(09-03-2023, 11:21 AM)GMDino Wrote:





video: https://streamable.com/lp34uf

Source:

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1697388163658895657?s=20


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is real. <a href="https://t.co/VjWwL6Ne6W">pic.twitter.com/VjWwL6Ne6W</a></p>&mdash; Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) <a href="https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1697388163658895657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 2023</a></blockquote> 

Quote:The tricky legal question at the center of the Trump mug shot cash grab
Theoretically, the millions he is making off that photo may belong to the Fulton County Sheriff's Office.



T-shirts and hats with Donald Trump's mug shot at the Y-Que printing store in Los Angeles on Aug. 26.Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

Sept. 2, 2023, 6:00 AM EDT
By Dean Obeidallah, MSNBC Columnist

Donald Trump surrendered to authorities in Georgia last week and had his mug shot taken by the Fulton County sheriff. He wasted no time in turning that photo into a massive moneymaker. You name it, the Trump campaign slapped his mug shot on it: a $34 mug shot T-shirt, a
“Never Surrender” coffee mug for $25, beverage coolers at $15 for a pair — and much, much more.
While there has been no official report on how much the sale of these items has brought in, Politico reported last week that the campaign had raised north of $7 million since the mug shot’s release, “powered” by the sales of merchandise “bearing Trump’s scowling mugshot.”

But as various legal experts have noted, Trump’s sale of that mug shot, taken by the Fulton County sheriff, may violate U.S. copyright laws. This could mean that theoretically, the millions he is making off that photo may rightfully belong to the Fulton County sheriff — an entity that just happens to be in desperate need of funds to address the horrific conditions in the Fulton County Jail.
Theoretically, the millions he is making off that photo may rightfully belong to the Fulton County sheriff.

As a general principle, the owner of a photo’s copyright is the person (or entity) who takes that photo, not its subject. In federal criminal cases, the U.S. government is not permitted to own the copyright to booking photos, so they are considered in the public domain. However, that is generally not the case with mug shots taken in state and local criminal proceedings.  

Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, recently explained to Spectrum News 1 Ohio that the copyright owner of Trump’s mug shot is likely the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office. Other legal experts support that interpretation, including a 2022 article in the University of Georgia School of Law’s Journal of Intellectual Property Law that noted, “In the context of photographs taken by law enforcement during the booking process, the author of the mugshot photograph is the law enforcement agency.”

That would, again theoretically mean the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office has exclusive rights under U.S. copyright law to reproduce, sell or otherwise distribute Trump’s mug shot, except for certain uses like publishing the photo for news purposes. (I emailed the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office on Wednesday to confirm it owns the copyright and to ask if the Trump campaign has permission to use the image to sell for a profit. I have not received a response.)

It’s true the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office did release the mug shot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anyone else has the right to reproduce and sell it for a profit, as the Trump campaign is doing.

In fact, the Trump campaign itself clearly understands the photo’s commercial value, as evidenced by its recent threat to come after anyone else who wants to use the image to make a profit. Chris LaCivita, one of Trump’s top advisers, made that clear in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that said: "If you are a campaign, PAC , scammer and you try raising money off the mugshot of @realDonaldTrump and you have not received prior permission ...WE ARE COMING AFTER YOU you will NOT SCAM DONORS".

Trump could pursue such a claim, not based in copyright law, however, but because he has the right to control the use of his image for commercial purposes. But again, that is in no way a defense for Trump and his campaign’s apparent violation of copyright law.

There's also the copyright precedent of the famous “Hope” poster for then-candidate Barack Obama, which was created by artist Shepard Fairey. Fairey had used a photograph of Obama taken by The Associated Press, to which Fairey added the red, white and blue coloring, together with the word “hope.”

The AP alleged that Fairey had generated $400,000 in sales from buttons, shirts and other items that featured that image. In a preemptive lawsuit, Fairey claimed he had transformed the image with his changes, an instance of fair use that didn't infringe on the AP's copyright.

In the end, after two years of litigation, the two sides settled, agreeing “to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image.” The bottom line was that Fairey could no longer sell the items and pocket the proceeds.



'The whole story': Psaki on Trump mug shut and Republicans pledging to support him if convicted
AUG. 27, 202301:44

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%27The%20whole%20story%27%3A%20Psaki%20on%20Trump%20mug%20shut%20and%20Republicans%20pledging%20to%20support%20him%20if%20convicted&via=msnbc&url=https://www.msnbc.com/inside-with-jen-psaki/watch/-the-whole-story-psaki-on-trump-mug-shut-and-republicans-pledging-to-support-him-if-convicted-191693381838&original_referer=https://www.msnbc.com/inside-with-jen-psaki/watch/-the-whole-story-psaki-on-trump-mug-shut-and-republicans-pledging-to-support-him-if-convicted-191693381838]
Unlike with Fairey, Trump has made no effort to “transform” the image into something different. His campaign just took the photo and slapped it on some merch. And because Trump’s campaign is profiting off the sale of the mug shot, that would undermine any fair use defense. (Obviously, none of the other people who might be capitalizing on Trump’s mug shot have any more claim to it than he does. But the volume of his operation and his public prominence put him in a separate category.)

What happens now? As Rosenblatt noted, the sheriff office's decision "to enforce its copyright is entirely up to them.”

To be clear, this seems very unlikely. But if it did, the damages to which it could be entitled under U.S. copyright law, while not criminal, could still be very costly for Team Trump. Specifically, all the money that the Trump campaign made from selling the mug shot.

Recently, Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat pleaded with county commissioners for funding he desperately needs to address conditions in the county jail, according to local station 11 Alive. LaBat told the commissioners, “It’s a human crisis, and I have been begging for the resources,” adding, “I’m really, really tired of begging for money to do my job.”

If LaBat brings a claim of copyright infringement against Trump’s campaign and wins, he could see millions of dollars come his agency’s way to address those issues. That would at least be a just result. 

(09-03-2023, 02:21 PM)Dill Wrote: So my argument was, and still is, that it was "myth" that being spat on was a common experience. I am using the term "myth" as Jerry Lembcke uses it in his book Spitting Image.The MYTH is not that it NEVER EVER occurred, but that it was a COMMON experience. My interest in the matter, as stated above, is in why the myth appeared during Bush I's term, and came to to be framed as a big personal insult to vets when questioned. So anyone who questions this right wing revision of history is then cast as "attacking the troops" to stop the discussion. Nevermind that the majority of Vietnam vets polled agree they were not spit on or mistreated, but welcomed by their "liberal" peers.  And that's how I regard my difference with SSF over this--his complaints are just another attempt to stop the questioning of revisionist history.

What is your interest in continuing the misrepresentation? Do you buy into the revision? Why bring this up on another thread and out of the blue?


You are explaining all this to someone who was in that public draft in 1969.

Also, the draft ended during the war, not after, in 1973.

(09-03-2023, 06:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Since you were there, tell us how were the Soldiers treated by non-family civilians when they got home?

(09-03-2023, 05:36 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-mug-shot-georgia-t-shirt-cash-grab-rcna102825

(09-04-2023, 10:09 AM)Dill Wrote: Mostly pretty well by what I saw in classes and on campus, and by polls of vets from the late 1970s onward.

In my responses to SSF on war protest, I discussed how vets made up a large part of the protest movement,
where they were welcomed, at a time when there were protests on most every campus in the U.S. The
majority of vets also saw the government was the problem, not people who were protesting that problem.

Quote:I don't recall ANY talk of "spitting" until the 1990s, as GWH Bush was ramping up the population
for the Gulf War. Even then it was more about keeping people positive about the current military
than honoring vets from a war the most had forgotten by then. I.e., they were preparing for the
next round of forgotten veterans.

Quote:I still see the "myth" as an effort to turn public attention away from the politicians who lead Americans into
war and focus public anger on those who protest such wars for being "un-American."

(09-04-2023, 12:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hmmm so having the place where you are living (ROTC buildings) set on fire on campuses across the US is merely a "welcome" by the people!

(09-04-2023, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or, and I'm just spit balling here,  many different people had many different experiences and the absolute worst one got the most press/attention.  

And rightly so.

But others, perhaps even a majority of the others, did not have that horrible and despicable experience. Which does NOT take away from their experience at all even when it is talked about, or if someone takes it personally that their experience was not that of others.

This ENTIRE cross-thread, multi post exchange was created because (paraphrasing) one person told his father's story, another mentioned that that did not see to be how most stories went and the first person took direct offense and lied that the second posted was calling his father a liar. 

It should have been ended 50 posts ago or given it's own thread where people could argue their personal experiences/feelings are more important that anyone else.  

And I personally don't care which side of the argument you are on, it's been nothing but a stupid distraction to the actual posting in this forum, IMHO.

(09-05-2023, 01:15 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I was reading that even if charged with anything, he would still be eligible to run for POTUS.
The only 2 ways he wouldn't be able to run is if:
Impeached (acquitted 2x) or the 14th Amendment (Incitement of Insurrection) Senate never charged him.

IS that wrong? or right?

(09-05-2023, 02:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given that our criminal justice system is predicated on the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty Trump would have to be found guilty of said sedition to be precluded from office. 

(09-04-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All of which is immaterial to the question of whether some vets were spat upon by far leftists.

(09-04-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you must have lived on a commune.  I read about it in a GI Joe comic in 1982-83, which is what prompted me to ask my father if that really happened.  He told me it did, that it never happened to him but did happen to a friend of his.  Quite frankly, I don't believe you when you say you never heard of it until the 90's.

(09-04-2023, 12:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hmmm so having the place where you are living (ROTC buildings) set on fire on campuses across the US is merely a "welcome" by the people!

(09-04-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I still see the "myth" as an effort to turn public attention away from the politicians who lead Americans into
war and focus public anger on those who protest such wars for being "un-American.

Yeah, except you didn't phrase it that way, at all.  You got caught claiming my father's friend lied, you literally stated several times it never happened and you're now try to wriggle out of it because almost everyone is appalled by your initial argument.  You could be a grown man and apologize for your statements, but we all know you won't.

(09-04-2023, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: This ENTIRE cross-thread, multi post exchange was created because (paraphrasing) one person told his father's story, another mentioned that that did not see to be how most stories went and the first person took direct offense and lied that the second posted was calling his father a liar. 

It should have been ended 50 posts ago or given it's own thread where people could argue their personal experiences/feelings are more important that anyone else.  

And I personally don't care which side of the argument you are on, it's been nothing but a stupid distraction to the actual posting in this forum, IMHO.

(09-05-2023, 11:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Actually I was living in Germany from '83 to '93. And what you "believe" doesn't much matter.
In debates with me it is about what can be proven.

What is the date and issue # of your comic evidence? 

(09-05-2023, 11:24 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL I just quoted myself "phrasing it that way" (from #64) in my post to OtherMike above, #120. Same direct "phrasing" in posts #68, 69, and 80. Two notes to maybe reduce the drama:

1. For me this discussion is about the value/ethics of historical inquiry, whether researchers are allowed to follow the facts wherever the facts take them, without ideological obstruction. Demanding that we not insult and demean the "lived experience" of returning troops by inquiring into whether soldiers were actually spit on, whether that was a common experience, and whether the claim it was a common experience has become politically useful to those who want a freer hand in military actions abroad, is just that sort of obstruction.  And rather ironic given that those taking the lead in such "demeaning" inquiries have always been Vietnam vets themselves. Whether your father or his friend actually "lied" is uninteresting to me and has never been my focus.  Framing my inquiry as a personal attack on your father or his friend (who aren't even mentioned in my posts), for which you can then demand a "manly" apology, is just that kind of obstruction--manufactured outrage to stop inquiry into the historical question, to protect the "myth."

2. Especially when speaking for "almost everyone," you should extend them and me the courtesy of showing us what you are talking about. This is not about masculinity, but accuracy, consistency and integrity. Where are the "outright lies" and "wriggling"? 

If the claim is that I "got caught claiming [your] father's friend lied," and I "literally stated several times it never happened," then you ought to be able to quote at least two such statements and post #s, right?  Not something like "the question is raised in college courses," or "The myth of the spitting protestors seems to have emerged in the 90s," all of which sound like someone pursuing a historical discussion about the "myth" that spitting was a common experience, and not at all interested in your father or his friend. And you can't quote something from a source and attribute it to me unless I have singled out that quote to agree with. 

So in the interest of accuracy and integrity, where did I claim your father or his friend lied?  
Show whomever it is you mean by "we" and "everyone" the exact quotes for which I should "apologize."  

If you actually can produce the asked for evidence, take it back to the Ramaswamy thread, or to "our" A-stan thread. It's off topic here. 
Of if you can't produce it, then maybe just stop telling people that I attacked your father and lied about the myth "multiple times." 

(08-09-2023, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Could very well be. The question of whether such things happened is often raised in college history courses on the '60s. From my memory, protestors and hippies and the like were more worried about being beaten up by gung ho active duty types. I do remember returning vets being largely welcomed into protests movements, which many eagerly joined. They became one of the most important constituents of the anti-war movement. 

As far as the myth of the spitting protestors, it seems to have emerged in the '90s. 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/myth-spitting-vietnam-protester.html
“So where do these stories come from?”
The reporter was asking about accounts that soldiers returning from Vietnam had been spat on by antiwar activists. I had told her the stories were not true. I told her that, on the contrary, opponents of the war had actually tried to recruit returning veterans. I told her about a 1971 Harris Poll survey that found that 99 percent of veterans said their reception from friends and family had been friendly, and 94 percent said their reception from age-group peers, the population most likely to have included the spitters, was friendly.

A follow-up poll, conducted in 1979 for the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs), reported that former antiwar activists had warmer feelings toward Vietnam veterans than toward congressional leaders or even their erstwhile fellow travelers in the movement.

There are several books on the subject. Could be written by "leftists" though.
Spat on Veterans: An Enduring Myth
https://www.fromthesquare.org/spat-on-veterans-an-enduring-myth/
 
The Los Angeles Times editorialized that it was a mythical image—an edifying myth, said editor Michael McGough, but still a myth.

Apparently, Wall Street Journal editors did not get the memo. Its January 30, 2023, pages carried Jerry Davis’s “Vietnam War Veterans Deserve an Apology.” In the article, Davis claims that “veterans were often advised not to wear their uniforms lest they become targets for mistreatment. Some were cursed, spat on, and worse.” He goes on to say that “Vietnam veterans often had trouble getting jobs.”

Little in what Davis says is true. To fly home free on a commercial airline, returnees from Vietnam had to be in uniform. Employers were required to hire-back men drafted for Vietnam upon their return. It is true that plant closings in the auto and steel industries in the late 1970s hit Vietnam veterans hard—but that is not what Davis is writing about.

There is no evidence that Vietnam veterans were spat on. Nor could they have been, at least not in the manner described in the most often told stories. Those stories tell of landing at San Francisco Airport and being met by groups of spitters, often hippies. But flights from Vietnam landed at military airbases like Travis outside San Francisco; protesters could not have gotten on the airbase, much less near deplaning troops.

Legend of the spat-upon Vietnam veteran
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/legend-of-the-spat-upon-vietnam-veteran/

In his exhaustive book entitled “The Spitting Image,” Vietnam vet and Holy Cross professor Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by anti-war protesters, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.

For instance, Lembcke notes that “a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, ‘Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam War often blame veterans for our involvement there’ ” while “94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly.”

Meanwhile, the Veterans’ World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the anti-war protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans “finish(ing) their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation’s purposes.”

In the face of such data, why would the current president nonetheless repeat the apocryphal myth about spat-on Vietnam veterans? Because — facts be damned — it serves a purpose: to suppress protest and perpetuate the ideology of militarism.

This objective is achieved through the narrative’s preposterous assumptions. Metaphorically, if not explicitly, the mythology equates anti-war activism with dishonoring the troops; implies that such protest is kryptonite to the Pentagon’s Superman; and therefore insinuates that America loses wars not when policies are wrong, but when dissent is tolerated.

(09-05-2023, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can only tell you it was before the summer of 1984, because we moved to Europe then when my father was stationed at AFCENT (Allied Forces Central). 
It's already been done several times, but here you go, since you need consistent reminders.

(09-05-2023, 12:09 PM)Dill Wrote: The comic you citated is used in a several internet sources dealing with the "myth." 
https://theworld.org/stories/2012-03-20/vietnam-anti-war-movement-legacy-todays-returning-veterans
https://www.fromthesquare.org/spat-on-veterans-an-enduring-myth/

One says it was from a GI Joe comic. Those didn't start until 1985.

Quote:You have failed to quote me directly attacking your father or his friend, and then "lying" about that. 
You are just redefining "myth" to mean "no one ever was" then claiming that's what I REALLY meant. 
Quoting my sources, some of which are disagreed with, doesn't make your case either.
But I'll address that later today, on the Ramaswamy thread, not here.

Quote:I won't answer anymore Vietnam posts from you on this thread.