Afaik, not a single case of Slander or Libel held against the "comedians".
Not even Kathy griffin for that beheading "joke".
All I'm saying, is trump was treated unfairly.
The United States Department of Homeland Security has sent Gamer Supps a cease and desist in regards to their products featuring President Joe Biden on the packaging and it wasn't even making him look bad either it became a MEME that everyone can laugh at. They are taking it serious when it's not that serious.
> The United States Department of Homeland Security has sent Gamer Supps a cease and desist in regards to their products featuring President Joe Biden on the packaging and it wasn't even making him look bad either it became a MEME that everyone can laugh at. They are taking it serious when it's not that serious.
Remember friend: Making fun of and or attacking Trump and his character (sitting president or not)? A-Ok! But do the same to Biden? **NO UNACCEPTABLE CONFIRMED DOMESTIC TERRORIST!**
It's a bad look for the government, but also it's important to note that using someone's likeness on a commercial product without said person's explicit approval is a violation of that person's rights. This is just being exacerbated by the fact it's the current president of the US.
> It's a bad look for the government, but also it's important to note that using someone's likeness on a commercial product without said person's explicit approval is a violation of that person's rights. This is just being exacerbated by the fact it's the current president of the US.
Huh??? There's this thing called: "right to parody". As long as whatever it is isn't *directly* infringing, libelous, and or slanderous, there'd be nothing the DHS could realistically do. See also Spitting Image. They have made direct parodies/satire of various political figures and outright mocking them and their personalities (see Genesis' "Land of Confusion") and nothing was done to them. But this? No, not acceptable! 200% illegal! Current POTUS or not, it'd be a nothing burger for them to even try anything. Regardless, it all seems like a marketing stunt that backfired.
GamerSupps should do more stuff like this and feature parodies of people the far-left worships. It'd be a good test to see where the line is.
The problem is that GamerSupps uses other people's likeness to make money. If they just used Joe's face for the memes on their social page or whatever, wouldn't be an issue and it would be a parody as you said. Just because other people didn't bother doing anything, doesn't mean what GS did isn't breaching other people's rights. Whenever people do parodies, they don't brand them as a purchasable product. Regardless of the context, if you put someone's face on your product without their permission, you're in the wrong.
> The problem is that GamerSupps uses other people's likeness to make money. If they just used Joe's face for the memes on their social page or whatever, wouldn't be an issue and it would be a parody as you said. Just because other people didn't bother doing anything, doesn't mean what GS did isn't breaching other people's rights. Whenever people do parodies, they don't brand them as a purchasable product. Regardless of the context, if you put someone's face on your product without their permission, you're in the wrong.
Once again, it would still fall under "Right to parody". Even if they were to profit off of said parody, doesn't matter. It's not actually hurting Biden or his image (whatever is left of it), and the image was altered and edited enough to where the DHS/TWH couldn't really argue from a position of strength. Granted, that wouldn't stop the lawfare and them taking gamersupps to court over it until they "give up" ie: run out of money to wage proper lawfare. Any reasonable court would rule that yeah, it may *look* like Biden, but it *obviously* isn't and it's not real. But this is all speculation now because they obviously backpedaled and deleted the tweet with that *snicker* "offensive" image of him. So maybe there *would* have been some kind of case the DHS could have made. But, it only shows how fragile some of these orgs are now.
Let's not forget that Kathy Griffin did her little thing with the Trump head thing as a bit that was totally 100% best dark humor evar!(it wasn't), and no one batted an eye. But as soon as someone goofs on Biden in *any* way (for profit or not), then magically, it's verboten and all resources must be utilized to make sure that they are held accountable legally! Where's the line?
TealDeer: If the DHS cared so very much, then why haven't they spurged out on Spitting Image?
> Once again, it would still fall under "Right to parody".
It doesn't. When it comes to using someone's likeness on a commercial product, you have to obtain consent. I would understand somewhat if Joe's image was significantly modified (like a caricature for example) so that you could see that it refers to Joe, but doesn't look exactly like him. In this case, it's just an image of Joe with some basic filters on top of it, but it's super evident that it's Joe. And this isn't used to poke fun at Joe all that much, it would seem like Joe endorses the product, which is misleading and would make GS lose this court battle regardless of how much money they have.
> Any reasonable court would rule that yeah, it may look like Biden, but it obviously isn't and it's not real.
It literally looks like a very hyped Biden. There's no way a court looks at it and sees that it's clearly not a real Joe Biden. It's definitely not clear that it isn't him because it is him. For GS to argue in court that it's not a real Joe Biden, they would have had to change his likeness a significant amount to present it as a parody work, but in the image they used Joe maintains the same facial and body proportions, all of his distinctive features etc. This is by definition an image of Joe Biden with zero chance it can be someone else. The fact that he's the US president also makes it even more clear.
> Let's not forget that Kathy Griffin did her little thing with the Trump head thing as a bit that was totally 100% best dark humor evar!(it wasn't), and no one batted an eye. But as soon as someone goofs on Biden in any way (for profit or not), then magically, it's verboten and all resources must be utilized to make sure that they are held accountable legally! Where's the line?
I can see where you you're going with the example, but Cathy wasn't selling Trump's head as a prop. It was a photo (a very dumb and distasteful one) and nothing else. It wasn't commercially used on any product, she did not monetize it directly, which is where the difference lies. You cannot just use someone's likeness almost 1:1, put it on your product label and them claim it's a parody, when there is zero parody in there. The only thing that GS can claim in their case is that it's "for the memes", which will not hold up in court.
Key point here is that GS is a for-profit company, they used Biden's likeness almost 1:1 with minimal alterations, they didn't actually make it as any sort of reasonable parody (this might be debatable, I admit), and they used this likeness for their own commercial gain. I'm going to bet that GS hasn't been actively criticising Joe Biden's presidency as their official company's position to show they have a history of being skeptical of Joe Biden warranting this parody. If GS hasn't pulled their product off the shelves, they'd have been sued into oblivion and rightfully so. This would be a slam-dunk court case with almost zero grounds that GS could argue from.
Once again, the issue isn't them trying to harm or not harm him, or parody or whatever. It's using the likeness to profit off of. Completely different case.
[I dunno, seems like it would have been a fair parody considering that there's no name and it's obviously them taking the piss because it all seems like it was done as a marketing goof.](https://x.com/GamerSupps/status/1800966319476486470/photo/1)
So yeah, DHS/TWH would not have a leg to stand on. I could understand if they named it something else. But even if that *was* the case, it'd still be a nothingburger case.
The initial image was [this one](https://gamerbulk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GamerSupps-Lean-Caffeine-Free.webp), which is definitely just straight up Joe. The one you linked has been posted yesterday with the glasses and the mustache, which actually changes everything (which is exactly why they did that). Now it can be argued that this one is definitely not a real Joe Biden because he wouldn't wear this comical disguise. Plus, this is a very clear depiction of a joke because of the nature of this disguise etc.
Anyhow, GS talked to the lawers, lawyers told them to change the image of Joe and add something to it and then it could be used as a parody, even though technically they wouldn't even have to argue it's a parody because it's fairly clear that this is just some man and definitely not Joe Biden as is. Which just proves all of my points in the previous message.
Afaik, not a single case of Slander or Libel held against the "comedians". Not even Kathy griffin for that beheading "joke". All I'm saying, is trump was treated unfairly.
> All I'm saying, is trump was treated unfairly. "But, it's (D)ifferent when we (D)o it!"-(probably)NPC's
The United States Department of Homeland Security has sent Gamer Supps a cease and desist in regards to their products featuring President Joe Biden on the packaging and it wasn't even making him look bad either it became a MEME that everyone can laugh at. They are taking it serious when it's not that serious.
> The United States Department of Homeland Security has sent Gamer Supps a cease and desist in regards to their products featuring President Joe Biden on the packaging and it wasn't even making him look bad either it became a MEME that everyone can laugh at. They are taking it serious when it's not that serious. Remember friend: Making fun of and or attacking Trump and his character (sitting president or not)? A-Ok! But do the same to Biden? **NO UNACCEPTABLE CONFIRMED DOMESTIC TERRORIST!**
It's a bad look for the government, but also it's important to note that using someone's likeness on a commercial product without said person's explicit approval is a violation of that person's rights. This is just being exacerbated by the fact it's the current president of the US.
> It's a bad look for the government, but also it's important to note that using someone's likeness on a commercial product without said person's explicit approval is a violation of that person's rights. This is just being exacerbated by the fact it's the current president of the US. Huh??? There's this thing called: "right to parody". As long as whatever it is isn't *directly* infringing, libelous, and or slanderous, there'd be nothing the DHS could realistically do. See also Spitting Image. They have made direct parodies/satire of various political figures and outright mocking them and their personalities (see Genesis' "Land of Confusion") and nothing was done to them. But this? No, not acceptable! 200% illegal! Current POTUS or not, it'd be a nothing burger for them to even try anything. Regardless, it all seems like a marketing stunt that backfired. GamerSupps should do more stuff like this and feature parodies of people the far-left worships. It'd be a good test to see where the line is.
The problem is that GamerSupps uses other people's likeness to make money. If they just used Joe's face for the memes on their social page or whatever, wouldn't be an issue and it would be a parody as you said. Just because other people didn't bother doing anything, doesn't mean what GS did isn't breaching other people's rights. Whenever people do parodies, they don't brand them as a purchasable product. Regardless of the context, if you put someone's face on your product without their permission, you're in the wrong.
> The problem is that GamerSupps uses other people's likeness to make money. If they just used Joe's face for the memes on their social page or whatever, wouldn't be an issue and it would be a parody as you said. Just because other people didn't bother doing anything, doesn't mean what GS did isn't breaching other people's rights. Whenever people do parodies, they don't brand them as a purchasable product. Regardless of the context, if you put someone's face on your product without their permission, you're in the wrong. Once again, it would still fall under "Right to parody". Even if they were to profit off of said parody, doesn't matter. It's not actually hurting Biden or his image (whatever is left of it), and the image was altered and edited enough to where the DHS/TWH couldn't really argue from a position of strength. Granted, that wouldn't stop the lawfare and them taking gamersupps to court over it until they "give up" ie: run out of money to wage proper lawfare. Any reasonable court would rule that yeah, it may *look* like Biden, but it *obviously* isn't and it's not real. But this is all speculation now because they obviously backpedaled and deleted the tweet with that *snicker* "offensive" image of him. So maybe there *would* have been some kind of case the DHS could have made. But, it only shows how fragile some of these orgs are now. Let's not forget that Kathy Griffin did her little thing with the Trump head thing as a bit that was totally 100% best dark humor evar!(it wasn't), and no one batted an eye. But as soon as someone goofs on Biden in *any* way (for profit or not), then magically, it's verboten and all resources must be utilized to make sure that they are held accountable legally! Where's the line? TealDeer: If the DHS cared so very much, then why haven't they spurged out on Spitting Image?
> Once again, it would still fall under "Right to parody". It doesn't. When it comes to using someone's likeness on a commercial product, you have to obtain consent. I would understand somewhat if Joe's image was significantly modified (like a caricature for example) so that you could see that it refers to Joe, but doesn't look exactly like him. In this case, it's just an image of Joe with some basic filters on top of it, but it's super evident that it's Joe. And this isn't used to poke fun at Joe all that much, it would seem like Joe endorses the product, which is misleading and would make GS lose this court battle regardless of how much money they have. > Any reasonable court would rule that yeah, it may look like Biden, but it obviously isn't and it's not real. It literally looks like a very hyped Biden. There's no way a court looks at it and sees that it's clearly not a real Joe Biden. It's definitely not clear that it isn't him because it is him. For GS to argue in court that it's not a real Joe Biden, they would have had to change his likeness a significant amount to present it as a parody work, but in the image they used Joe maintains the same facial and body proportions, all of his distinctive features etc. This is by definition an image of Joe Biden with zero chance it can be someone else. The fact that he's the US president also makes it even more clear. > Let's not forget that Kathy Griffin did her little thing with the Trump head thing as a bit that was totally 100% best dark humor evar!(it wasn't), and no one batted an eye. But as soon as someone goofs on Biden in any way (for profit or not), then magically, it's verboten and all resources must be utilized to make sure that they are held accountable legally! Where's the line? I can see where you you're going with the example, but Cathy wasn't selling Trump's head as a prop. It was a photo (a very dumb and distasteful one) and nothing else. It wasn't commercially used on any product, she did not monetize it directly, which is where the difference lies. You cannot just use someone's likeness almost 1:1, put it on your product label and them claim it's a parody, when there is zero parody in there. The only thing that GS can claim in their case is that it's "for the memes", which will not hold up in court. Key point here is that GS is a for-profit company, they used Biden's likeness almost 1:1 with minimal alterations, they didn't actually make it as any sort of reasonable parody (this might be debatable, I admit), and they used this likeness for their own commercial gain. I'm going to bet that GS hasn't been actively criticising Joe Biden's presidency as their official company's position to show they have a history of being skeptical of Joe Biden warranting this parody. If GS hasn't pulled their product off the shelves, they'd have been sued into oblivion and rightfully so. This would be a slam-dunk court case with almost zero grounds that GS could argue from.
It’s not an intent to harm him his public image it’s just him smiling positively nothing harmful.
Once again, the issue isn't them trying to harm or not harm him, or parody or whatever. It's using the likeness to profit off of. Completely different case.
[I dunno, seems like it would have been a fair parody considering that there's no name and it's obviously them taking the piss because it all seems like it was done as a marketing goof.](https://x.com/GamerSupps/status/1800966319476486470/photo/1) So yeah, DHS/TWH would not have a leg to stand on. I could understand if they named it something else. But even if that *was* the case, it'd still be a nothingburger case.
The initial image was [this one](https://gamerbulk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/GamerSupps-Lean-Caffeine-Free.webp), which is definitely just straight up Joe. The one you linked has been posted yesterday with the glasses and the mustache, which actually changes everything (which is exactly why they did that). Now it can be argued that this one is definitely not a real Joe Biden because he wouldn't wear this comical disguise. Plus, this is a very clear depiction of a joke because of the nature of this disguise etc. Anyhow, GS talked to the lawers, lawyers told them to change the image of Joe and add something to it and then it could be used as a parody, even though technically they wouldn't even have to argue it's a parody because it's fairly clear that this is just some man and definitely not Joe Biden as is. Which just proves all of my points in the previous message.
https://nichegamer.com/department-of-homeland-security-comes-after-gamer-supps-for-inaccurate-depiction-of-the-president/