A vote of no confidence: when politicians run into IP trouble
The UK Independence Party may have avoided a trademark clash with the Premier League last week after unveiling a new logo of a lion’s head, but there are several examples of powerful political groups and individuals brushing with the IP law.
Below we list some notable examples from the past few years, with US President Donald Trump, the UK’s Conservative Party and a Californian city all featuring.
Trump causes a stir
Back in January 2016, when many observers may have refused to believe Trump would become president later that year, ‘The Donald’ was busy promoting his vision for the US. However, one photographer didn’t take too kindly to Trump and his team allegedly using an image for a political video without permission, and complained to Facebook, where the content had appeared.
The disputed image—a portrait of three army personnel saluting during a Memorial Day Service—was taken for news publication Civil Beat. Despite the editor of Civil Beat complaining to Trump, he allegedly never received a response, prompting a complaint to Facebook. The social media company later removed the video, but the editor didn’t hold back in his criticism, reportedly saying that, “the issue we have … is that the campaign simply ripped off our photo. Plain and simple”.
By June this year, with the Trump Administration in full flow, he ran into trouble with yet another photographer, this time over an image appearing on Trump’s Instagram account. Depicting four women at a Trump rally wearing t-shirts that spelled out ‘Make America Great Again’, the image allegedly received over 27,000 and was later deleted. The photographer sued Trump’s holding company for copyright infringement and claimed it was “wilful, intentional and purposeful”. By August, however, the case had been settled (pdf).
Corbyn claims victory against Tories
Over in the UK, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn appears to be increasingly popular, even if he is not even in power.
But it was a rocky start for Corbyn, a rank outsider during the party’s leadership campaign in 2015, who went on to receive much criticism from all areas of the political spectrum after his victory. An early example of this came via a video from the incumbent Conservatives showing footage of Corbyn speaking about a number of controversial topics, before warning that the prospect of him as prime minister is a “threat to Britain’s security”.
Embarrassingly for the Conservatives, the video had to be temporarily removed from YouTube because parts of the footage belonged to a Corbyn supporter. After those elements were edited out, the video was re-uploaded, but it was a (very) minor early victory for Corbyn.
Copyright dispute bobbles over
While this example doesn’t technically involve actions by a politician, it did centre around Hillary Clinton, or more specifically, a “bobblehead” version of her.
If you’re wondering what on earth a bobblehead is, it’s a collectible toy that typically has an oversized head which moves (bobbles) around via a spring or a hook. In November 2016, just days after Clinton lost the US election to her nemesis Trump, a bobblehead maker called Bobbleheads.com brought a copyright infringement claim against two brothers.
Bobbleheads.com, the plaintiff, had been selling the product “Hillary Clinton striped pantsuit bobblehead”, which features Clinton wearing a black-and-white-striped pantsuit and a ball and chain. It sued the brothers based on their allegedly infringing products, but, according to the latest update on the dispute, the parties have agreed to settle the case.
Businessman feels the Bern
It may seem a distant memory, but Bernie Sanders did have ambitions to become US President. In April 2016, three months before he lost out to Clinton to represent the Democrats in the presidency race, Sanders’ campaign was accused of “trademark bullying” by a website owner who had received a cease-and-desist letter.
The man had been selling mugs and t-shirts online showing Sanders next to historical communist figures including Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin alongside the tagline “Bernie is my comrade”.
After receiving a complaint over the use of Sanders’ image, lawyers acting for the businessman contacted the politician’s lawyers saying it was absurd to think the public may be confused over the origin of the products. The letter said Sanders should be “ashamed” of the actions on his behalf, in what the defendant called a “crazy case”.
Fair use wins the day
The final example comes from the Californian city of Inglewood, which was ordered to pay $117,000 in attorneys’ fees to an online critic that it had accused of infringing its copyright.
Let’s face it, the idea of watching a local government meeting wouldn’t excite many people, but at least one man was interested enough. The city had complained about video footage of meetings involving the Inglewood mayor that were accompanied by critical commentary from the defendant. They had been uploaded onto YouTube and the defendant’s personal website.
However, a district court ruled that the videos were protected by the fair use doctrine and that it can “scarcely conceive” of works that are more appropriately protected by the defence.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories:
Waymo v Uber trial postponed, contentious report unsealed
Sink or swim: sperm bank takes on former employees who set up rival firm
