293

New York AG asks judge to sanction Trump, legal team for raising failed arguments (thehill.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) in a new filing asked a state judge to sanction former President Trump, his two adult sons and their legal team for $20,000, saying they continue to bring up arguments already rejected in court.

James — who is suing the former president, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, the Trump Organization and others for $250 million over allegations that they falsely inflated their assets — argued Tuesday that arguments raised by Trump’s legal team have been struck down twice by the court. An appeals court also separately rejected the claims.

When the Trump legal team raised the arguments the second time, the judge noted that they “were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them” and said that a “sophisticated defense counsel should have known better,” according to Tuesday’s filing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But the Fulton County Sheriff has a copyright on the mugshot, and can sue him for any profits off that stuff.

Is that the case for Georgia state agencies? At the federal level, works created by a federal employee as part of their job are not subject to copyright; they're automatically in the public domain. However that rule doesn't apply to states and different states have different rules. This Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't include Georgia.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Apparently it is.

“In the context of photographs taken by law enforcement during the booking process, the author of the mugshot photograph is the law enforcement agency,” the 2022 University of Georgia School of Law’s Journal of Intellectual Property Law states.

As such, Betsy Rosenblatt, a professor at Case Western Reserve University’s School of Law, says there are limitations to what people may do with such photographs. “You’re prohibited from using it for a number of things without authorization,” she told Spectrum News 1 Ohio.

“You’re prohibited from reproducing it, making a derivative work of it, distributing it without authorization, or that is to say distributing anything that isn’t the one copy you already lawfully have, and various other things. Making a public display of it, making a public performance of it, which opens up all kinds of fascinating possibilities here.”

[-] Teh@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I’d be surprised if a public photo was subject to copyright. Upside is that anyone ELSE can sell them.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Some US states do hold copyright over state workers' work. This isn't illegal under federal law (though maybe it should be).

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

So the old lady at the DMV owns all our ID pics?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No, as with all other work done as part of employment, the employer (in their case, the state) owns the copyright.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It was released by Fulton County, but they own the rights to it. They might end up buying a new fleet of cruisers over the copyright settlement.

[-] Teh@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I’d be investing in riot gear, but then again I’m sort of hopeful as a person.

this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023

293 points (99.3% liked)

politics

18888 readers

3297 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News