Is the Pelosi-Trump &quot;f-you clap&quot; State of the Union photo in the public domain? According to https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/viral-nancy-pelosi-photo-clap.php, one photographer from The New York Times was given exclusive photography privileges for this federal government event: ...New York Times White House photographer Doug Mills was appointed pool photographer for the State of the Union—a designation that meant he would be the only photographer allowed on the House floor during the event... That would incline me to think it should be a government record, but since it was taken by a photographer for a private news organization, I'm left uncertain. So, to rehash: Is the Pelosi-Trump "f-you clap" State of the Union photo in the public domain? If copyrighted, would modifying it into a form of satire allow one to skirt the copyright restrictions?
I don't think it's in the public domain. It is true that "works of the United States Government" cannot be copyrighted (17 USC 105). However, "work of the United States Government" is defined as a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. (17 USC 101) The pool photographer isn't an officer or employee of the United States Government; he works for the New York Times. The satire question is separate and I don't know the answer to that.
united-states In some countries there are laws prohibiting publishing a person's picture without that person's consent. The US has no such general rule, and many other countries do not either. The details of such laws, where they exist, vary from country to country. In the US there are two kinds of legal action that might be used by a person to stop that person's image from being published. These are a suit for invasion of privacy, and a suit to enforce a person's right of publicity, also called a right of personality. These torts vary from state to state, and are not recognized at all in some states. Invasion of Privacy This has several variants, such as &quot;intrusion upon seclusion&quot;, and &quot;disclosure of private facts&quot;. Intrusion generally applies when someone has entered a private place, such as a dwelling, without permission, and has then taken a photograph, made an audio or video recording, or perhaps a written account, and has published or attempted to publish the image, recording or account. If and only if the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot; then the subject or lawful occupant of the place invaded may be able to obtain money damages, or an injunction against publication. This would not apply to the fact pattern in the question, because the parents would have had a right to be in their own home, or anywhere that such baby photos are likely to have been taken. Intrusion can also apply to one who observes private activities without permission, even if no recording is made. But the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard still applies. A &quot;private facts&quot; case generally applies when a person (or a small group, such as a family) has attempted to keep certain facts private, but some other person or business has published them (or attempted to publish them). A successful suit will in most states that allow such suits require evidence of some positive effort to keep the facts private, and that the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot;. This might possibly apply in the fact pattern described in the question. But note that the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard applied to both of these privacy torts. Most typical baby pictures would not be considered &quot;highly offensive&quot;, this is a fairly high bar. It would be a decision ultimately made by the jury or other finder of fact, I believe. For comparison, peeping on a couple having sex in a hotel room has been found to be highly offensive. When a person had sex with another, and had secretly arranged to record a video of the sexual encounter, and later distributed it, that was found to be highly offensive. Right of Publicity This generally prohibits using a person's, name, image or likeness, or &quot;persona&quot; to endorse or advertise anything, or for other commercial purposes, without consent. It is most often applied to unauthorized celebrity endorsements. Most US states have some form of this, but the details vary significantly. Unless the baby pictures were being used to advertise something, or in some commercial manner, this would not apply. If the parents sold baby pictures to someone who used them to advertise, say a day-care, or some baby product, this might apply, although it might be that the parents would be held to have had the right to act as the child's agent. If someone else downloaded the baby pictures from Facebook (or any other such site) and used them in ads, this might well apply. Conclusion It is unlikely in the US that a child could successfully take legal action against a parent for having posted pictures of the child, even if they were embarrassing, unless they were also &quot;highly offensive&quot;. Even then such a suit would be unusual, and might not be successful. It is more likely that a request to the parent would be successful, unless the parties are on vary bad terms. A request to the site to take down such images might work, depending on the site's terms. A DMCA takedown would not work, because the subject does not normally hold copyright to an image, the photographer initially does (unless it is a work made for hire, in which case the employer initially does). This conclusion is specific to US law. The outcome would be different in at least some other countries.
YES, if you can get an image of it, you can use it A work that old is not under copyright protection in any country in the world. Under US law any work published in 1924 or before (as of 2019) is in the public domain. Unpublished works may be protected for up to 120 years after creation under US law. But no work that is over 600 years old has any copyright protection. In any case, merely owning the physical work does not mean owning the copyright. In the case of a work sufficiently recent that it is under copyright, say from the 1970s, the copyright initially belongs to the artist. If the artist sells or gives the painting to a museum (or anyone else), the artist retains the copyright unless that is explicitly included in the deal, in a written agreement. If the artist dies, the copyright is inherited, just as any other property that the artist leaves, as directed by will or law. If a museum owns a painting that is out of copyright, it can restrict access to it and prevent people from photographing or copying it, because it can restrict what people do on its property. But if an exact copy (known as a "slavish copy") gets out, the museum has no copyright in it, because making a slavish copy does not create an original, copyrightable work under US law. See the case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) and Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) The law may be different in non-US countries, but the reasoning of the Bridgeman case has bene followed elsewhere. A "slavish" copy is one that attempts to reproduce the original as exactly as possible, without adding or removing or changing anything. A photo of a painting in a frame on a stand with people standing beside it is not a slavish copy. The images of art one sees in books on art are usually slavish copies. So are the images one sees on museum web sites, as a rule. The term implies that the copyist had no more freedom than a slave in making the copy. At least that is the metaphor. Slavish copies do not get separate copyrights because they are not original works. Photos of 3D works such as sculptures require choice of angle, lighting, etc, sufficient t make them original works -- no two photographers will produce quite the same image of a sculpture. But some courts have ruled that wire-frame models of 3D works of art are slavish copies and not protected by copyright.
Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230, but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)
Generally, it's illegal. You are creating a derivative work and you are not allowed to do that without the permission of the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions may have exceptions, such as fair use under US law. However, this generally protects uses that are intended to comment on or parody the work. It doesn't sound like that is the purpose of your image modification. NOT including: faceswaps, modifications that would shame or affect negatively the reputation of the actors on the image. That doesn't make it legal. I share it in a way that I don't make any economic profit out of it, and clearly stating that it is a modified image (not sure if inside the image, or in the caption under it) and state who is the legal owner of the original image. That doesn't make it legal, either.
One does not lose legal rights by becoming a government official, so POTUS retains the right to sue for defamation, hold copyright, sue for trespass or breach of contract, and so on. The standards for defamation change when one becomes a "public figure" (you have to show "actual malice"), but this is much broader than being a government official. Anything that is a "work of the US government" is not protected by copyright, so presidential decrees, as government works, are not protected by copyright. I do not know of any state where one legally loses publicity rights as a function of being famous, or being an elected official. California Civil Code §3344 spells out the right of publicity in that state, which says that anyone who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent can get sued. However, there is a "fair use" escape clause: For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). The law doesn't say exactly what constitutes a "political campaign" or "public affairs broadcast or account", but since politicians get caricatured in the papers all the time, with no requirement for consent, it is highly likely that the use you point to would be found to be part of a "political campaign" or "public affairs account". Additionally, under the First Amendment, you can criticize a government official, and that right is not limited to just critical words. It is obvious that the things on sale are basically criticism of POTUS, and you can't use the law to suppress such criticism. Accordingly, one could also criticize Tom Cruise (not a government official) using his likeness on such an object. However, one cannot exploit his image to sell perfume.
Not only can’t you trademark it, you can’t use it The original logo is covered by copyright which belongs, prima facie, to the original artist. It doesn’t matter that they are based in Russia; Russia and the US are both signatories to the Berne Convention which means they protect each other’s copyright. That means you can only use it if it is fair use (it isn’t) or if you have the copyright owner’s permission (you don’t). Could I still use the logo I bought and trademark it in the US granted that the seller had made some revisions to the stock photo he found? Not if the seller didn’t have permission to make those changes. Creation of a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights copyright gives. The seller had changed up some parts of the stock image, this includes color scheme, orientation, and made the picture look a little low poly. See above. The original artist of the stock photo is based in Russia and as far as I can see there is no registered copyright on it and don't think they could apply for US copyright anyway. They already have copyright. They would need to register it in the US before they could sue but there is no impediment to them doing so. While I'm not sure where the seller (located in Pakistan) officially downloaded the logo, I had nothing to do with the final design of it or downloaded anything from a stock photo website myself, so I'm not sure if I'd be bounded by any terms of the stock photo website Makes no difference. Just because you didn’t steal the car, that doesn’t make it ok for you to drive it. The stock image is very niche and a bit random. Across all the websites the artist has published it on, it has about 5 or 6 downloads altogether. Not relevant at all. As far the copyright of the seller's work goes, the Fiverr terms state that buyers have all the copyright, though I don't know if this is nullified by the use of the stock image. You can’t sell something you don’t own. If the seller had no right to upload the photo (as it seems they didn’t), the terms of the website don’t matter. The true owner never agreed to those terms and isn’t bound by them.
Short answer: It depends on the state and exactly how you do so. Stating how you voted, by itself, is fine; however, taking a photo of your ballot instead of just saying how you voted is illegal in some states, especially if the photo was taken within a polling place. Laws banning these so-called &quot;ballot selfies&quot; may be unconstitutional, and have been successfully challenged under the first amendment in some cases. There is not a general ban on simply saying who you voted for. This is an extremely common practice, and it is the basis for &quot;exit polling,&quot; where voters leaving a polling place are asked whom they voted for in order to collect voting statistics to predict the winner of the election. This type of polling has been upheld by courts, and it sounds like laws banning it were primarily concerned with voter intimidation rather than vote-buying. As of 2016, 18 states banned sharing any photograph of a ballot, while an additional 6 ban photography in polling places. The rationale for such laws is to prevent vote-buying, because if you can't take a photo of your ballot, you can't prove whom you voted for (whereas without the photo, you could simply vote however you like, then lie). However, at least one such law has been challenged in federal court and invalidated as a violation of the first amendment (in Rideout v. Gardner) &quot;because it is a content-based restriction on speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.&quot; If such first-amendment challenges continue to be upheld, it is possible that this practice will be legal throughout the United States.