Toy company makes request after altered images – which hide suspects’ identities in line with state law – go viral

A southern California police department has been handcuffed by Lego after the toy company asked the agency to stop adding Lego heads to cover the faces of suspects in images it shares on social media.

The Murrieta police department has been using Lego heads and emojis to cover people’s faces in posts on social sites since at least early 2023. But the altered photos went viral last week after the department posted a statement about its policy, prompting several news articles and, later, the request from Lego.

Murrieta police had an internal discussion about posting photos of arrestees in general and announced a new department policy on Instagram in January 2023. The community had requested more of their “weekly roundup” posts, so the department said it started using the Lego heads and emojis to comply with the law while still engaging with Murrieta residents.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hope Lego sues them into oblivion. They won’t, but I can dream.

    This would be so easy to show irreparable harm. Using your kids toy likeness on criminal mugshot and police brutality scenes?! One jury I would gladly be a part of.

    • Thann
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      What law are they breaking?

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Intellectual Property laws as they did not (presumably) license the likeness from Lego.

        Same reason you can’t put Mario’s face over them. Nintendo will come down on them with the force of a thousand suns.

        • Thann
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think that for copyright you could argue that its for a transformative artistic purpose, and seeing as it doesn’t supplant legos in the market, I don’t think its clear-cut in either way.