.
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.
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
Meh. The courts are set up to prevent laws from ever applying to Trump anyway. What’s copyright law on the bonfire?
ITT: people that have been stealing or paying for creative work through selling their data for so long they forgot (or never knew) laws about this exist and/or how they work.
Considering how many people think they’re just one boring stream of them playing a video game away from making it big as a “content creator,” it’s petty shocking.
So, what about the political ad signs it’s being used on? Is that legal? I saw them all over the place.
Political speech has stronger 1A protection than commercial speech and one could argue for a ‘fair use’ exemption. Strong enough to win on its merits? I don’t know – I’m not an IP lawyer, probably not. Strong enough that a well-funded legal team could get a federal judge, hesitant to make a ruling certain to be criticized as ‘election interference,’ to delay a decision until after the election when the signs are all being taken down anyway? I think so.
Copyright protects commercial use so:
probably?I went and read a little and: Nope, gotta fall under fair use and selling a campaign sign with a copyrighted image wouldn’t cut it.
The font/script they chose makes it look like it reads “anus dumper” in cursive.
Do you mean Trump’s signature?
200m is how far you can walk before the watch falls apart.
Throw it on the pile.
It looks like it’s a re-drawn image and not an actual “copy” of the image, so wouldn’t that mean they can’t do fuck all about it? Obviously it was made to look like the image, but does that actually count for anything? I wouldn’t think it would.
It’s definitely a representation of the original but much like how you can just reverse a video to avoid copyright this isn’t an exact copy of the original.
Edit: I realize now that I was wrong about the reversed video. I do however think this is a weak case legally since it’s not an exact copy but I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about. Lol
You can’t simply reverse a video to avoid copyright. What gave you that idea?
People do it all the time on YouTube?
Surely you’re joking? People do it on YouTube to avoid automated detection. You would be laughed out of court for trying to assert copyright over a reversed video as a derivative work.
…automated detection is not law. It’s illegal, and if reported, will be pulled. If money is made from monetization, the channel can also be sued. Getting away with breaking a rule doesn’t magically mean you then automatically also get away with breaking a law. Reversing a video is considered “minor modification” that does not transform the original sufficiently to make it a new work.
It’s staggering to me how many people in this thread are completely ignorant of copyright law. I guess that’s a reflection of the times though.
Lol. That’s just to avoid the auto detection bots so it doesn’t get easily noticed for copyright infringement. People reverse the videos so they don’t get caught so quickly. Not because it makes them legal.
How so? By creating a derivative image of the one depicted next to the watch?
deleted by creator
Sure, until you become a creative professional and you see someone with a lot more money than you making even more money off your work, and then you might instead say “fuck that guy”!
Most people say things like “fuck copyright” because it’s currently set up to benefit employers, large companies, and wealthy people; creators are an obstacle in copyright law. Current copyright law hinders creativity and centralizes wealth. Fuck copyright.
If copyright law was creator-centric, there would be a lot fewer people saying “fuck copyright”.
Personally I’d probably still be against copyright, but only if there was some other way to take care of artists, like a UBI or something.
I understand the sentiment, and you are right, that copyright is an obstacle to some forms of creativity, especially anything that involves direct reuse of somebody else’s work without their consent. It has also enabled a marketplace for content that has, like many other markets over time, led to the concentration of market power in a small number of business concerns, who effectively dominate their fields with extensive content libraries and armies of lawyers and lobbyists to promote their interests.
However, one should still not forget, that if you’re just an independent creator who depends on their creativity to make a living and at some point manages to create something of great value, it is more likely than not that other small or big fish will try to take that and sell it without giving you a penny. And your only recourse will be copyright law. As in this case here. Saying “fuck copyright” without critically engaging with what is actually at stake in a specific case, can lead to a problematic stance where you may find yourself defending grifters against honest creators trying to make a living off their work.
You’re not wrong, but, like with critics of other “abolish such-n-such” statements, you’re missing a core part of it: replacing “such-n-such” with something better. Copyright has a few important purposes, and I don’t think anyone would want to eliminate it without covering those — and the need for creators to survive, and maybe even flourish, is chief among them.
(Same thing with “defund the police” — the intention was to redirect that funding to crime prevention and “alternative policing” (eg send therapists to mental health emergencies instead of cops). That was arguably the biggest PR fail of the century.)
Also, very very minor point, but as a librarian:
content libraries
I think “content collections” would be a better term, to preserve the free-to-share subtext of the word “library” — and “collection” has more of a hoarding context, which fits.
Since some commenters on here seemed a little too eager to go with “fuck copyright” and outright dismiss the particular copyright claim the story was about, I thought I’d help make sure they understand that it’s not all bad. Too often have well intentioned people been too quick to dismiss a setup, only to replace it with something worse - or without really having any idea what to replace it with. You seem to understand that copyright serves a useful function in the current market-based economy, warts and all.
I’m very interested in a creative perspective who is against copyright. I know there are some comedians that self publish but the expectation is that people will support them because they know the money actually goes to them. They don’t do any DRM, but there are rules about how many times you can download their media, and whether you can send copies or not.
Louis CK comes to mind, who has copyright and licensing information in the terms and conditions on his page. There is an understanding though, that he doesnt care if you break the license. He has said he doesnt care of you pirate it even.
Would he be better off without copyright at all?
If copyright protected the creatives then there would be a lot less antagonism against copyright. Most people are against it because it’s become a lever of control for big companies to use against both the creators and the public.
Note, for example, that in the article in the original post, the Associated Press is careful to say that the person who took the famous photo doesn’t have copyright over it. They do.
And none of them should.
That’s a moment in history, we should all be able to look back at history without a paywall.
I don’t make a living off of my calligraphy or anything like that. But I think that the value is in me being able to create more unique pieces.
Sure you can make a copy, but it’ll never be the same as having a hand made original. Then Again I’m not very good or successful.
deleted by creator
A few do, sure. Not a lot, though. Pretty difficult to make a living if you’re giving away your work for free.
So don’t make your career locking away human creativity from others. The idea that culture is now monetized is a huge problem for our species.
It is very difficult to make money in a market economy if you cannot sell the products of your labor. And to be able to do that, you need to have some ownership over said products. Ownership means exclusion, no way around it. Then you can transfer that ownership to an employer in exchange for a salary, or trade in an open market as a freelancer. Or create a collective wherein you share ownership. There are different models, but culture, to an extent, has always been monetized one way or another because creators have always needed to make a living, so they can continue to practice their craft while sustaining themselves and their families.
Copyright abolitionism sounds cool until you’re a professional creator with mouths to feed in this economy.
Of course there are smart ways creators can make money while also waiving their rights under copyright, but this does not work for everyone and many really just need to be able to sell the product of their labor to make a living.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, not by a long shot. But there’s no easy solution either.
We don’t need “professional” creators.
What you are saying is you don’t want creators to be able to make a living off their work. Because that is what “professional” means.
I’ve always believed that human subjects of photographs should have equal copy rights. Anyone can take your picture and then own that rendition of your face but you can’t take a picture of the eiffel tower at night because you don’t own the lights. Light bulbs have more rights than people.
I hate trump but I hate copyright law way more.
Ugh… Go trump … pukes
EDit: so many people are malding lmao. Even got boneheaded DMS ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ
Do you also hate the wishes of the artist who sold it to the news agency to earn a living and keep the image under editorial use as opposed to being commercialized and sold to benefit the Trump campaign? Whether you agree with how it’s being used or not, that’s what the photographer decided was best for their work.
Good thing the watch doesn’t contain that photographer’s work then
Yes… it does. People are wildly ignorant about copyright law, wow.
Copyright laws are bullshit in that their terms are way too long and are often too easily abused against people who are using copywritten materials under fair use. However copyright as a concept is not bullshit. Creative works, including photography, should absolutely be protected from unauthorized use for the benefit of the creator.
Also, there is nothing redeemable about Trump. Even if you feel that copyright law is somehow fundamentally wrong, the correct position can actually be “fuck all parties involved” instead of supporting Trump hawking his swag to pay for his campaign of fascism.
I really wish copyright was still how it was in the U.S. for more than the first half of the 20th century: 19 years with an option to renew for another 19 years. That, IMO, is long enough for any entity to be the sole earner from a work.
However copyright as a concept is not bullshit. Creative works, including photography, should absolutely be protected from unauthorized use for the benefit of the creator.
Sure, creative works should be protected. But not all works are creative enough to be protected. I disagree a photograph like this should have any protection. If the photographer put in their creativity or something else to create it then sure. Then it should be protected. This photo was taken on public event of people and stuff out of the photographers influence and IMO shouldn’t be protected
The creativity is in how the photo was shot; the camera settings, framing, when the photographer chose to take the photo, etc. To say that anyone could have taken this exact photo is both incorrect and doesn’t matter. Anyone could have written any book, play, or script but they didn’t. Anyone could have painted pretty much any particular painting, but they didn’t. I don’t disagree that many aspects of US copyright law are ridiculous, but to say there’s no artistic vision in taking a photograph like this is ignorant.
I agree. It would be like a composer who couldn’t play an instrument writing a symphony. Just because he doesn’t have the capability to produce the final outcome doesn’t mean his vision for how the various pieces fit together isn’t an artistry in itself.
That is a very powerful image, moreso than many of the other images I’ve seen of that event. It certainly isn’t because of the people in it, but the timing to capture that gesture and the overall framing add something that is lacking in other pictures I’ve seen. No doubt that is the reason they selected it. Now they will have to use a lesser option.
I think the other comment covered it but I believe this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes photography such an amazing artform. People study and practice, for a long time, to take photos like this. This isn’t a cell phone pointed in the general direction of a subject with conveniently optimal lighting for its tiny lens, though that could produce a good picture, this takes a great deal more experience, preparation, and creativity to frame and capture the subject in a certain way with extraordinary timing to get a dynamic, emotion-filled result.
Ummm… no. Copyright law sucks, but it’s really the only protection for artists/writers/etc. in this case, Trump sucks way worse than copyright law lmao.
He’s literally stealing someone’s work and attempting to make money off it as his own.
Yet you say “Go Trump.” Copyright law is all it takes for you to publicly support a fascist. Absolutely amazing.
Sadly, copyright doesn’t even truly protect this artist, it protects the corporation that the artist works for. And THAT is one massive reason why copyright is bullshit.
Without copyright, the artist would be unemployed. Because the corporation he now works for could just take his photos without paying him.
Copyright protects his livelihood. And THAT is one massive reason why copyright is necessary.
Correct. There are major flaws and rampant abuse; it truly needs reform. But it absolutely needs to exist and benefit those that create.
Its kind of weird for them to take the fascist thief’s side in pretty much anything
Many corporations force you to sign away your work when working for them, so what you describe is already happening.
“When working for them” means “when they pay you”. The point is that the corporation must financially compensate the artist. That’s how copyright makes art into a livelihood.
Without copyright, corporations can use art without ever paying the artist at all.
Copyright doesn’t protect derivative works.
Yet you say “Go Trump.” Copyright law is all it takes for you to publicly support a fascist. Absolutely amazing.
Yep, his watch completely erased any wrong he did and now I am full-on maga train. Isn’t it so great that things are so simple ? You could say white and black :)
Your priorities are fucked if you are able to even type those two words next to each other.
Your priorities are fucked if you are able to even type those two words [“Go” and “Trump”] next to each other.
“Go Trump yourself”
“Go Trump to hell”
“Go Trump off a bridge”
Yeah I guess I am.
I also support Ukraine so that makes me Nazi. And Palestine too so i am antisemite…
Edit; I also like killing unborn babies
I am very fucked up ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ
Supporting Trump in any way makes someone more of a Nazi than supporting Ukraine ever would.
No. Just the Trump thing. Conflating that with anything else you said is a very weird bit of normalization for the former.
I disagree with you, but wanted to be unlike the other comments. I, too, hate copyright, but in this case I’d say Trump deserves to lose, just cause he’s a cunt, and winning this will do basically nothing for anyone except him.
You’re letting your hatred corrupt your integrity. How is that no obvious to you here?
it’s
