It Sure Looks Like Trump Watches Are Breaking Copyright Law
www.wired.com
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.”

  • Doxatek@mander.xyz
    1223·
    12 days ago

    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.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      471·
      12 days ago

      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.

      • Doxatek@mander.xyz
        49·
        12 days ago

        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

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          5·
          12 days ago

          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.

    • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      142·
      12 days ago

      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.

      • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
        61·
        12 days ago

        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