Access and ownership are two different entities. For instance, the taxpayer pays the salaries of the police force, but you certainly can't expect them to follow your orders, at least not in a general sense. Although you could have laws changed which the police would then have to follow, they are not your personal servants who will perform to your every whim.
In terms of ownership though, that is a different story. Development of ideas (intellectual property), fully funded by taxpayer dollars, are technically
The FBI isn't claiming copyright (it is public domain). They are referring to criminal laws which apply specifically to the use of the FBI seal. Wikipedia actually has the relevant laws cited on the image page.
It cites the law the FBI quoted. That does not mean the quoted law applies. They also cite this on the image URL:
This image is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
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).
701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia 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.
709. False advertising or misuse of names to indicate Federal agency
712. Misuse of names, words, emblems, or insignia Whoever, in the course of collecting or aiding in the collection of private debts or obligations, or being engaged in furnishing private police, investigation, or other private detective services, uses or employs in any communication, correspondence, notice, advertisement, or circular the words “national”, “Federal”, or “United States”, the initials “U.S.”, or any emblem, insignia, or name, for the purpose of conveying and in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States or in any manner represents the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
We used to. The White House doesn't belong to the President, it belongs to the people. We allow him to use it when we elect him, and that's why the President has to leave after his term is over.
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Lots of these now offlimits offices, houses, etc. used to be freely accessible to the people who paid for them.
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Are you kidding? I read somewhere on the internet that Andrew Jackson invented gun kata, I don't think stealing his cane is going to help.
A large fancy building, in which dwells the ruler of a nation, which is paid for by the people of that nation, but which the people cannot enter, is called a palace. Doesn't matter if you call it the White House, the Louvre, or Buckingham, it's a symbol of the different, superior nature of those who live in it, and their right to rule.
If you wish to visit the White House and are a citizen of a foreign country, please contact your embassy in Washington, DC for assistance in submitting a tour request.
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Which works fine when you have a population of 10 million dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldn't afford to go more than 100 miles from their home. It doesn't work so well when you've got a population of 300 million, almost all of whom could easily afford to cross the continent on a whim.
Most of those farmers were armed, and it was those armed dirt poor farmers who fought in the Continental Army to oust the British. If anything, I'd have been more worried then than now. They tarred and feathered people for the lamest of infractions against rights. We roll over and play dead when they declare us to be enemy combatants and lock us away without trial.
As an interesting example of government working the other way (i.e., more access), you are now able again to walk around freely in the Massachusetts State House. When I was in college (in the 90's), I worked for a catering company that regularly did State House events, and we pretty much had free run of the place. During the downtime when we did those events (usually when some politician was making some long-winded speech), we would "sled" on the food dollies down the long, beautifully flat marble floors. We were once tsk-tsked by a State Police officer who caught us doing this, but he couldn't hide his smirk, and that was the worst that ever happened.
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.
Walking onto a military base and using USAF equipment isn't exactly the same thing as reproducing a graphic on a web page now is it? There are obviously laws that prevent civilians from just wandering onto a military base and borrowing equipment.
Not exactly the same thing as reprinting a government graphic on a web page.
A more sane example would be utilizing the design specifications for said fighter (assuming they are not classified) to build your own fighter and not getting sued for IP violation for doing
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
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: (Score:0)
As far as I know there has never been a show that had the actual FBI symbol.
I remember the Veronica Mars season 4 (I think) preview had all the FBI symbols blurred out for some reason.
Re: (Score:0)
Videogames and video tapes used to prominently display a do-not-copy "FBI warning" that routinely showed the FBI seal.
Re:I guess... (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:2)
Access and ownership are two different entities. For instance, the taxpayer pays the salaries of the police force, but you certainly can't expect them to follow your orders, at least not in a general sense. Although you could have laws changed which the police would then have to follow, they are not your personal servants who will perform to your every whim.
In terms of ownership though, that is a different story. Development of ideas (intellectual property), fully funded by taxpayer dollars, are technically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
We used to. The White House doesn't belong to the President, it belongs to the people. We allow him to use it when we elect him, and that's why the President has to leave after his term is over.
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: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? I read somewhere on the internet that Andrew Jackson invented gun kata, I don't think stealing his cane is going to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I see your point about the tours. My bad. *shrug*
Re: (Score:1)
If you wish to visit the White House and are a citizen of a foreign country, please contact your embassy in Washington, DC for assistance in submitting a tour request.
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't ensure I'd get in. As it shouldn't, my not being a citizen of that nation of having paid for its construction or upke-
Oh hey wait! I'm Canadian! We did pay for its reconstruction! Maybe we're ensured access, too.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to. In the era of Andrew Jackson and co., you could just walk right on in. You could even attempt to kill him if you wish. Just make sure you get his cane first...
Which works fine when you have a population of 10 million dirt poor farmers, most of whom couldn't afford to go more than 100 miles from their home. It doesn't work so well when you've got a population of 300 million, almost all of whom could easily afford to cross the continent on a whim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol. I see. Another conspiracy twit. Carry on.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walking onto a military base and using USAF equipment isn't exactly the same thing as reproducing a graphic on a web page now is it? There are obviously laws that prevent civilians from just wandering onto a military base and borrowing equipment.
Not exactly the same thing as reprinting a government graphic on a web page.
A more sane example would be utilizing the design specifications for said fighter (assuming they are not classified) to build your own fighter and not getting sued for IP violation for doing