Freedom of graphics?
In the era of Obama, American government agencies seem to be getting ever more and more authoritarian, petty and intrusive
"The FBI has told Wikipedia to remove a hi-res image of its seal from the website. Wikipedia has said that there is no legal reason to, and will fight.
“While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version of Section 701 that you forwarded to us”. Michael Goodwin, general counsel of the Wikipedia Foundation wrote.
The code in question, section 701, specifically prohibits the manufacturing or possession of ID cards or insignias of government agencies that are used by officers or employees of that agency.
“The use of the image on Wikipedia is not for the purpose of deception or falsely to represent anyone as an agent of the federal government,” Goodwin said in the letter. “We are in contact with outside counsel in this matter, and we are prepared to argue our view in court.”
Source
Pole dancing has been held to be protected free speech so reproducing a government graphic that the taxpayers have paid for should be a shoo-in as protected free speech
I gather that a lot of sites are putting up the seal now, just to give the FBI a challenge and to support Wikipedia. I am looking forward to receiving my letter of demand from the FBI
9 comments:
I wonder why they haven't just registered it as a trademark, that way banning anyone from displaying it...
I wonder why they haven't just registered it as a trademark, that way banning anyone from displaying it...
Because registering won't prevent the "fair use" of it in writings and articles like Wikipedia or this blog.
Maybe they're afraid of their image being used for counterfeiting.
High-res images have value, websites like gettyimages offer low-res previews because they know that a low-res image is useless for most types of advertising, so if you want something big enough to put on a billboard, you have to pay.
In the case of the FBI, a high-res logo could be used to create fake FBI id's which could be used in scams. After all, there are already people dressing like cops and using fake cop ID's to rob people.
"Because registering won't prevent the "fair use" of it in writings and articles like Wikipedia or this blog."
Not in case of trademark infringment.
While most companies won't mind their products being shown with visible logos (free advertising) they could take action against it and in case the image damages their public image they've been known to do so (of course the publicity of taking such action should always be weighed against the consequences of not taking action).
Correction: "Fair use" relates to copyrighting, not trademarking. You cannot legally reproduce a trademark without explicit permission of the trademark holder.
Good point Bobby.
So how am I supposed to know if someone is an FBI agent if the FBI suppresses what their logo that appears on badges even looks like? I am not taking the agent at his word.
Anon 6:45 AM, WTF are you doing that you would even have to worry about this? I, for one, have never done anything that would remotely put me on the FBI's radar. Besides, if people come up to you with badges and guns, regardless of their true identity, you had better cooperate.
-sig
Correction: "Fair use" relates to copyrighting, not trademarking. You cannot legally reproduce a trademark without explicit permission of the trademark holder.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The Lanham Act still allows "fair use" with trademarks. Even though that use is slightly more limited, the doctrine still applies.
As an example, both the term "Ford" and the blue oval are trademarked. If I am writing an article on the Ford Mustang, and include the oval and the Ford name, it is "fair use."
Post a Comment