FBI Claims Wikipedia Can't Display Its Logo

from the good-luck-on-that dept

Tue, Aug 3rd 2010 9:20am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fbi, logo, wikipedia

76 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Yogi, 3 Aug 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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 3 Aug 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. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bwp (profile), 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew (profile), 3 Aug 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grey Ferret, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re: Wiki...
    And why not? Is there some unwritten law where coincidences are allowed versus forbidden?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Grey Ferret, 3 Aug 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  Hitler would agree with you, I bet. :)
  
  (I had to)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Try writing such a letter as this to the IRS and see how far you get.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - incognito, 4 Aug 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 3 Aug 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 :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jack, 3 Aug 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"!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wabbit (profile), 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rooker, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SomeGuy (profile), 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 3 Aug 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jack, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David Gerard (profile), 3 Aug 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 ;-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jack, 3 Aug 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nate, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 7:31am
  
  Re:
  Jealous of a lawyer with a personality, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2010 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Jealous of a lawyer with a personality, eh?
    
    Did he win it in a lawsuit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 3 Aug 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!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:00am

BBC
are running both the story and the logo too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. The boys from the Hoover Building got crossed up....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt L, 3 Aug 2010 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    I first read that as "the boys from the Hoover Building got crossdressed."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, that would make a fair amount of sense, actually....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 3 Aug 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 ;) )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 3 Aug 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 ;) )
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - senshikaze (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    omg post esplosion!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:20am

I have worked with the DOJ...
Sometimes you need to be snarky to get them to listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Samuel Adams, 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:30am

SHAMEFUL!
How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Potatoes (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:48am

Organization
There is no such thing as Organized Crime. They just seem organized when compared to the FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPBer, 3 Aug 2010 @ 11:09am

Does it really stand for...
Freakin Bureau of Idiots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pangolin (profile), 3 Aug 2010 @ 11:17am

Techdirt lawyers
I guess the Techdirt lawyers are having a slow day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FakeTAM, 3 Aug 2010 @ 5:31pm
  
  Re: Techdirt lawyers
  Must be Tuesday!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnjac (profile), 3 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 3 Aug 2010 @ 11:20am

I like it
It is very pretty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AudibleNod, 3 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 11:31am

Just... Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chagri Lama (profile), 3 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 8:25pm
  
  Re: FBI Insignia
  "The FBI wants everyone to become a mindreader, huh?"
  
  Actually they want us to become psychic lie detectors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
theskyrider, 3 Aug 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!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman, 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Heretic, 3 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate My Music (profile), 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anthony, 3 Aug 2010 @ 2:46pm

It can not be ...
The FBI, ...
choosing which sections of the law apply to themselves!
Surly you jest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Blo, 3 Oct 2018 @ 2:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Somewhat disturbing
    No, 8 years of 0bama did that. That's why we have Trump!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 4:49pm

Dear FBI. You have been backtraced and reported to the cyber police. Consequences will never be the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 3 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 3 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2010 @ 9:58pm

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

And your citation for this is...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik, 4 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik, 4 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike K (profile), 4 Aug 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 5 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RickJan, 17 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zougouri, 18 Mar 2017 @ 6:18am

recut in the FBI
every teaching is born in a society in federal bureau investigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]