Treczoks

joined 1 year ago
[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, they already left the EU, now they want to leave the internet, too.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Snaps and Flatpaks auto updates automatically

Nope. Firefox does not, because either Firefox is running, or the PC is down or sleeping. So I have to close Firefox, open a shell, update that snap shit, and restart Firefox. Which pisses me off to no end, apart from the point that snaps are a waste of resources and a bad idea in general.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you talk about a lot of topics, and you've got a degree in communication, wha the heck don't you talk to her about that? That it makes you uncomfortable, etc? WHY?

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 60 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If he gave it all back, why is he still a billionaire?

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 0 points 1 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.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, if we assume Fulton County Jail owns the copyright, could they sell mugshot merch? If yes, that’s horrifically dystopian. If no, are they entitled to claw back any money made from the sale of mugshot merch?

They could sell mugshot merch from the copyright perspective, but there would be a load of other issues that would prevent them from doing so.

But technically, they could sue whoever is responsible for selling them and could claw back profits and damages, as this was undeniably copyright infringement for large-scale commercial gain. Look at this: Up to five years and up to 250k per offense. And that's only the punishment. The damages are between 750 and 30k, 150k if it was "willful". Plus all the usual stuff like paying lawyers and courts. The Sheriff's Office down there could buy their own donut factory from the proceedings...

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Simple: The Copyright lays with the Sheriff's Office.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

First of all, there is the fair use thing, and second, they probably have, and most likely there is even a clause in the Sheriff's Office' standard disclaimer that press use is OK.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The copyright is not with the person on the photo, it is with the photographer. Which in this case is the police department.

The only rights that Trump had were the rights on his own picture. Which is hard to control as a celebrity (public interest and such), and which he basically waived as he had those merch sold himself.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Good. Copyright violations for commercial gain are one of the most mindlessly over-penalized issue in the books. This time, it could actually used for good. Making millions out of copyright violations in the US is probably next to gang rape and mass murder.

[–] Treczoks@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Well, at least those issues don't kill people.

view more: ‹ prev next ›