The sacred likeness
Trump says images of him belong to HIM. Get your dirty mitts off them.
Donald Trump has told the Republican National Committee and other party bodies to stop using his name and likeness in fundraising efforts, it was reported on Saturday.
“President Trump remains committed to the Republican party and electing America First conservatives,” Politico quoted an unnamed adviser to the former president as saying about the legal cease-and-desist notice, “but that doesn’t give anyone – friend or foe – permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.”
Wrong! Anybody can use images of him without his permission unless he has copyright.
Spiteful little fucker isn’t he.
Maybe he thinks too much money is being made out of Trump, masks, coffee mugs, car stickers, cartoons and other paraphenalia, and he wants a slice of the action. Then again, the last megalomaniacal egotist I read about who banned all images of himself was was some character in the Bible.
Could be that Trump is turning religious. If so, most likely starting a new one; with himself as the star attraction and all-powerful. Could be awesome. Incredible maybe.
Then again… (thinks)….
I’m not buying it until his likeness starts appearing on random baked goods, and in oil stains. He’s not the real deal unless he proves he can bend the forces of pareidolia to his will.
Sure, he stared at the sun during an eclipse, but if he wants to go full Fatima, the stupid fucker has to get his followers to do it, and see the sun do loop-de-loops in the sky. If he had managed to his ugly, golden idol at CPAC to weep blood (or Diet Coke), that might have been a good start…
I have to side with Trump on this one. Anything we can do to have fewer images of him out there is fine by me.
Heh, well in that sense I “side with Trump” too. I’d love to never see his nasty mug again.
I use(d) his likeness fairly often. But of course, only in the most respectful manner possible.
Of course.
It took me a long time to get my head around that aspect of copyright law: the copyright for a photograph belongs to the photographer, not to the subject of the photograph.
I guess Randy Rainbow must be shaking in his boots…he uses the images a lot.
YNnB @#2:
Good point; although a while ago I did come across a dog turd in a street that someone had trodden on, and there was Trump’s face looking up and out of it, clear as day.
Still, by Occam’s Razor I would have to look for a physical rather than metaphysical or mystical explanation. Someone could have done it accidentally, while wearing a pair of sneakers which left footrpints deliberately crafted to plant Trump’s image all over the countryside.
Come to think of it, if that’s NOT the reason, it’s a market opportunity for someone; say a Chinese manufacturer with a taste for revenge. Certainly was a memorable image.
Steven @7,
The subject of a photograph might have some relevant legal rights such as the right of publicity, but that’s a more limited right with lots of exceptions.