Busting the Fudd Busters, Part II

June 21, 2024

To demonstrate how much the logic of copyright has rotted his brain, the President of The Gatalog Foundation insists that it was he, and not FPC, the NCLA or Mike Cargill, who won in the recent Garland v. Cargill decision. How did old Fudd Busters manage this achievement? You see, he commissioned the images in an FPC amicus brief in a totally separate case from October 2019.

The only problem is the Supreme Court didn’t cite those images. Justice Thomas’ opinion uses images from an even earlier brief in Guedes, which was written and filed before old Fudd Busters had ever worked for FPC in any capacity. So why does he have to lie about it? And why must Second Amendment advocates endure this bizarre, symptomatic behavior in an otherwise flawless moment of victory?

Fudd Busters makes a scene and breaches attorney-client privilege for … Twitter credit. The Supreme Court did not cite “his” images, and “his” images are clearly derivatives of those in the March 2019 Guedes brief. His real complaint seems to be that no one at FPC, the NCLA, or even Mike Cargill, knew how an AR-15 worked. You are free to believe that FPC didn’t agree with its own public positions in publicly-filed briefs, but that is certified, food-grade Fudd. It is fetishistic disavowal in practice.

Let’s reverse the situation. Say the Supreme Court actually cited any Fudd Busters work product and that FPC denied him his due. This kind of conduct on Twitter, in full view of our friends and enemies, would still be pathological. And I don’t mean this in a moral sense. Fudd Busters is publicly struggling to make his career in the 2A space bearable, or even understandable. He needs the idea of “theft” to maintain his imaginary identifications and ego, and this has begun to affect those around him.

If images can be “property” and if employers can be “authors,” as the Copyright Act and Gatalog Foundation insist, then there’s no possible controversy. And we know Fudd Busters understands this. In his own Copyright Office registration of the SF5 3D gun files, he has clearly listed himself as an employer who commissioned work-for-hire drawings. The SF5 is officially a “work-for-hire” product, and its registration denies Fudd Busters’ underling his proper, public credit.

I will fix this.

If you would like to support our legal actions, please join LEGIO.