FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal 485
eldavojohn writes "The FBI got in contact with Wikipedia's San Francisco office to inform them they were violating the law in regards to 'unauthorized production' of this seal. The FBI quoted the law as saying, 'Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both.' Wikipedia refused to take the image down and stated that the FBI was misquoting the law. The FBI claims that this production of this image is 'particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of restrictions by Wikipedia users.' Wikipedia's lawyer, Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes), contacted the FBI and asserted, '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,' adding that the firm was 'prepared to argue our view in court.' Wikipedia appears to be holding their ground; we shall see if the FBI comes to their senses or proceeds with litigation."
I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
that does it for all the movies and TV shows that display the FBI seal.
Maybe they've been infiltrated by agents of the RIAA...
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can one know what an FBI seal looks like if he has NEVER seen one?
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
How can one know what an FBI seal looks like if he has NEVER seen one?
I can see it now:
An FBI agent knocks on some guy's door. The guy asks to see some ID, and the FBI agent produces his official FBI badge. The guy takes one look at it and says, "You can't fool me, that's a fake...it looks nothing like the ones on the X-Files!"
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
> An FBI agent knocks on some guy's door. The guy asks to see some ID, and the FBI agent produces his official FBI badge. The guy takes one look at it and says,
> "You can't fool me, that's a fake...it looks nothing like the ones on the X-Files!"
That's actually an interesting point. How does one deal with authentication issues like that if faced with an Law-Enforcement officer? Sure they can...if they do things right, show you their badge but then what?
1. Do you have a right to actually take that badge and/or ID into your hands to inspect it fully?
2. Can you write the details down or make a scan/photo copy?
3. If you do not believe the ID, the seal or badge (and officer) to be authentically what/who they claim to be, do you still have to do what they say (and can you be charged with, for example, resisting arrest if so)?
4. If 3 is the case, what are the options to verify such ID's, seals etc.?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have the right to confirm their identity. They must let you take down the badge number, and call the fbi to confirm their identity, unless they have a warrant granting them other privileges, in which case they will just do what they have been authorized by a court to do.
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Interesting)
unless they have a warrant granting them other privileges, in which case they will just do what they have been authorized by a court to do.
That's where the trouble starts. Until they are satisfactorily identified, they're just some potentially dangerous person (the badge may be a fake, but that's not a water pistol he's carrying) trying to violate your home. It's not unreasonable to take unwillingness to await proper confirmation as a sign that they are not authentic. When someone tries to push into your home, it is reasonable to use force to prevent them. If they should use force against you, it is reasonable to escalate. In many states there is no duty to retreat in your own home, so it can quickly escalate to deadly force.
Thus, "no knock" warrants shouldn't exist except in the rare case where deadly force is justified per se.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then you're not really letting them in because of their warrant, are you? More like the perceived threat of lethal force if you do not cooperate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aw. c'mon - look it up on Wikip...ah!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Several years ago I did a stint as a security guard. One of the things they taught us is that you never let anybody take your badge/ID card from you so that they can inspect it. They may look, but they may not handle.
If you do not believe the ID, the seal or badge (and officer) to be authentically what/who they claim to be, do you still have to do what they say (and can you be charged with, for example, resi
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Informative)
In Texas all police officer ID's are required to have a telephone number that is available 24.7 to verify the officer's status. I let people see, touch, hold my IDs upon request. However, I would never allow a copy to be made for two big reasons: I don't want to make the ID easier to fake, and I don't want them having my picture, full name, etc to sell to drug cartels.
Also, local/state police IDs are generally look like a 5th grader made it. If the ID looks really nice it is probably a fake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I don't believe the badge number on a police officer ID, why would I trust the phone number on it?
If they are fake they probably don't have access to the official database and will probably blindly confirm the ID of anyone calling in since they can't tell who is legit and who is fake. So test them first by asking to confirm some bogus information that you make up on the spot. If they won't confirm your own bogus info then they are probably legit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't trust that phone number, look up the phone number yourself. Or (in the US) call 311.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Informative)
1. In my experience, yes. The FBI agent I interacted with let me take his badge and look at it to my satisfaction.
2. I didn't try to photo copy his badge, but i doubt he would have cared if i had written down his details.
3. Not believing he's an agent does not make him not an agent and does not absolve you of your responsibilities regarding interacting with law enforcement. Also, you cannot be charged with resisting arrest unless they are arresting you for something already. I knew a guy in college who was arrested for resisting arrest and nothing else. The cop's commanding officer tore the cop apart when he tried to book him just for resisting arrest (my friend was released and the c.o. apologised to him...didn't give him a ride home though).
4. generally you can call the fbi and they can verify the identity of the officer.
How does one deal with authentication issues like that if faced with an Law-Enforcement officer? Sure they can...if they do things right, show you their badge but then what?
1. Do you have a right to actually take that badge and/or ID into your hands to inspect it fully?
2. Can you write the details down or make a scan/photo copy?
3. If you do not believe the ID, the seal or badge (and officer) to be authentically what/who they claim to be, do you still have to do what they say (and can you be charged with, for example, resisting arrest if so)?
4. If 3 is the case, what are the options to verify such ID's, seals etc.?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yes, 4 is a valid badge number, so that's almost certainly a legitimate FBI guy."
OK, I guess we'll need to switch badge numbers to be the name the agent signed with a private key controlled by the FBI director.
Plus side: Anyone can verify that a badge belongs to a particular named person by checking against the public key.
Down side: Badge numbers are now 500 digits long and weigh 30 pounds.
All links to this story (Score:4, Informative)
Initial letter from FBI [nytimes.com] and response by Wikimedia Foundation [nytimes.com]
Wikipedia article in question [wikipedia.org], image in question [wikimedia.org].
New York Times story [nytimes.com] (login [bugmenot.com]). Britannica uses the logo [britannica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FBI Instructs Wikipedia To Drop FBI Seal (Score:5, Funny)
that does it for all the movies and TV shows that display the FBI seal.
(Door flys open, FBI agents jump in, guns drawn)
Agent 1: "Drop that seal!"
Wikipedia: "YIKES!" (Drops seal)
Seal: "Ork! Ork! Ork!"
Agent 2: "Look out! He has a penguin!"
Linus: "Now look here, I'm innocent, I have nothing to do with this!"
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe our feathered friend meant the seal shown with the written threats at the start of DVDs ?
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough to end this kind of BS.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
If Congress represented us,
Oh, since we're in Imaginationland, can I have a pony?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is ok I guess...
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us and VShael had a pony, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
I think doing that one time would be enough
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Funny)
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and VShael can get a pony and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suddenly I understand how think-of-the-children clauses end up in a road development bill.
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)
It works like this:
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and we'll convene a committee to study the pony request, to which we will assign 8 congress-folk who know absolutely nothing about ponies, who will in turn assign the task to aides, who will consult with special interest groups, determining that there is nothing in the pony gift process that will benefit the congress-folk. After an interval corresponding most closely to the sunspot cycle (11 years), if all congress-folk are still in office, the aides will return a recommendation that the pony be altered to a certificate indicating VShael deserves a pony, and it will go to the president's desk for signature. Unfortunately, by this time, VShael will have expired in an unlikely but fatal Dvorak keyboard incident, so the certificate will go to the heirs, who will sell it on EBay for enough money to buy a small plastic snow-globe containing an even smaller plastic pony. If any congress folk lose their office during the process, it will be re-started or abandoned, depending upon how much money VShael donates to the appropriate congress folk's political war chests. Oh, and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects he FBI's choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I suspect VShael is much more likely to get a pony than we are to get Congress to represent us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Plus, you buy a pony and you get a pony. You buy a congressman and all you get is an ass!
-Steve
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.chriscanfield.net/Offsite/fbiRobocopPony.jpg [chriscanfield.net]
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
You can have a pony WITH a FBI seal of approval. The seal likes fish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
I think he was attacking the FBI copyright warning at the start of movies. Although I suspect that it is at the consent of the FBI. I wonder what started the FBI to go after Wikipedia though?
They probably got wikileaks confused with wikipedia. After all, all wikis are alike right?
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
I had myself a nice chuckle at the very clear attempt at humor.
Then I nearly shit myself when I realized how possible this is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing how dimwitted most FBI administrators are? It has the word Wiki in it so it has to be connected to WikiLeaks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
because yes, it'd be illegal to carry in quite a few states....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Over 3" if you're in a hospital. At least in my state.
BTW, if you're ever in a hospital and need a long knife, find one of the employee breakrooms. They probably have one there for slicing birthday cakes and the such. Despite the 3" law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't follow a law they won't tell you about. You can't recognize the authority of someone who's 'proof' is probably something they made with a drawing program, you won't obey any idiot in a suit that claims they're from an unknown government agency. (If you want some of those, go to any bar
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Informative)
no, actually I don't think I'd be surprised. [techdirt.com]. Let me quick copy and paste the most important part, wikipedia's reply.
FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know there has never been a show that had the actual FBI symbol.
The members of the MPAA have a license to use the FBI seal [fbi.gov] in the unskippable intros of their DVDs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING (Score:5, Insightful)
User operation prohibition on DVDs [wikipedia.org]. If your DVD player ignores them, it may be in violation of the DVD format license.
... and I'd like to know where you got it, because I would also like a DVD player that does what I want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't this seal be owned and payed for by the tax payers of the U.S.?
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lots of these now offlimits offices, houses, etc. used to be freely accessible to the people who paid for them.
Re:I guess... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then 9/11 happened and-- the whole place was closed off. They even welded the front gates shut. All visitors, who had to have a reason for coming, were sent through a quasi-militarized checkpoint, with armed police and metal detectors.
My brother visited me last fall, and we were in the neighborhood, and were pleasantly surprised that you can now enter the building freely again. You still have to walk through a metal detector, but gone are the "must have valid reason" restriction and the conspicuously armed guards. Which is good-- the State House has a whole variety of really interesting Colonial- and Civil War-era artifacts, and the flag room is pretty cool too.
Re:I guess... (Score:5, Informative)
It cites the law the FBI quoted. That does not mean the quoted law applies. They also cite this on the image URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg [wikipedia.org]
In order for the FBI law to have bearing, I believe Wiki's defense is that they basically state right on the image page that it is a public domain image, they cite the laws prohibiting specific uses of the image, which pretty much prevents anyone from misunderstanding that their looking at an image of the seal, not the official seal.
U.S.C. 701 would seem to refer to 709 and 712, neither of which would apply here. Wiki is not misrepresenting itself as a government agency (709), or attempting to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States (712).
Let it roll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh come on! Do you really think anyone would ever have heard of the FBI seal if they hadn't threatened Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They knew about the seal, but they did not have access to a good replica of it. THAT is information.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Capitalist America (Score:2)
Yes, THAT Godwin (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia's lawyer Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)
Yes, before anybody asks, it is indeed THAT Godwin, for whom the law is named.
Re:Yes, THAT Godwin (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this story probably shouldn't be tagged copyright. Assuming the seal was designed by the FBI itself, it's ineligible for copyright as a work of the federal government. (I guess in theory they could have purchased the design and copyright from a third party, but that seems unlikely). If there's a real law at stake, it's not copyright law, probably something to do with impersonating an official, etc.
Next up, the FBI will be suing Lostpedia for its relationship to Wikileaks (using wiki software) and its name that sounds suspiciously similar to "pedophilia."
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, better yet, photoshop to these [fbi.gov] - and caption them as you wish. It expressly states
Or just hotlink to them, along with your choice framed captions :-)
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm just curious if you read the law. Because it sure reads to me like Wikipedia is in violation of the letter of the law.
The fact is that Wikipedia has a super high resolution print quality and SVG image of the seal which could be used to manufacture fake credentials. This fact might explain why they are going after Wikipedia and not other places. In fact the FBI letters suggests this much.
I guess its easy to just unsubstantiatedly bash our government. At least you didn't start invoking conspiracy theories about this being some first step in the invokation of some quasi martial law state, like some other people have commented.
Re:Government has bad lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm just curious if you read the law. Because it sure reads to me like Wikipedia is in violation of the letter of the law.
Look at Wikipedia's response, which explains why they believe the FBI to be misinterpreting the letter of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed they do, or maybe they're just bored.
I believe this is the relevant statute
18USC709 [gpo.gov]
So, why are they doing this? (Score:2)
Their seal is in other media. As a matter of reporting and reporting on the seal itself. It's in encyclopedias. WTF?
Clear this is one more government employee trying to justify his job. We're supporting far too many otherwise jobless people in the government. You hardly need more proof.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This gets back into the argument on whether or not the criminal is the person handing you a gun or the person using it...
Just like anything Wikipedia is a tool. It doesn't make committing crime unavoidable. If you use it in a manner that is dubious in nature, you are breaking the law, not the person that gave you the seal image.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since you know very little about forging, I'll enlighten you.
Most of the time the quality of the graphic has NOTHING to do with the pass ability of the document or id. Most of the time a utterly crappy ID or paperwork will do it;s job great. 99% of the time its your social engineering using the props to get past the checkpoint or door...
Example? sure: I got into a Concert for free, not only free but also bacK stage. I was not authorized to be there, I did not know anyone there. I approached the gate w
Is it just me (Score:5, Funny)
or does the seal kind of resemble Muhammad?
Ummm what? (Score:5, Informative)
"Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both"
Okay so I had to go and look this one up. Because there are so many ...'s that pretty much all of the information is missing. That sentence fracture they chose doesn't even mention any government insignia's, at first I thought ALL insignia's were outlawed.
Anyways, so here's the full deal.
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas (and where better to find information than Wikipedia) but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?
Re:Ummm what? (Score:5, Funny)
"Whoever possesses any insignia... or any colorable imitation thereof... shall be fined... or imprisoned... or both"
Okay so I had to go and look this one up. Because there are so many ...'s that pretty much all of the information is missing. That sentence fracture they chose doesn't even mention any government insignia's, at first I thought ALL insignia's were outlawed.
Anyways, so here's the full deal.
Don't you know that the FBI has William Shatner as their lawyer? Those weren't omissions, they were just accurately quoting his speech!
Re:Ummm what? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, it's even worse than the original.. it should say:
"Whoever ... possesses any ... insignia ... or any colorable imitation thereof ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both."
This is fun, you could say:
"... the head of any department or agency of the United States ... shall be ... imprisoned ... "
Re:Ummm what? (Score:5, Funny)
It's more fun when you quote individual letters:
...n...u...k...e... ...the... ...w...h...a...l...e...s...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas
That's obviously the original point of that law. Point is it's outdated and it's not much use today. If they really wanted to stop people from knowing what it looks like, why post it on their own site [fbi.gov]
Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas ... but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?
That's not a really a valid reason for the Wikipedia Foundation to inform the public, it would be solely the FBI's responsibility. And the average citizen still wouldn't know if they're dealing with a real agent even if they produce a perfect replica. That's why social engineering works so well and why enf
Well, that's settled. (Score:3, Informative)
except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law
Ah, so we're good, then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That purpose, and the application of the law strictly within that purpose, is probably the only thing that makes it enforceable, given the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which trumps mere statute law.
From the page itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
So uh, what exactly is their legal standing for keeping it up there? There must be more to it, but I can see how the FBI could read this and decide to sue them. :)
Re:From the page itself... (Score:4, Informative)
What basis for Wikipedia to keep it up? Really?
As the lawyer for Wikipedia points out in his reply [nytimes.com] to the FBI:
If you're making a factual statement like "This is the FBI seal [wikipedia.org]", you're not exactly saying "I'm the FBI, fear me". Basically the lawyer thinks the FBI are willfully misreading/misrepresenting a statute to try to get wikipedia to pull something down which they are using as purely a reporting of facts.
He also points out that they're selectively ignoring the words in the statute that circumscribe the applicability of the statute as cited by the FBI.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It probably doesn't protect the former any more than the latter.
Then again, it probably does protect images of the currency presented in the same way Wikipedia presented images of the seal. At least, if it doesn't, wikipedia has a lot more to worry about than the seal, since they also have images of US currency.
It's the 'Law' (Score:5, Funny)
Mike Godwin (please omit certain jokes)
You Nazi, stop restricting my free speech.
Slow day at the FBI (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess all the criminals took the day off?
More Details (Score:5, Informative)
NY Times has more [nytimes.com]. Including links to PDF's of the response. Parts of which are also quite funny: “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” that the F.B.I. had provided.
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
T-shirt (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean I have to get rid of my Female Body Inspector T-shirt?
But it WORKS, man! Some chicks actually believe it!
Stupid cockblocking FBI.
Offical Seal -- What purpose can it serve? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, we use official seals to prove, or at least strongly suggest, the origin of authority. But what if someone comes to your door with "a" badge or "an" ID card you don't immediately recognize. Especially when dealing with someone in plain clothes, it would be rather beneficial to actually know which insignia is fake, which is real, and which comes from which department. But... if you aren't allowed to know in advance what an official insignia looks like, aren't you just making yourself susceptible to fraud?
The actual law.. (Score:4, Informative)
Section 701 [cornell.edu] of Title 18 of the US Code
Section 709 [cornell.edu] of Title 18 of the US Code
Section 712 [cornell.edu] of Title 18 of the US Code
It's the Wiki Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI must think that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are connected somehow.
FBI logo available on AP Graphics Bank (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a graphic designer for a TV station. We subscribe to the Associated Press's Graphics Bank service. The same seal is available for download in high resolution. Is AP breaking the law? Am I breaking the law whenever I put the FBI logo on air for a story about the FBI??
FBI Logo on the FBI Website (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll admit, I couldn't find a high-res image on the FBI seal in the 2 minutes I spent searching there, but the seal isn't overly complex, doesn't have micro text or any other anti-counterfeiting features.
However, this image, http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/fbiseal/images/fbiseal-02-02.gif [fbi.gov], is a fairly decent image and can easily be used to produce a better, larger image. (The image is slightly obfuscated by the web page dis-allowing right clicks. Good going, guys. Security by obscurity for the Win. I mean Lose.)
However, more interesting to me is this high-res image: http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/images/equipment/badge&gun.jpg [fbi.gov]
A high resolution image of an FBI badge. Yeah. They're concerned that a web image of their seal can be used illegally, but a badge? That's nothing to worry about. Move along.
FBI has a history of getting shirty (Score:3, Informative)
He was soon visited by a couple of FBI agents who told him he'd have to change the company's name. He basically laughed them out of the office, and then discovered REM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Copeland [wikipedia.org]
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2006-97810.asp [buzzle.com]
As a side note, all three brothers were fond of names that played with stern authorities, because they found out later in life their father was actually a covert agent for the CIA.
Case law says this doesn't apply here (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL but a quick review of case law brings up United States v Goeltz (1975, CA10 Utah), cert den (1975) 423 US 830 which basically said Enactment of 18 USCS 701 was intended to protect public against use of recognizable assertion of authority with intent to deceive.
Of course how a judge in another jurisdiction would look at this 35 years later is hard to say.
If Wikipedia is actually forced to remove the offending image it could be applied to insignias of any other government agency. I wonder if it would apply to the Great Seal of the United States.
Hard Copy Encyclopedia (Score:4, Funny)
I gave my Mom a call -- first time I've used that resource on Slashdot -- but she's the only person I know who still has a paper encyclopedia in the house. I asked her to look up the FBI. Interestingly enough, her copy of the "World Book" doesn't have a reproduction of the seal in the article. Just a picture of a couple of cadets at the training academy.
Don't know if they didn't include that because of this law or it just didn't make the cut given the space available. Either way, it's not there. I'd be interested in knowing if any other publisher includes the seal in the FBI entry.
And no, I don't live in her basement and she wasn't at your house, either.
Original intent of law (Score:3, Informative)
This section, 18 USC 701, has it's origins in the Act June 29, 1932, ch 306, 47 Stat. 342. The text as passed in 1932 is essentially the same as we have it today with some minor modifications. The bill was H.R. 10590 of the 72d Congress and the accompanying House Report was H. Rept. 72-1044. It's only a single page but it quotes an informative letter from the Attorney General from December 7, 1931:
It has come to the notice of the department that it is possible for any unauthorized person to procure from certain merchants or manufacturers badges and other insignia similar to or identical with those prescribed for the use of officers of the United States. You can readily appreciate the prejudice to the public occasioned by the use and possession of such badges and insignia by unauthorized persons.
That would indicate to me, along with the opinion in United States v Goeltz 513 F2d 193 (1975, CA10 Utah), cert. den. 423 US 830 (1975), that the FBI is overstepping the intent of the law here.
Is there a case here? (Score:3, Informative)
The FBI's page has a section on copyrights which links to the DOJ website. There's a section that discuss the use of seals and logos. Nowhere does it state that the unauthorized use of these marks will result in fines or imprisonment. It merely states that permission must be requested before using them. I'd say the risk of imprisonment comes if you use the seal to pass yourself as an FBI agent, but then that's another matter altogether.
The fact that the Wikipedia site features an SVG of the seal may be a little problematic. It makes it trivial to print high quality copies of the thing. I did a quick search of Google Images and while plenty of seals came up, none were anywhere near the quality of this one on Wikipedia. But the solution seems simple, replace it and a somewhat smaller JPG. But even then, it's a minor issue, someone with patience and skill could sit down in Illustrator and recreate the thing.
Despite all this, given that this is a government agency and Wikipedia an informational site what rules govern this case? I fail to see how the FBI has any case at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...... you better buy plenty of tinfoil hats... seriously that doesn't make much sense at all. A far simpler and logical explanation is that there are stupid lawyers at the FBI.
Re:Executive branch probing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just the Executive branch pushing - probing, if you will - to see how receptive the populace is becoming towards the encroachment of thoughtcrime and various other totalitarian abuses.
Really?
The way you've worded it, it sounds like you're saying that someone (fairly high-up) in the executive branch of government has an ongoing program of pushing boundaries, and that they (directly or indirectly) put pressure on an FBI lawyer to send out a marginal insignia-takedown request. This seems a little far-fetched to me. It seems simpler and more likely that it was just one or two FBI personnel who took it upon themselves to exert their power. (The suggestion that someone mistakenly linked "Wikipedia" and "Wikileaks" is quite plausible...) I doubt they thought there would be much reaction, and I really have trouble believing this is part of a deeply orchestrated (yet, somehow, totally secret) plot to investigate how pliable the US populace is.
Make no mistake: I recognize the abuses of government and the constant power-grabbing from citizen freedoms into governmental control. However this doesn't seem to be a massive conspiracy. It doesn't have to be. People in positions of power will tend to, as individuals, consolidate their power and push the boundaries wherever they can. Because so many people in government (especially those who aspire to positions of power and importance) are constantly pushing boundaries and trying to shift power from the people to themselves (perhaps indirectly, e.g. shifting power to companies in return for other favors), the net effect is that the government as a whole is constantly encroaching on freedoms and over-stepping their previous bounds.
So, again, I agree that the government is constantly expanding its power and this is worrisome and should be fought against. However I question whether it is really a conspiracy: it seems more likely to be an emergent phenomenon arising from the over-aspirations of individuals. (And groups of individuals, of course--small-scale conspiracies and power-grabs certainly exist.)
I point this out because to fight a problem one must understand its origin. Fighting an illusory conspiracy distracts from the real problem: that just about any person in a position of power will abuse that power. As such we need to be fighting for checks and balances that keep these power-grabs under control, not attacking a few figureheads of a potential conspiracy (after eliminating them, the next power-hungry people will just take their place!).
Re:Executive branch probing (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. [wikipedia.org] Though in this case, i would substitute "conspiracy" for "malice," because malice does appear to be all over all over this, petty and impotent though it may be.
It's more likely that this is just some ambitious idiot in the FBI who thought Wikipedia and Wikimedia were related to Wikileaks and decided to take a shot at them. He/she probably knows that they brought down Al Capone on tax evasion and thought this might be a chance to do something similar.
Not just the BBC, US domestic media as well (Score:3, Informative)
Because the US government never pursues what it perceived to be criminal violations of US law if they are committed by people outside the borders of the US at the time of the offense. Just ask Manuel Noriega.
At any rate, other media outlets covering the story also display the seal, including Vanity Fair [vanityfair.com] and The New York Times [nytimes.com], which presumably are m