Erasing Luigi: Inside UnitedHealthcare's Copyright War
A watercolor painting of Luigi Mangione vanishes from TeePublic. Then delay deny depose merchandise disappears across eight websites. Then a demand to remove a family photo that had been public since 2023.
One by one, images and content of Luigi Mangione are being systematically erased through a barrage of copyright claims. But here's the twist - legal experts say there's no world in which these demands for takedowns are legitimate.
As tech expert Cory Doctorow puts it: 'What is the circumstance under which United Healthcare might come to own the copyright of a watercolor painting of the guy who assassinated their CEO’.
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.
Moore, claiming to represent an anonymous 'Doe Family,' insisted the photograph's use 'was not authorized by the copyright owner.' In follow-up communications, she argued that 'the owner of the photograph has not authorized anyone to publish, disseminate, or otherwise use the photograph for any purpose,' despite the image's previous public display.
As Kabas noted, this appeared to be part of a broader strategy targeting independent journalists: 'They might be coming after small, independent publishers because they know we don't have the money for a large legal defense, and they're going to try to bankrupt you through a frivolous lawsuit’.
The Wayback Machine showed the photograph was indeed displayed on Nino Mangione's website, contradicting Moore's claim that it 'does not in fact display the photograph.' Moore also insisted her 'client seeks to remain anonymous' and dismissed the image as 'hardly newsworthy’.
As one digital rights advocate notes, these actions raise serious questions about who controls public discourse during major news events. When corporations or people can use copyright law to systematically erase sympathetic portrayals, they're not just protecting intellectual property - they're controlling the narrative.
As this digital erasure continues, troubling questions emerge. How does an entity claim ownership over surveillance footage they didn't create? What legal right exists to remove family photos that were public before the shooting? Why target artistic interpretations that contain no corporate logos or trademarks?
The pattern suggests something deeper. As tech expert Cory Doctorow notes, this isn't just about copyright - it's about control. When corporations can use copyright law to systematically remove content, they're not just protecting intellectual property - they're shaping public memory.
Perhaps most concerning is the precedent this sets. If filing false DMCA claims carries no consequences, what prevents other corporations from using copyright law to censor public discourse? As one digital rights advocate warns, this creates a system where those with resources can effectively erase any narrative they don't control.
As images of Luigi Mangione continue to be removed serious questions remain: What message is being suppressed? Why target humanizing portrayals? Is UnitedHealth Group trying to shape or at least control the narrative?
In an environment where content is being systematically removed from the internet, transparency and documentation become more crucial than ever. Every fact, quote, and revelation presented in this episode has been meticulously documented on my website and verified through multiple sources.