Jan 01 2025 9 mins 4
A watercolor painting vanishes. Then merchandise disappears. Then a family photo. Through exclusive interviews with affected artists and legal experts, this episode reveals how someone is using copyright law to systematically erase Luigi Mangione from the internet. As tech expert Cory Doctorow asks, what circumstance would give UnitedHealthcare ownership of a watercolor painting? The answer reveals a disturbing pattern of legal intimidation that experts warn could reshape how America remembers this case.
Episode blog and sources: jonnyllama.com
Follow Jonny Llama:
X.com @jonnyllama
YouTube @jonnyllamax
Keywords: Luigi Mangione, jury nullification, terrorism charges, UnitedHealthcare CEO murder, legal analysis, criminal justice, historical precedents, public support, hung jury, legal defense
Two weeks ago, Brooklyn artist Rachel Kenaston received an email from TeePublic: 'An intellectual property claim has been filed by UnitedHealth Group Incorporated against this design.’ By the time the email had arrived, her watercolor painting of Luigi Mangione, based on publicly released surveillance footage, had been removed from the platform.
Kenaston appealed the decision and TeePublic told her: “Unfortunately, this was a valid takedown notice sent to us by the proper rights holder, so we are not allowed to dispute it."
Kenaston tells 404 Media in an email, "there's no way they own the rights to the security footage of Luigi smiling (and if they do.... what the fuck.... seems like the public should know that)
but since they made a complaint my design has been removed from the site and even if we went to court and I won I'm unsure whether TeePublic would ever put the design back up.
So basically, if UnitedHealth's goal is to eliminate Luigi merch from print-on-demand sites, this is an effective strategy that's clearly working for them.
The Lumen Database, a repository of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown requests, reveals several other instances of claims targeting Luigi Mangione-related content including the words Delay Deny Depose and Delay Deny Defend.
Legal experts are unanimous - there is no world in which UnitedHealthcare owns the copyright to a watercolor painting of surveillance footage.
Under U.S. law, parody merchandise and artistic interpretations are protected speech. Even more concerning - filing false DMCA claims is itself illegal, requiring a 'good faith belief' that you own the rights to the content in question.
Platforms like TeePublic claim they have 'no say in which designs stay or go.' This is false. As legal experts note, platforms can assess the validity of any DMCA claim. Instead, they choose the path of least resistance.
The strategy is effective precisely because it's expensive to fight back. As artist Rachel Kenaston explains: 'It's not unusual for large companies to troll print-on-demand sites and shut down designs in an effort to scare and intimidate artists.'
But this isn't just about t-shirts and artwork. Legal experts warn this creates a dangerous precedent for using copyright law as a weapon of censorship. Through the DMCA takedown procedure, corporations effectively become prosecuting judges, able to remove content instantly with little oversight or accountability.
Perhaps most troubling was the targeting of news coverage itself. Independent journalist Marisa Kabas received a demand from lawyer Desiree Moore to remove a family photo of the Mangione family from Bluesky - an image that was already publicly available on Maryland assemblymember Nino Mangione's campaign website.
full transcript at jonnyllama.com
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
