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.”

  • Pieresqi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    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

    • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      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.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      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.

      • Pieresqi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        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

        • WxFisch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          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.

    • BlueLineBae@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      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.