Can Health And Human Services Copyright New Smoking Package Warnings?
from the copyfraud? dept
As you hopefully know, content created by the US federal government is supposed to automatically go into the public domain. There are a few exceptions, mainly having to do with work created for the government by others. But Dave P. reasonably asks why the highly publicized new graphic (in more ways than one) "warning" labels for cigarette packages appear to have a very blatant copyight notice, claiming that the copyright is held by HHS (Health & Human Services). You can see the full PDF, which is also embedded below, but you can see the first image here, with a © notice in the lower lefthand corner:Or, better yet, recognize that this is copyfraud and drop the bogus © notices.
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: copyright, hhs, smoking, us government
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Facts?
If so:
The sky is blue.
(c)2011 senshikaze, all rights reserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts?
One might fist have to ask if all the claims they make are actually facts.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facts?
as the eye perceives what color is reflected off the object, not the color that is absorbed by the object.
© 2011, ComputerAddict. All Rights Reserved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Facts?
I guess what I'm getting at is the color is the perception. You cannot separate the color from perception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May startle you to learn that "the US federal government"
Besides that, the gov't can just assert this trademark by force, maybe claiming it too is vital to "national security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm amazed that someone who chats about copyright so much wouldn't know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suppose a good lawyer could argue either way, but symbols are typically covered under trademark rather than copyright. On top of that, it is an internationally recongnised as a symbol in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't suggest that they are claiming copyright on ! signs. That is just Mike Masnick leading you down the garden path.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mickey Mouse as a character is trademarked. So you can't go there.
The ! sign is generic. This specific graphical rendering of it is copyright. You can make all the ! signs you like, you just can't copy this specific one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make up your minds already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
second one
The fact they've altered the shading in a very minor way means that they have taken a copyrighted piece of art (the sign) and altered the shading ever so slightly, and then tried to claim copyright on it, when it's functionally identical. It's clear copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, the penalties for fraud are small compared to the penalties for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are so blind to these little symbols because they are on EVERYTHING© that perhaps no one reviewing it noticed.
Then again it could be a conspiracy ... US Homeland Security wants to own the rights to all UK road signs???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
MY patent forbids it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1sI3pXo9pQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, these is a provision in the pertinent statute that nothing in it prevents the USG from holding copyrights trnsferred to it by "assignment, bequest, or devise".
To date there has been only one case of which I am aware that has considered this statutory provision. In that case it was held that the USG did in fact hold copyright to a work that had been assigned to it because under the facts of the case it was not clear that the reasons underlying the statutory prohibition had been paid short shrift. This was the Community for Creative Non-Violence case within the DC Circuit about 20 years ago.
Hence, the answer to the question at this time can only at best be answered "who knows?" without a detailed analysis of the facts associated with the creation of these ads. If they were done by persons in the USGs employ the answer is obviously "No, copyright does not exist." If however, they were done by third parties, then further facts need to be fleshed out before an opinion can be offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Except for a very few lawyers within the USG who virtually never come in contact with the agencies, those lawyers who do have almost certainly never read any part of Title 17.
2. See Answer 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And as for why HHS would want to copyright these images, or rather, to claim copyright in them (the images would be copyrighted whether HHS claims it or not). I can only speculate, but might that not be an additional legal tool to pursue people cranking out counterfeit cigarette labels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: false claism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets see what HHS has to say about this.
Just today I recieved this back from one of their admins(I've left his name out in respect of privacy):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]