Most-Wanted Iraqi Playing Cards

I wasn't exactly sure where to post this thread, but in my mind, my topic most aligns with this area. If this is the wrong forum, please move it.

Does anybody remember those playing cards that came out in 2003, as a direct result of 9/11, and that had the pictures of the most-wanted Iraqi terrorists on them? I got to thinking about those cards today and a random thought hit me. Being a professional photographer, I know that if I intend to make money with a picture I'm claiming as my own, I'll need to get a signed release authorisation from the model in the photograph. If I don't do this, I'll leave myself open to a potentially huge lawsuit. There are laws about this sort of thing. My question is, "Did the U.S. Government have signed releases for the photographs they used on the cards?" I mean, they intended to make money for those cards, and I even bought a set. Would the people who's faces were represented on the cards be the one's who would have had to initiate lawsuit proceedings against the U.S. government for the illegal usage of their images without being compensated for said usage? I could see how they would have been very reticent to show their faces in a courtroom to sue anybody, but that doesn't negate the illegality of the thing in the first place, does it? When and if a government breaks a law, who is in charge of upholding and enforcing that law? Here is a link to the playing cards I'm speaking about:

Most-Wanted Iraqi Playing Cards

Does anybody have any thoughts about this topic? You can see how a person would wonder this, what with all levels of government always trying to ram more and more laws down the citizen's throats and citizens wanting a little turnabout is fair play action that they can use in return.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

If they were American citizens, your question would have merit. They were not.

They were military targets of a hostile dictatorship regime supporting terror. That oppressed and committed atrocities against their own people. Most of the ones we didn't kill were tried and executed by the Iraqi Govt that took over.

With all that being said, we shouldn't have been there in the first place. It shouldn't have been any of our business.

But you're going to be hard pressed to find any sympathetic Iraqis to listen to your argument. And I doubt any Iraqi court would even hear a case for it.

I still have my deck of cards that I was issued.

If you can find any of the faces on the cards still alive and able to sue, hand them over to the US and get a reward.

Also, I think you are wrong, you dont need the signature of 'the model' as if you look on the millions of photos published by the media every day (to make money) the subjects don't sign them.

Finally, I dont think Iraqi nationals in Iraq and supposed war criminals have many rights in the USA.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

Does anybody have any thoughts about this topic? You can see how a person would wonder this, what with all levels of government always trying to ram more and more laws down the citizen's throats and citizens wanting a little turnabout is fair play action that they can use in return.

For anyone that has dealt with or worked within Government will tell you it is firmly one rule for them another for the Plebs.

It is never meant to be fair, the deck (pun intended) is always stacked in their favor, you question it you are a enemy of the state and you get your collar felt with investigation, case in point you argue one fact to then have the IRS "suddenly" look into your affairs..

That was probably the plan.

Print the cards, wait for them to file a lawsuit, set a court date then BAMM..... arrest em at the courthouse.

Absolute friggen genius on behalf of the coalition of the willing

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Not really...


For one I don’t think it counts when it isn’t an American AND it isn’t on American soil..

a reply to: watchitburn

They wouldn’t need to be Americans if on American soil the constitution still applies as well

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Most of the cards were done with stock photos of Arab men. It's standard US government practice.

originally posted by: Forensick
If you can find any of the faces on the cards still alive and able to sue, hand them over to the US and get a reward.

Also, I think you are wrong, you dont need the signature of 'the model' as if you look on the millions of photos published by the media every day (to make money) the subjects don't sign them.

Finally, I dont think Iraqi nationals in Iraq and supposed war criminals have many rights in the USA.

When you say "Media," define that, please. Because television news media sources can use the picture of somebody that made news under the "Fair Use" clause. But, for entertainment magazines and websites, you do indeed need a release.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

If they were American citizens, your question would have merit. They were not.

So, you're saying that I, as an American citizen can use a portrait of the Queen of England, (who is not an American citizen), and use it on a deck of playing cards I would sell to make money, and it's your contention that it's legal? I think you should check with a lawyer before you start making claims like that, because you are incorrect.

originally posted by: Forensick
If you can find any of the faces on the cards still alive

I think I read that there are only 6 left that were pictured on that deck of cards still alive.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

stock photos

Stock photos are a totally different proposition. But the cards I saw were pictures of the actual named person.

The intent was not to make money. The US government is not in the business of making a profit. These were war criminals. A similar practice was done in US prisons but I think that involved murdered people. Some of the prisoners would recall the missing / murdered person and what happened. They were able to locate bodies and make arrests.

If someone was selling the cards or reproductions that is also likely legal. It depends on what was in the Government procurement contract. Normally the Government does not allow the contractor ownership of something created with tax dollars. Willing to bet the blueprints for those cards are available somewhere free of charge to anyone who wants them. They can take the design, put it on underwear, shirts....whatever. Much like open source software, Hummer, Jeep.

If they were royalty free or in the public domain, then there is no basis for any lawsuit over copyright infringement.

BTW: I still have both decks I was issued for each tour.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Your assertion is false. We have most wanted posters in America. We do not need to get a signed release form for it.

This is interesting. From Wiki. The US Government broke the law, not with the pictures but the trademarked Joker symbol that was ripped from another company that was not awarded the contract. Does not look like they filed a lawsuit but did object to using their trademarked symbol.

"Texas-based Liberty Playing Card Co. received an order to manufacture the cards for the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait and by claiming to be "the authorized government contractor" quickly became another popular domestic supplier for the commercial market. The U.S. military inadvertently included in the jokers the trademarked Hoyle joker owned by the United States Playing Card Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. Although The U.S. Playing Card company does not object to the government's use of the image, they do object to other companies using the trademarked image. Thus, in some sense, the U.S. military inadvertently granted The U.S. Playing Card Company exclusive rights to manufacture the authentic decks, if the trademarked images on the jokers are considered a requirement for being authentic."

a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm jealous.

I only got a deck in 2003 when we invaded. I didn't get any for subsequent tours.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Pretty sure the FBI and other LEO groups don't bother to obtain written releases from those they put on their most wanted posters.

I think the cards were made for soldiers in the field and were not produced for sale at the Baghdad Walmart. Nor any other Walmart, but as with most items they find those who knock them off for a profit and eventually returning soldiers may put them in circulation.

No...I don't believe they need releases, however, if there are any still out there and wish to file a complaint, they can do so at the closest American military installation where they will certainly be accommodated and will most likely win an all expense paid island vacation to Guantanamo Bay.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm jealous.

I only got a deck in 2003 when we invaded. I didn't get any for subsequent tours.

The second was a "volunteer" tour that was "civilian" in nature.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: Forensick
If you can find any of the faces on the cards still alive and able to sue, hand them over to the US and get a reward.

Also, I think you are wrong, you dont need the signature of 'the model' as if you look on the millions of photos published by the media every day (to make money) the subjects don't sign them.

Finally, I dont think Iraqi nationals in Iraq and supposed war criminals have many rights in the USA.

When you say "Media," define that, please. Because television news media sources can use the picture of somebody that made news under the "Fair Use" clause. But, for entertainment magazines and websites, you do indeed need a release.

So your assertion here is that tabloids have a signed release form from every single celebrity they post a picture of?

Seems highly unlikely.