Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



FBI Claims Wikipedia Can't Display Its Logo

from the good-luck-on-that dept

Apparently the FBI has some free time on its hands. How else can you explain this bizarre, and almost certainly legally questionable attempt to force Wikipedia to remove its logo on Wikipedia's article on the FBI:
Wikipedia's General Counsel, Mike Godwin (yes, of Godwin's law fame) responded to the FBI with a delightfully snarky reply (pdf) noting that the FBI's reading of the law concerning displaying an FBI badge is clearly written to prevent people from falsely presenting themselves as being with the FBI or directly profiting from the use of the seal:
Godwin notes that the version of the law that the FBI conveniently sent him just happened to omit some parts of the law, which basically show that the law is entirely focused on such attempts to use the logo to deceive. Among the key passages:
Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. 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.

In your letter, you assert that an image of an FBI seal included in a Wikipedia article is "problematic" because "it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations" of 18 U.S.C. 701. I hope you will agree that the adjective "problematic," even if it were truly applicable here, is not semantically identical to "unlawful." Even if it could be proved that someone, somewhere, found a way to use a Wikipedia article illustration to facilitate a fraudulent representation, that would not render the illustration itself unlawful under the statute. As the leading case interpreting Section 701 points out, "The enactment of § 701 was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognizable assertion of authority with intent to deceive." ... Our inclusion of an image of the FBI Seal is in no way evidence of any "intent to deceive," nor is it an "assertion of authority," recognizable or otherwise.
Godwin also points out that the Encyclopaedia Britannica appears to have an image of the logo as well. As for our own usage here, I'll first note that the NY Times is also displaying the logo with its story, and it would seem that all three of us are similarly not running afoul of this law, in that none of us are using the logo with any attempt to deceive at all, but to display factual information for the sake of informing.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Yogi, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:35am

    Huh?

    So basically, you are saying that this post is sponsored by the FBI? Because that's what I understood from the logo on this post. Either that or Techdirt is working for the FBI or against it. or something. Damn, that logo confused me so bad!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    bwp (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:36am

    reply

    That was a delightfully snarky reply. I hope the FBI focuses on the message and not the way the message was delivered.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Matthew (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:39am

    Wiki...

    What are the chances that someone got confused and thought that Wikipedia and Wikimedia were related to Wikileaks and decided to take a shot at them IRS vs Al Capone style?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:40am

    Mr. Godwin's statement of statutory interpretation is correct, but I do have to wonder why he chose this particular manner or response to a federal agency that is under the Department of Justice. He could have made his point and declination on behalf of his client in a simple one page letter without resort to gratuitous jabs at the FBI.

    Again, his letter is accurate regarding how such statutory language is historically interpreted, but I question his method of communication.

    As an aside, I wonder if the subject of trademarks has been discussed. While I believe it is inappropriate for federal agencies to assert trademark rights given the general treatment of the subject by other federal statutes, trademarls are not covered in any manner under federal law in an unambiguous manner as is the case with copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:43am

    Re:

    Hitler would agree with you, I bet. :)

    (I had to)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:50am

    Re: Huh?

    He is working for them didn't you know that. Both the FBI and Home Sec ... hence the http://www.gravatar.com identicon next to your name. ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:52am

    Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity?

    What a bunch of cowardly liars.

    "Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. 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. "
    LOVE IT!!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:53am

    Re:

    Those who are worthy of respect should be treated respectfully. The FBI has acted in a manner that is clearly not worthy of respect, leaving out relevant portions of the law in order to assert rights it does not possess. Godwin's reply was not only appropriate, but well deserved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:57am

    Re:

    I would guess the language was intended to communicate that they have no fear of a legal battle and will not be bullied into compliance. Or maybe he is just snarky by nature :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re:

    Try writing such a letter as this to the IRS and see how far you get.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Grey Ferret, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:59am

    Re: Wiki...

    I was just thinking the same thing. It can't be a coincidence that this happened at the same time as the Wikileaks controversy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Wabbit (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:00am

    Re:

    Why, you ask? His letter tells us why. This is not the first exchange between Godwin and the FBI on this issue. Many of us would get snarky too if we were in his shoes and the FBI kept trying to misinterpret the law to their own end.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    drew (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:00am

    BBC

    are running both the story and the logo too

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:05am

    "How else can you explain this bizarre, and almost certainly legally questionable attempt to force Wikipedia to remove its logo on Wikipedia's article on the FBI:"

    Someone down there probably got Wikileaks and Wikipedia confused. It is sometimes refered to as the Federal Bureau of Incompetence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Assuming the IRS had a case against me, such a letter would be no more or less successful than a similar letter to the FBI where the FBI had a case against me. If the IRS had no case, however, a snarky letter to them would be no less appropriate than a snarky letter to the FBI.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Rooker, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:08am

    Re:

    In what way is it so relevant that the FBI is "a federal agency that is under the Department of Justice" that you feel the need to point it out?

    "He could have made his point ..."

    He also could have made his point in any number of ways, including by way of a video response dressed as a clown juggling flaming torches. What is your point?

    "trademarks"

    I could be wrong, but as they are an agency of the United States government, I don't believe they have a right to register trademarks. That's how it works for copyright anyhow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:09am

    closing

    You should read the whole letter but in case you don't, I really liked the closing as well.

    "In short, then, we are compelled as a matter of law and principle to deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. We are in contact with outside counsel in this matter, and we are prepared to argue our view in court."

    To the point, and leaves no doubt where the matter stands. Well done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Wiki...

    And why not? Is there some unwritten law where coincidences are allowed versus forbidden?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:18am

    Re:

    Agreed. The boys from the Hoover Building got crossed up....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    yea, i had to explain to my parents this weekend that me using wikipedia for school research did not make me a terrorist. (regardless of what my professors say ;) )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    yea, i had to explain to my parents this weekend that me using wikipedia for school research did not make me a terrorist. (regardless of what my professors say ;) )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re:

    omg post esplosion!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:20am

    I have worked with the DOJ...

    Sometimes you need to be snarky to get them to listen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Samuel Adams, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:30am

    SHAMEFUL!

    How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Please, stop requesting tax money for taxes that do not exist. If you have some strange fixation on begging for money, I suggest panhandling."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    SomeGuy (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    I believe Trademark would fall into a similar hole, as trademarks are meant to protect morons in a hurry from intentional or accidental deception in comerce.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    I suspect I'd get snarky, too, if I was presented with a demand that, creatively, deleted part of the law being discussed in a way to shape that law to the desires of those making the demand.

    As I'm not directly involved in this dispute let me express what the FBI is doing when they engage in such things (or anyone, to be fair) they are liars.

    Nor did I read anything gratuitous in the letter. I did read a very annoyed lawyer who knew better and restored the deleted bits to make his argument and interpretation.

    In legal terms what he did was spank them which they deserved.

    And even if trademark law applied, which it doesn't, how does printing the seal in Wikipedia confuse anyone into thinking that the FBI and Wikipedia are one and the same?

    Other than Mike's moron in a hurry?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Grey Ferret, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Wiki...

    As a matter of fact, there is an unwritten law about that. I'd mention it here, but then it would be written, so that won't work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Charlie Potatoes (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:48am

    Organization

    There is no such thing as Organized Crime. They just seem organized when compared to the FBI.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:57am

    Now you see it, now you don't, now you do

    Heh, I went to the WP site a few minutes ago and the logo was gone. Then, a few minutes later, it was back. The funny thing is, those changes aren't reflected in the page history, so they must have been made internally at WP. I guess they can't make up their mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    TPBer, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:09am

    Does it really stand for...

    Freakin Bureau of Idiots?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Pangolin (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:17am

    Techdirt lawyers

    I guess the Techdirt lawyers are having a slow day...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    johnjac (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:18am

    How did I get here?

    I thought I was on TechDirt's web site, but somehow landed on the FBI's website. It must be the FBI's website because there's is the FBI logo, and only the FBI could have the FBI logo on their website.

    /lost

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Bob, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:20am

    I like it

    It is very pretty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    AudibleNod, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:22am

    Getting Jumped In

    The White House pulled the same thing five years ago with 'The Onion' using the White Hose logo. I bet it's some sort of lawyer initiation hazing prank where the new guy has to send a C&D letter and see if anyone complies. If that's the case, it a better use of taxpayer money than I thought.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/business/24onion.html?ex=1287806400&en=b40eb239c3b 34014&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Jack, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:28am

    Re: Mike's tone

    "He could have made his point and declination on behalf of his client in a simple one page letter without resort to gratuitous jabs at the FBI."

    In some cases you might be right, but the FBI was overreaching here, throwing around its authority without justification, which in my mind is SERIOUSLY wrong. Wikipedia has the clout and the money to slap the FBI's hand and let them know they can't get away with that.

    If you ask me, Mike did us all a service with his sharp tone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Jack, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re:

    Exactly. Apparently the original poster thinks Mike should've rolled over, lifted his buttocks, and meekly begged for the FBI bullies to "please stop hitting him"!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:31am

    Just... Wow...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Chagri Lama (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:35am

    FBI Insignia

    So let's see: The insignia, according to 18 USC 701 is to be used by authorized and official people to invoke and convey the authority of the agency. When an FBI agent asks me to accompany him/her and flashes the badge, it invokes their authority to ask that. I am supposed to comply, or bear whatever consequences.

    BUT: If no one is supposed to display the insignia, then how would I KNOW that the badge is a tool of invocation of authority? The FBI wants everyone to become a mindreader, huh?

    Godwin's reply is proper, measured, factual, and conveys all the seriousness the FBI's reques deserves. This is ashow of muscle, an act of intimidation, his response is simply "Don't f**k with me, I know the law as well as you! Go away..."

    There is an old story about some yo-ho who received one of those pictures-tickets for $xx for driving through in a red light - the camera caught him. He did a dumb thing: Sent in a picture of said amount (not the actual money, or check.) The Police department (I think it was Los Angeles PD) send back a reply: A picture of handcuffs. Compliance achieved! :-)))

    I think that humorous reply, PROVIDED IT IS TO THE POINT, is perfecly good and perfectly acceptable, certainly not illegal, and in most cases will get either a humorous (and to the point!) response, or a dry business response. There is no way any clerk, IRS, FBI, whoever, will risk treating a citizen (or anyone else for that matter) with less than correctness.

    My $0.02

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Matt L, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re:

    I first read that as "the boys from the Hoover Building got crossdressed."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 11:58am

    Re: Now you see it, now you don't, now you do

    As far as I know, there was a change some time ago that allowed certain administrators at Wikipedia to strip certain histories. No idea if this was temporary, but if not that could explain it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    theskyrider, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    The reason that Wikipedia can't use the logo is......

    that they are a non-profit organization. If they were a for-profit organization like every record label (RIAA) and every movie studio (MPAA) then they could use the logo on every page of Wikipedia.

    That includes, of course, subjecting you to a 60-second picture of the logo above some text that tells you that copying, even not-for-profit, personal use copying, is stealing and the FBI will HUNT YOU DOWN!.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that would make a fair amount of sense, actually....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Nate, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 1:13pm

    Re:

    I got the impression that this was not the first time the two have corresponded on this matter, and it's reached the point of absurdity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    David Gerard (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Mike's tone

    Wikimedia does not in fact have money - it's a charity funded by public donations. What it does have is Mike ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Comboman, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 1:36pm

    FBI should send more letters

    The FBI should send some cease & desist letters to the people who make DVDs (and VHS tapes). They've been using that logo on their piracy warning for years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    The Heretic, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 1:45pm

    Mutual respect

    "We cannot expect people to have respect for law and order until we teach respect to those we have entrusted to enforce those laws." ~ Hunter S. Thompson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Re:

    He could have made his point and declination on behalf of his client in a simple one page letter without resort to gratuitous jabs at the FBI.

    There was nothing gratuitous about it. The FBI actually deserved worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Re:

    He could have made his point and declination on behalf of his client in a simple one page letter without resort to gratuitous jabs at the FBI.

    There was nothing gratuitous about it. The FBI actually deserved worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Pirate My Music (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 2:21pm

    You know what I find hilarious?

    Motto: "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity"

    See that last word? Yeah... A certain bureau is seemingly lacking it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    anthony, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 2:46pm

    It can not be ...

    The FBI, ...
    choosing which sections of the law apply to themselves!
    Surly you jest?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    Re: FBI should send more letters

    The FBI should send some cease & desist letters to the people who make DVDs (and VHS tapes). They've been using that logo on their piracy warning for years.

    To be fair, that is a deal that was made between the MPAA and the FBI. The FBI specifically did a deal to let the MPAA use its logo on movies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 3:38pm

    Somewhat disturbing

    While I find the response hilarious I'm rather more concerned about the FBI's initial demand. The fact that they have sent legal correspondence after having edited the item of law in question is deeply disturbing. I wonder how many other examples of this there are... likely to people who are not as knowledgeable and confident as Mike Godwin.

    It really worries me that the police and security services of the so called "free world" are reinterpreting and rewriting the rule books to give themselves more powers then have been legitimately handed to them by the government. We've got to be able to trust that what they say is true, when they demonstrate that our trust is misplaced it undermines the whole system and shakes the foundations of our society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Tom Landry (profile), Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 4:35pm

    I'm wondering if this is some kind of reaction to the "Wikileaks" controversy and the FBI is somehow confusing the two sites? Or perhaps they view any information dissemination on the internet as being done by counter-culture "hippie" types of which the FBI despises.

    There are still a lot of confused old men in power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 4:49pm

    Dear FBI. You have been backtraced and reported to the cyber police. Consequences will never be the same

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Now you see it, now you don't, now you do

    Or it could be that the logo is in a template; so it would be reflected on the template's history, not the page's. It could also be a change on the image itself (reflected on the image's history).

    It would be bizarre to selectively delete the revisions removing the logo, unless you were trying to remove all the revisions adding the logo and the logo itself (and even then, with the image gone, they would be innocuous; this is usually done for personal information).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    Beautiful

    NIce to know that sardonic legal letters can still be written, and that someone is still willing to fuck publically with the FBI's second rate lawyers

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    FakeTAM, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 5:31pm

    Re: Techdirt lawyers

    Must be Tuesday!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 5:32pm

    Re: FBI should send more letters

    Maybe I should make a website and post the FBI logo on my website and hope they send me a C&D letter. Then I can auction it on E-Bay and make tons of money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    Re:

    "I'm wondering if this is some kind of reaction to the "Wikileaks" controversy and the FBI is somehow confusing the two sites?"

    It's just misplaced anger. Can't take your anger out on Wikileaks, go after the nearest thing, Wikipedia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 8:25pm

    Re: FBI Insignia

    "The FBI wants everyone to become a mindreader, huh?"

    Actually they want us to become psychic lie detectors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 8:46pm

    Re: Somewhat disturbing

    "trust is misplaced it undermines the whole system and shakes the foundations of our society."

    8 years of Bush did that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:26pm

    It's probably already been said, but the Obama Admin. has consumed the MPAA/RIAA kool-aide. I'm astounded the FBI would even begin to contemplate such an action, let alone commit one. Half the lawyers at the Justice Dept. are from the afore mentioned entities... so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:58pm

    Half the lawyers at the Justice Dept. are from the afore mentioned entities...

    And your citation for this is...?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Jack, Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Mike's tone

    "Wikimedia does not in fact have money - it's a charity funded by public donations. What it does have is Mike ;-)"

    To be honest I know nothing of Wikipedia's (or Wikimedia's) finances. But there are some pretty wealthy public charities out there, and my point is that the Wiki corporate family clearly has enough money to employ Mike and finance a trial.

    Not that this'll go to trial. FBI's not that stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Erik, Aug 4th, 2010 @ 12:01am

    Intent and recognizability

    Not to mention the fact that if people don't see the logo in places like wikipedia, they won't be able to recognize it when presented by a real FBI agent. Consequence, you could show anything with intent to deceive and I wouldn't know if it resembled the real thing or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Erik, Aug 4th, 2010 @ 12:01am

    Intent and recognizability

    Not to mention the fact that if people don't see the logo in places like wikipedia, they won't be able to recognize it when presented by a real FBI agent. Consequence, you could show anything with intent to deceive and I wouldn't know if it resembled the real thing or not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    incognito, Aug 4th, 2010 @ 4:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I did to the IRS & they badgered me for two years before they finally admitted I was right. And it did help immensely to have and quote the specific articles I was referencing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2010 @ 7:31am

    Re:

    Jealous of a lawyer with a personality, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2010 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re:

    Jealous of a lawyer with a personality, eh?

    Did he win it in a lawsuit?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    Mike K (profile), Aug 4th, 2010 @ 7:32pm

    I think this is a good example of the Streisand Effect. The FBI tries to get Wikipedia to stop uses its logo and now everyone's using it.
    Wikipedia ftw

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 5th, 2010 @ 7:24am

    Seal

    David Larson may just have his nose a little bent out of shape because his dark blue windbreaker only says "FBI / Deputy Director" in big yellow block letters on the back with none of the flowery pomp associated with "the seal" displayed anyplace. Let's face it ... sometimes less is NOT more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    Quite frankly, the statutory construction being argued by both sides seems to overlook a rather important point. 18 USC 701 is a criminal statute having nothing to do with matters of civil law.

    Am I to believe that the FBI has now taken to writing letters requesting specific organizations to cease commiting crimes?

    Having reviewed Chapter 33 to Title 18 of the United States Code, I am equally worried about using the 4-H emblem, the Swiss Confederation seal, the Red Cross seal, Smokey Bear, and Woodsy Owl, any one of which could land me in jail for up to six months and having to pay a fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    RickJan, Jul 17th, 2011 @ 2:32am

    There are lots of gaming sites that have their logo protected one site did a review for the suppliers http://www.slotson.com/slot-machine/manufacturer/ but had to delete all logos are face a lawsuit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This