Too lazy to modify the original photo that much?? Or trying to connect their "grievance" to the flag?!? I think the original photographer should SUE them! It is not only a likely unauthorized use of his image, but it is modified in such a way to make a mockery of it! Triple damages at least!
These ppl are SICK! They call for the assassination of the President, and then mock the actual assassination at Butler to compare the mere criticism of their joy-ride to attempted murder!
"Can't the photographer sue these ppl for i his iconic imag?"
...this is a "reimagining" of a "concept"...
...no portion of the original photo was used...
...except for the flag image which is public domain...
Yes, a photographer can legally sue for the unauthorized use of an iconic image [1, 2]
While "sharing a meme" for fun is rarely litigated, the creator holds exclusive rights to their work [3, 4] .
Why They Can Sue
Copyright Ownership: In the U.S., the photographer (or their agency) automatically owns the copyright to an image the moment it is captured [5, 6] .
Infringement for Profit: Using a copyrighted image for commercial gain—like selling shirts, mugs, or using it in advertisements—is a direct violation of copyright law [1, 7] .
Derivative Works: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to create or authorize "derivative works," which technically includes modified versions or memes of the original photo [8, 9] .
Common Defenses & Challenges
Fair Use: Users often claim "fair use" for purposes like parody, commentary, or news reporting [10, 11] . However, courts use a four-factor test that weighs the commercial nature of the use and how much of the original work was changed [11, 12] .
Impracticality of Lawsuits: Litigation is expensive. While technical infringement happens constantly with viral images, photographers often only sue when a business makes significant money from the image, such as in the Grumpy Cat lawsuit where the owner was awarded over $700,000 [11, 13, 14] .
Example: The Bernie Sanders Mittens Photo
The iconic photo of Senator Bernie Sanders in mittens was taken by Brendan Smialowski for Agence France-Presse (AFP) [10, 15] .
Commercial Use: If a brand used that photo for a "Big Sale" ad without permission, it would likely be considered infringement [16] .
Charity Exception: Sanders himself used the image for charity merchandise, raising $1.8 million [17] . Even so, legally, he did not have an "unlimited right" to use the photo just because he was the subject; he still had to navigate copyright ownership [18] .
I’m surprised that they used the American flag.
Too lazy to modify the original photo that much?? Or trying to connect their "grievance" to the flag?!? I think the original photographer should SUE them! It is not only a likely unauthorized use of his image, but it is modified in such a way to make a mockery of it! Triple damages at least!
u/#howl
These ppl are SICK! They call for the assassination of the President, and then mock the actual assassination at Butler to compare the mere criticism of their joy-ride to attempted murder!
" These ppl are SICK!"
...more fuel for the leftist zeitgeist...
Can't the photographer sue these ppl for misusing his iconic image?
"Can't the photographer sue these ppl for i his iconic imag?"
...this is a "reimagining" of a "concept"...
...no portion of the original photo was used...
...except for the flag image which is public domain...
Yes, a photographer can legally sue for the unauthorized use of an iconic image [1, 2]
While "sharing a meme" for fun is rarely litigated, the creator holds exclusive rights to their work [3, 4] .
Why They Can Sue
Copyright Ownership: In the U.S., the photographer (or their agency) automatically owns the copyright to an image the moment it is captured [5, 6] .
Infringement for Profit: Using a copyrighted image for commercial gain—like selling shirts, mugs, or using it in advertisements—is a direct violation of copyright law [1, 7] .
Derivative Works: The copyright holder has the exclusive right to create or authorize "derivative works," which technically includes modified versions or memes of the original photo [8, 9] .
Common Defenses & Challenges
Fair Use: Users often claim "fair use" for purposes like parody, commentary, or news reporting [10, 11] . However, courts use a four-factor test that weighs the commercial nature of the use and how much of the original work was changed [11, 12] .
Impracticality of Lawsuits: Litigation is expensive. While technical infringement happens constantly with viral images, photographers often only sue when a business makes significant money from the image, such as in the Grumpy Cat lawsuit where the owner was awarded over $700,000 [11, 13, 14] .
Example: The Bernie Sanders Mittens Photo
The iconic photo of Senator Bernie Sanders in mittens was taken by Brendan Smialowski for Agence France-Presse (AFP) [10, 15] .
[1] https://capessokol.com
[2] https://landrypllc.com
[3] https://www.pixeladies.com
[4] https://www.nolo.com
[5] [https://blog.galalaw.com](https://blog.galalaw.com/post/102gksl/image- rights-and-their-clash-with-copyright-law-new-challenges-and-new-horizons)
[6] https://www.reddit.com
[7] https://www.studocu.com
[8] https://www.quora.com
[9] https://www.suniplaw.com [ 10] https://capessokol.com
[11] https://silblawfirm.com
[12] https://christinemarielauture.com
[13] https://www.wilcoxmyers.com
[14] https://creative-boost.com
[15] https://www.suniplaw.com
[16] https://www.capessokol.com
[17] https://vtdigger.org
[18] https://www.capessokol.com
copied/pasted AI Drivel
Thanks.
I think he should sue since their derivative work is mocking his image.
This will not end well.
My thought exactly.
FAFO, Demons. 🤷♂️
Yes.
Who’s funding these commies ?
well this "comedy" is main stream. Kimmel is on ABC!
“volunteer” them for missions along the border confronting traffickers - see how long they last, the “border desert corps”