10 ms·

F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law

94 points by credo 16y ago

markintx 16y ago
The FBI seal, along with all other government seals, are public domain. We paid for them with our taxes. Yes, there are laws saying that you can't use the FBI seal to misrepresent yourself as an FBI agent, or acting on authority of the FBI, but you have a right to display the seal in other ways. Same as any other government seal. Wikipedia is using the seal in an educational manner. Fully protected and legal use of that seal.
jrockway 16y ago
Nice. +1 for the Wikimedia foundation. If people don't stand up for their rights, soon there won't be any rights to stand up for.
blahedo 16y ago
It is truly worth reading both letters (linked from the article, but: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... and http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... )---it shows how easily a scary-sounding lawyer letter can be written with... less than strong support from the law it quotes. IANAL and can't say for sure that Wikimedia's argument is sound, but I sure salute them for their, ah, "politely feisty response".
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  One thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about lawyers is that they will almost always try to push people beyond what the law is capable of compelling a person to do. A typical letter from a lawyer will mix in numerous requests (which have no legal basis and are merely things which would be nice for the client) amongst legitimate legal complaints. It is not any lawyer's job (except one you have hired) to precisely define which behaviors of yours they think violate the law. Thus, lawyers use the law as a lever to facilitate much greater benefit to their clients (to the detriment of whomever their client has targetted). This is a major factor why lawyers get paid so much.
  - flipbrad 16y ago
    People need to learn to refer the people that write these letters to Arkell v Pressdram http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm (and I say this, as a trainee lawyer)
bambax 16y ago
Best passage of the letter from Wikimedia to the FBI: «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.”» Exactly. Just because the FBI doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal.
_delirium 16y ago
Wikipedia's general counsel, Michael Godwin, is pretty good at writing these rather biting replies to legal threats while nonetheless still hitting the actual legal points. Fun fact: yes, he's that Godwin.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Godwin is a lawyer?!? Good Lord, is there nothing the world can't do to surprise me?
  - nagrom 16y ago
    I'm not sure why you are surprised. Huge parts of the study of Law is the study of oratory, and that's to what Godwin's Lax refers. Given that the internet must be amongst the most interesting places for a lawyer to be involved, I'm actually surprised that more lawyers aren't more heavily involved in the subculture.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      No, no, it's just the incredibly delightful fact that Godwin's Law was drafted by a real live lawyer.
      - neilk 16y ago
        It's not like there are penalties for breaking it. Actually, only benefits.
- viggity 16y ago
  for those confused about what he means by "that Godwin" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
asmithmd1 16y ago
I agree the FBI went about this in the wrong way by threatening Wikipedia. But would it be so awful for Wikimedia not to post a 2000px X 2000px high quality rendering of the FBI seal? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg/2000px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-... There are limits to free speech -- no yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that. I am just asking, is a huge, beautiful rendering really necessary and responsible? Maybe if the FBI had asked that question instead of threatening they would have gotten a different answer.
- adolph 16y ago
  Part of the concept of free speech is that it doesn't need to be responsible, necessary, understandable, or anything. Unless it is used in the commission of a crime, it is free.
- GFischer 16y ago
  This poster has a point, why do you downvote instead of answering or disagreeing? I'm rooting for the underdog (especially when it's a public service like Wikipedia vs the big bad US Government agency), but he's asking for Wikipedia's criteria for selecting the image size for display. Apparently there are valid reasons, which the FBI will not like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_crit... "(...) of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred."
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    The “featured picture criteria” are not the same as the criteria for any image anywhere on the site. It is doubtful that the FBI seal would ever be a featured picture.
    - GFischer 16y ago
suprgeek 16y ago
Writing Scary sounding legalese filled letters is typically all it takes for a big government agency to get the other party to back down. The approach is simple: loudly proclaim "We have the law on OUR side - so do not mess with us" and then make all kinds of unreasonable demands while the other guy is "quaking in his boots". Unfortunately for the FBI, Wikipedia has had its share of legal tangles in the past so they clearly have competent (and unflappable) legal counsel. The standard chest-thumping scare tactics are unlikely to work here.
jws 16y ago
All lawyer talking aside, the logic of the FBI actions is astounding: • The FBI needs to unambiguously identify itself to citizens. • It will do this by having a special image that only it is allowed to possess, to be shown to said citizens. • Citizens will recognize this as the "image that can only be possessed by the FBI" and authenticate the bearer as FBI. • Citizens may not possess or view any version of said image sufficiently detailed to be identified as the actual image. And how exactly am I supposed to memorize this image so that I may rapidly authenticate the bearer against all possible simulations if I can't see it?
- asmithmd1 16y ago
  There is the same situation with the $100 bill. We all have to be able to identify a legit one but I would guess the US treasury would similarly have a problem with Wikipedia posting a "camera ready" image if a $100 bill. The $100 bill image on Wikipedia is 659px X 289px and is marked "specimen." The FBI logo is 2000x2000
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jws 16y ago
    All Americans are allowed to possess $100 bills in their full detail. There are all kinds of restrictions on what we can do with them, but we can possess them and look at them any time we like. Resolution isn't much of an issue either. Absent watermarks, there are lots of nice upsampling algorithms.
    - sokoloff 16y ago
      Your last is one reason for the microprint on the bills. You can't upsample "into" microprint, except on CSI/NCIS type TV shows...
  - JimmyL 16y ago
    Or you could download this PDF (http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/files/100_Materials/100_GlossyFront_EN_WEB031210.pdf http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/files/100_Materials/100_Glo...) containing a nice large scan of one with some light SPECIMEN text overlaid. As for the Treasury having a problem with it, if you make your file/printed copy one-sided and either <.75x or >1.5x in scale (and delete the files you used to create it when done), they don't care.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mattlanger 16y ago
Baader-Meinhof alert: just yesterday I was googling around about fair use with regard to logos and insignias when I came upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos Considering how impressively thorough their policies and guidelines are the FBI's action comes as something of a surprise.

94 points by credo 16y ago

The FBI seal, along with all other government seals, are public domain. We paid for them with our taxes. Yes, there are laws saying that you can't use the FBI seal to misrepresent yourself as an FBI agent, or acting on authority of the FBI, but you have a right to display the seal in other ways. Same as any other government seal. Wikipedia is using the seal in an educational manner. Fully protected and legal use of that seal.

jrockway 16y ago

Nice. +1 for the Wikimedia foundation. If people don't stand up for their rights, soon there won't be any rights to stand up for.

blahedo 16y ago

It is truly worth reading both letters (linked from the article, but: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... and http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... )---it shows how easily a scary-sounding lawyer letter can be written with... less than strong support from the law it quotes. IANAL and can't say for sure that Wikimedia's argument is sound, but I sure salute them for their, ah, "politely feisty response".

InclinedPlane 16y ago
One thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about lawyers is that they will almost always try to push people beyond what the law is capable of compelling a person to do. A typical letter from a lawyer will mix in numerous requests (which have no legal basis and are merely things which would be nice for the client) amongst legitimate legal complaints. It is not any lawyer's job (except one you have hired) to precisely define which behaviors of yours they think violate the law. Thus, lawyers use the law as a lever to facilitate much greater benefit to their clients (to the detriment of whomever their client has targetted). This is a major factor why lawyers get paid so much.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  People need to learn to refer the people that write these letters to Arkell v Pressdram http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm (and I say this, as a trainee lawyer)

bambax 16y ago

Best passage of the letter from Wikimedia to the FBI: «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.”» Exactly. Just because the FBI doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal.

_delirium 16y ago

Wikipedia's general counsel, Michael Godwin, is pretty good at writing these rather biting replies to legal threats while nonetheless still hitting the actual legal points. Fun fact: yes, he's that Godwin.

Vivtek 16y ago
Godwin is a lawyer?!? Good Lord, is there nothing the world can't do to surprise me?
- nagrom 16y ago
  I'm not sure why you are surprised. Huge parts of the study of Law is the study of oratory, and that's to what Godwin's Lax refers. Given that the internet must be amongst the most interesting places for a lawyer to be involved, I'm actually surprised that more lawyers aren't more heavily involved in the subculture.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    No, no, it's just the incredibly delightful fact that Godwin's Law was drafted by a real live lawyer.
    - neilk 16y ago
      It's not like there are penalties for breaking it. Actually, only benefits.
viggity 16y ago
for those confused about what he means by "that Godwin" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

asmithmd1 16y ago

I agree the FBI went about this in the wrong way by threatening Wikipedia. But would it be so awful for Wikimedia not to post a 2000px X 2000px high quality rendering of the FBI seal? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg/2000px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-... There are limits to free speech -- no yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that. I am just asking, is a huge, beautiful rendering really necessary and responsible? Maybe if the FBI had asked that question instead of threatening they would have gotten a different answer.

adolph 16y ago
Part of the concept of free speech is that it doesn't need to be responsible, necessary, understandable, or anything. Unless it is used in the commission of a crime, it is free.
GFischer 16y ago
This poster has a point, why do you downvote instead of answering or disagreeing? I'm rooting for the underdog (especially when it's a public service like Wikipedia vs the big bad US Government agency), but he's asking for Wikipedia's criteria for selecting the image size for display. Apparently there are valid reasons, which the FBI will not like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_crit... "(...) of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred."
- jacobolus 16y ago
  The “featured picture criteria” are not the same as the criteria for any image anywhere on the site. It is doubtful that the FBI seal would ever be a featured picture.
  - GFischer 16y ago

suprgeek 16y ago

Writing Scary sounding legalese filled letters is typically all it takes for a big government agency to get the other party to back down. The approach is simple: loudly proclaim "We have the law on OUR side - so do not mess with us" and then make all kinds of unreasonable demands while the other guy is "quaking in his boots". Unfortunately for the FBI, Wikipedia has had its share of legal tangles in the past so they clearly have competent (and unflappable) legal counsel. The standard chest-thumping scare tactics are unlikely to work here.

jws 16y ago

All lawyer talking aside, the logic of the FBI actions is astounding: • The FBI needs to unambiguously identify itself to citizens. • It will do this by having a special image that only it is allowed to possess, to be shown to said citizens. • Citizens will recognize this as the "image that can only be possessed by the FBI" and authenticate the bearer as FBI. • Citizens may not possess or view any version of said image sufficiently detailed to be identified as the actual image. And how exactly am I supposed to memorize this image so that I may rapidly authenticate the bearer against all possible simulations if I can't see it?

asmithmd1 16y ago
There is the same situation with the $100 bill. We all have to be able to identify a legit one but I would guess the US treasury would similarly have a problem with Wikipedia posting a "camera ready" image if a $100 bill. The $100 bill image on Wikipedia is 659px X 289px and is marked "specimen." The FBI logo is 2000x2000
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jws 16y ago
  All Americans are allowed to possess $100 bills in their full detail. There are all kinds of restrictions on what we can do with them, but we can possess them and look at them any time we like. Resolution isn't much of an issue either. Absent watermarks, there are lots of nice upsampling algorithms.
  - sokoloff 16y ago
    Your last is one reason for the microprint on the bills. You can't upsample "into" microprint, except on CSI/NCIS type TV shows...
- JimmyL 16y ago
  Or you could download this PDF (http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/files/100_Materials/100_GlossyFront_EN_WEB031210.pdf http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/files/100_Materials/100_Glo...) containing a nice large scan of one with some light SPECIMEN text overlaid. As for the Treasury having a problem with it, if you make your file/printed copy one-sided and either <.75x or >1.5x in scale (and delete the files you used to create it when done), they don't care.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mattlanger 16y ago

Baader-Meinhof alert: just yesterday I was googling around about fair use with regard to logos and insignias when I came upon this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos Considering how impressively thorough their policies and guidelines are the FBI's action comes as something of a surprise.