Trump Jr.'s Skittles Photo Taken By Former Refugee — And Used Without Permission

[GMDino]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/21/494854951/donald-trump-jr-used-skittles-photo-without-permission-from-former-refugee?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160921

Quote:When Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to poisoned Skittles, the condemnation was swift — critics called the tweet glib, dehumanizing, inaccurate, cruel.

Turns out they could have called it something else: copyright infringement.

The photo featured in the tweet was taken, without permission or credit, from a man named David Kittos.

And Kittos tells the BBC he was once a refugee himself.

The photo in question — a striking shot of a white bowl of Skittles against a white background — was posted on Flickr more than six years ago. Kittos said he was experimenting with a DIY macro photography setup when he took the shot. It's marked with a copyright note: "All rights reserved."

Kittos says in his Flickr profile that he's a database developer in Guildford, U.K., who's interested in high-speed, macro and underwater photography, among other things. He also says, in bold: "Please do not use my images for any purpose, commercial or otherwise (this includes linking from your blog or website), unless you have my written permission. Sending me a flickrmail to ask me first, isn't exactly painful, is it now?"

Apparently, Donald Trump's son missed the message.

"This image says it all," Trump Jr. tweeted on Monday. "Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first." Below was Kittos' photo — and the Trump/Pence campaign logo — with the caption, "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. [sic] Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem."

Kittos tells the BBC he didn't give permission for his photo to be used in that way — or at all.
"I have never put this image up for sale," he told the broadcaster. "I don't support Trump's politics and I would never take his money to use it."

The BBC reports that Kittos is "particularly dismayed" that the image was used to suggest refugees are dangerous — because as a child, he was a refugee himself.

When he was 6, he and his family had to flee Cyprus following the Turkish invasion. "We had to leave everything behind overnight," says Kittos, who is now a British citizen. You can read more of his story over at the BBC.

Kittos says he hasn't decided whether he'll involve lawyers and try to force the Trump campaign to delete the image.

"This isn't about the money for me," he told the BBC. "They could have just bought a cheap image from a micro stock library. This is pure greed from them.

"They should not be stealing an image, full stop."

Those Trumps seem like wonderful people. 

[Rotobeast]

What position does Jr. hold on his father's campaign committee ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(09-22-2016, 02:11 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What position does Jr. hold on his father's campaign committee ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I believe he's just "running his father's business" while he runs for President.

If he has an official role we won't find out until we find out how much he was paid for it.

[Rotobeast]

That's kind of what I was thinking.
If they ever do divulge that, then I'd say the fellow in the story could have a good shot at acquiring some Trump dollars.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

[GMDino]

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/propchil.html

Quote:Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom) ends with a brief description of a speech given by Julius Streicher, in which he declares that humanity cannot be saved without a solution to the Jewish problem. As with Trau keinem Fuchs auf grüner Heid und keinem Jud bei seinem Eid (Don't Trust A Fox in A Green Meadow Or the Word of A Jew), Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom), also contains many signs pointing to the adoption of "Endloesung," the final solution that was officially established at the Wannsee Conference in 1942.

In the course of my research, I learned that an English translation of Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom) appeared in London in 1938, the same year the book was published in Germany. After obtaining photocopies of the English translation, I discovered that this translation was just one of many publications circulated during the Nazi period by the Friends of Europe, a group opposed to Nazism and dedicated to providing "accurate information about Nazi Germany for use throughout Great Britain, the British Empire, the U.S.A., Europe and wherever the English tongue is known."[15] The foreword to the translation had been written by the Rt. Rev. Dr. H. Hensley Henson, who in 1938 was the Bishop of Durham. I wondered what connection an Anglican bishop might have had with the translation of such a disgusting piece of propaganda and was relieved to learn that as early as 1933, Henson had been voicing his concern about "Germany's religion of Blood and Race, as a menace to Christendom."[16] In his foreword, Henson exhorts "all who desire to form a just estimate of the Anti-semitism of the German State"[17] to read the The Poisonous Mushroom.

Within this compact volume, the Jews are depicted as money-grubbing capitalists on the one hand, and advocates of a murderous communism on the other. They are shown to have control over the professions, the economy, and the government, yet they are considered to be so ignorant that they lower the standards of the German nation. Henson makes the observation that the absurdity of the paradoxical images of the Jews contained in The Poisonous Mushroom would ensure the rejection of anti-semitism were it not for the "dark factors of fear, envy, and fanaticism, which can be worked up into a frenzy of hatred by the sustained and calculated efforts of the State."[18] His conclusion that the struggle against anti-semitism, "of which The Poisonous Mushroom is a disgusting but characteristic expression,"[19] should not be viewed as just a German issue, for anti-semitism is a threat to civilization itself is especially valid for today's society, given the proliferation of hate groups and their assaults upon our civilization.

[BmorePat87]

lol, some dude just googled "bowl of skittles" and made a meme online.

[Belsnickel]

To be fair, there have been memes similar in nature to this from both the left and right for a while, now. That isn't to say I don't agree with Mr. Bosnick, but there was this:


So if we are going to go back to Der Giftpilz then we can't look at just one side.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 12:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, there have been memes similar in nature to this from both the left and right for a while, now. That isn't to say I don't agree with Mr. Bosnick, but there was this:


So if we are going to go back to Der Giftpilz then we can't look at just one side.

Agreed.  This one just happens to come from the son of a man running for POTUS who already invoked images of the gas chambers.  

Might just be a slight disconnect in their thinking there....

[*michaelsean*]

Wait he stole a picture of a bowl of Skittles?

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 11:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Wait he stole a picture of a bowl of Skittles?

Yep.  A one with a copyright on it.

But those Trumps...they are SMART!  Many people have said it.  You'd be amazed how smart, okay?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-23-2016, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  A one with a copyright on it.

But those Trumps...they are SMART!  Many people have said it.  You'd be amazed how smart, okay?

Yeah this is way down on the list of troubling things.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah this is way down on the list of troubling things.  

I find this sort of stuff troubling. The amount of stuff out there in an unrestricted creative commons capacity and you have to use copyrighted material without doing the legal thing first? Shows a lack of knowledge about the law, about business, and a certain amount of laziness.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 02:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I find this sort of stuff troubling. The amount of stuff out there in an unrestricted creative commons capacity and you have to use copyrighted material without doing the legal thing first? Shows a lack of knowledge about the law, about business, and a certain amount of laziness.

Welcome to the entire Trump campaign in a nutshell.  

[Benton]

(09-23-2016, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah this is way down on the list of troubling things.  

Stealing is stealing. If I'd gotten paid for every stolen photo and story over the years, I'd be a lot less broke now. Like HUGELY less broke. Which is part of my issue with Trump. If I walked into one of his properties, took the front door off and threw it in my car, I'd get arrested. If he steals someone's copyrighted material or intellectual property, then the only way to resolve it is a lawsuit which rarely ever is worth the time.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote:

Stealing is stealing. If I'd gotten paid for every stolen photo and story over the years, I'd be a lot less broke now. Like HUGELY less broke. Which is part of my issue with Trump. If I walked into one of his properties, took the front door off and threw it in my car, I'd get arrested. If he steals someone's copyrighted material or intellectual property, then the only way to resolve it is a lawsuit which rarely ever is worth the time.

And it should be noted that this is an action coming from a campaign that is all about "law and order."

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2016, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote:

Stealing is stealing. If I'd gotten paid for every stolen photo and story over the years, I'd be a lot less broke now. Like HUGELY less broke. Which is part of my issue with Trump. If I walked into one of his properties, took the front door off and threw it in my car, I'd get arrested. If he steals someone's copyrighted material or intellectual property, then the only way to resolve it is a lawsuit which rarely ever is worth the time.

While I agree with you, do you not have to prove that the person profited from it (financially) ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 04:43 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: While I agree with you, do you not have to prove that the person profited from it (financially) ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

No. Granted, you're not going to get a judgement if they didn't, but even using it and not profiting from it is a copyright infringement.

[Benton]

(09-23-2016, 04:43 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: While I agree with you, do you not have to prove that the person profited from it (financially) ?


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Some state penalties may vary, but, generally (and with federal law), no. But proving it takes going to court and that takes attorneys. In my experience, most of the penalties get eaten up in attorney fees, so it's just a giant waste of time for writers, photographers, graphic designers, etc., to do more than have a friend who's an attorney send a free letter to the offender saying "cease or else." Plus, if you lose your challenge, then you end up paying out the several thousand dollars in attorney fees.

Bigger companies have something to gain, such as a few years ago when music companies were tossing out huge lawsuits against music sharing. But individuals or small companies don't have much recourse outside of spending a lot on an attorney that they may not get back.

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2016, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Granted, you're not going to get a judgement if they didn't, but even using it and not profiting from it is a copyright infringement.

(09-23-2016, 05:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Some state penalties may vary, but, generally (and with federal law), no. But proving it takes going to court and that takes attorneys. In my experience, most of the penalties get eaten up in attorney fees, so it's just a giant waste of time for writers, photographers, graphic designers, etc., to do more than have a friend who's an attorney send a free letter to the offender saying "cease or else." Plus, if you lose your challenge, then you end up paying out the several thousand dollars in attorney fees.

Bigger companies have something to gain, such as a few years ago when music companies were tossing out huge lawsuits against music sharing. But individuals or small companies don't have much recourse outside of spending a lot on an attorney that they may not get back.

Thanks.
I'm fairly ignorant, regarding intellectual property.