[Newsbot]

Title: Artist who painted nude Donald Trump portrait says his legal team has threatened lawsuit
Category: Showbiz
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2016-04-18 18:48:15

[Freakinoldguy]

It's about time. Artistic license doesn't give you the right to embarass or dengirate people publicly no matter whether you agree with their politics or not.

This self entitled asshole did it for one reason and that was to embarrass Trump. If she'd followed up with disparaging Hilary Clinton, Ted Cruze or Bernie Sanders paintings I might have believed that she wasn't being political but............

I imagine if this supposed artist (and in this case I use the term loosely) had done this to any other celebrity she'd have been in court alot sooner than this. So being sued by Trump shouldn't come as big surprise to the bitch.

[peck420]

It doesn't matter if we like, or dislike it. Parody of politicians is pretty legal.

It is sadder that Trump would want to hide behind his copyrighted 'image' to defend himself from it.

If you want to play in the big leagues, get thicker skin.

[Freakinoldguy]

peck420 peck420:

It doesn't matter if we like, or dislike it. Parody of politicians is pretty legal.

It is sadder that Trump would want to hide behind his copyrighted 'image' to defend himself from it.

If you want to play in the big leagues, get thicker skin.

There are thousands of images out there with unflattering caricatures of Trump and yes parodies may be acceptable but, this crosses the line. It's an obscene gesture couched in the term "art" designed solely to denigrate an individual for political gain.

Thick skin has nothing to do with it because it's solely about the demeaning of an individual. I'm pretty sure if an unflattering nude drawing of you showing an artists misrepresented interpretation of your genitalia popped up on facebook, twitter or this forum you'd be just as pissed as one Mr. Trump. So saying since he's in politics he has to take it is nothing more than bullshit because if it wasn't we'd be seeing the same things happening to the rest of the candidates.

Besides, if someone was to do the same thing to this artist I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing about how it violated her "safe space" and she'd be fighting to get the offending picture removed and destroyed while decrying the fact that she was violated.

That may not be a bad idea though. Trump should hire a real artist to do a disgusting painting of this woman to see how long it'd take for her to respond in kind.

[rickc]

I am pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this with its decision on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment grants one the right to intentetionally inflict emotional distress on a public figure. Mr. Trump is nothing if not a public figure. His entire existence on this planet has been one big self promotional tour. This artist, would have a good lawsuit of her own alledging Mr. Trump is violating her civil rights with this frivolous lawsuit.

Edited to add that I like the idea of Mr. Trump commissioning a nude unflattering painting of the artist. Now that this story has broke, the artist herself is now a public figure. As a public figure she is open to intentional emotional distress being inflicted upon herself as well. What goes around, comes around. Tit for tat. I like it.

[raydan]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Freakinoldguy]

rickc rickc:

I am pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this with its decision on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment grants one the right to intentetionally inflict emotional distress on a public figure. Mr. Trump is nothing if not a public figure. His entire existence on this planet has been one big self promotional tour. This artist, would have a good lawsuit of her own alledging Mr. Trump is violating her civil rights with this frivolous lawsuit.

Edited to add that I like the idea of Mr. Trump commissioning a nude unflattering painting of the artist. Now that this story has broke, the artist herself is now a public figure. As a public figure she is open to intentional emotional distress being inflicted upon herself as well. What goes around, comes around. Tit for tat. I like it.

Isn't that a special law. Become famous and people can do what they want to your image. No recourse unless of course you've copyrighted your image and then it's "fuck the Supreme Court" I'll see you in court which given the idiocy of the aforementioned ruling, is likely the only way the Donald can stop this disrespectful witch from profiting from his image.

So, I guess the real culprit here is Trump because he quite obviously doesn't agree with the august body that passed such an enlightened and forward thinking law and besides what's the problem of having a distorted painting of you that is clearly meant to destroy your public image floating around

Just found this from a copyright and patent lawyer.

$1:

The celebrity's likeness is not copyrightable, but celebrities have a right of publicity. In addition, you must be sure you are not referencing copyrighted images of others to create your artwork. Specifically, if you get images from websites, magazines or newspapers they would be copyrighted and you should obtain permission of the copyright owner before using any such image.

Courts in recent cases have found First Amendment protection for artists using the celebrities' images in certain art works. These cases do not state that an artist can exploit a celebrity's likeness without permission. They do, however, suggest that on a case-by-case basis, there may be situations where a celebrity's permission is not needed to use their image without first obtaining permission.

You should consult an intellectual property attorney to discuss the facts of your situation to be sure you avoid any unnecessary expense or complications, including being a defendant in a lawsuit.

Disclaimer: This answer does not establish an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute legal advice. It is for general information purposes only.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can- ... 35063.html

This is going to get real interesting. I hope she has a shitload of money to defend herself because she was clearly trying to profit from the picture.

$1:

The work became an instant viral sensation, and according to The Guardian, it attracted bids over $141,770 (£100,000) after it went on display in the Maddox Gallery in Mayfair, London this month.

[andyt]

i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē/
noun
Donald Trump suing somebody because they suggested he has a small penis.

[rickc]

If I could bet on it I would put my money on the artist winning. Recent cases have all sided with the First Amendment. His image is not protected by copyright, so the whole legal argument used against the artist goes out the window. Yes people have a right of public image but that would apply if someone put his image on the side of a box of cereal, or other product without his approval. Using his image to imply that he endorsed the product would fall under the right of public image. Using someone's image to make it appear that they approve of something that they do not (like putting Pat Robertson's image on the side of an abortion clinic), would also apply. This artist's work is satire. It is not meant to imply that Mr. Trump is endorsing a particular product that the artist is promoting. The sole point of the artwork was to ridicule Mr. Trump. That is protected speech. A couple of years ago Mr. Trumps tactics of threatening lawsuits would probably work. Now that he is one of the most hated men in America, probably not. He has an unfavorable rating of between 60% to 70%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5493.html
Civil trials are basically popularity contests, kind of like electing the prom King and Queen. Who do we like more? Who do we relate to more? Revenge also plays a part. Someone who has just been laid off from their job so their corporation can boost their stock price, or screwed over by a large corporation not honoring a warranty, is going to be a lot less favorable to a big corporation as a juror. With an unfavorable rating approching 70% the odds of Mr. Trump getting a majority ruling in his favor are very poor at this time. Its simple math, the odds are in the artist favor of winning a judgement in civil court. Mr. Trump has deep pockets. The artist does not need a dime of her own money. Lawyers will fall over themselves to get a shot at Mr. Trump's bankroll in a counter suit alledging violation of the artist's civil rights. Mr. Trumps decision to run for President has united a lot of people against him. Those people are everywhere. They work in the courts, they sit on the benches, and they will sit in the jury box as well. Yes Mr. Trump has his die hard followers (and may win the GOP nomination ) but they are outnumbered in the greater U.S. population. That unpopularity is going to last for a few years, and could grow if he is elected President. People who feel like they got screwed in an election are going to be looking for payback as jurors in civil trials. I really like the artists chances of winning this round.

[Thanos]

If we're no longer allowed to make fun of these evil pedantic morons then I'll have to start agreeing that this tyranny the tin-hatters keep going on about actually exists.