RSS
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.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.
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.
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
I have an app...
How My First Game Made $28,623
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiki...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiki...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wiki...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wiki...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
(I had to)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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 chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Mike's tone
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike's tone
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's tone
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was nothing gratuitous about it. The FBI actually deserved worse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was nothing gratuitous about it. The FBI actually deserved worse.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did he win it in a lawsuit?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity?
"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 chronology ]
BBC
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
closing
"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 chronology ]
I have worked with the DOJ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
SHAMEFUL!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Organization
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you see it, now you don't, now you do
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now you see it, now you don't, now you do
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now you see it, now you don't, now you do
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 chronology ]
Does it really stand for...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt lawyers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt lawyers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How did I get here?
/lost
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I like it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting Jumped In
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 chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Insignia
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 chronology ]
Re: FBI Insignia
Actually they want us to become psychic lie detectors.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason that Wikipedia can't use the logo is......
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 chronology ]
FBI should send more letters
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI should send more letters
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 chronology ]
Re: FBI should send more letters
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mutual respect
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Motto: "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity"
See that last word? Yeah... A certain bureau is seemingly lacking it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It can not be ...
choosing which sections of the law apply to themselves!
Surly you jest?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhat disturbing
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 chronology ]
Re: Somewhat disturbing
8 years of Bush did that
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There are still a lot of confused old men in power.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Beautiful
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And your citation for this is...?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent and recognizability
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Intent and recognizability
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia ftw
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Seal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment