

F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law - credo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html

======
_delirium
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
_Godwin_ is a _lawyer_?!? Good Lord, is there _nothing_ the world can't do to
surprise me?

~~~
nagrom
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
No, no, it's just the incredibly delightful fact that Godwin's Law was drafted
by a real live _lawyer_.

~~~
neilk
It's not like there are penalties for breaking it. Actually, only benefits.

------
bambax
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.

------
blahedo
It is truly worth reading both letters (linked from the article, but:
[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-
LetterFromLarson.pdf) and
[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-
LetterToLarson.pdf) )---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
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
People need to learn to refer the people that write these letters to Arkell v
Pressdram

<http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm>

(and I say this, as a trainee lawyer)

------
jws
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
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

~~~
jws
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
Your last is one reason for the microprint on the bills. You can't upsample
"into" microprint, except on CSI/NCIS type TV shows...

------
jrockway
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.

------
suprgeek
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.

------
markintx
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.

------
asmithmd1
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-...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-
FBI-ShadedSeal.svg/2000px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg.png)

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.

~~~
GFischer
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_crit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria)

"(...) 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."

~~~
halo
The seal has been uploaded to Wikipedia as an SVG. SVG is a vector image
format, which allows for arbitrary resizing without any loss in quality, while
the PNG (raster) version is automatically generated on Wikipedia's servers at
whatever size the user wants.

N.B.: I did not downvote.

~~~
lpellis
Yup it is automatically generated Here is the image 300px wide
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-
FBI-ShadedSeal.svg/300px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg.png)

and 500px
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/US-
FBI-ShadedSeal.svg/500px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg.png)

------
mattlanger
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>

Considering how impressively thorough their policies and guidelines are the
FBI's action comes as something of a surprise.

