Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over Logo

August 3, 2010 -

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has contacted Wikipedia over the use of an FBI logo on a page dedicated to the history of the crime-fighting organization.

The FBI claimed that the logo accompanying an entry in the online encyclopedia was an “unauthorized reproduction of the FBI Seal” and “prohibited by law,” according to the BBC. The FBI’s letter stated that “Whoever possesses any insignia...or any colourable imitation thereof..shall be fined...or imprisoned... or both.”

Apparently offering the logo in four different sizes also posed a crisis, as the FBI stated that this was, “particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of restrictions by Wikipedia users."

Wikipedia lawyer Mike Godwin fired back at the FBI, saying there was a difference between the words “problematic” and “unlawful.” Godwin indicated that Wikipedia would deny the FBI's demand to remove the seal, adding, “The seal is in no way evidence of any 'intent to deceive', nor is it an 'assertion of authority', recognisable or otherwise.”

We thought perhaps the FBI had turned their attentions to this important matter in light of catching every criminal on the loose, but a quick check shows that the FBI Ten Most Wanted list is still populated with active fugitives.


Via SlashDot


Comments

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

I tried my hardest to not make a bad pun tying in the words 'Godwin' and 'law.'

*cough*hitler*cough

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

Not sure if you realize, but Mike Godwin from the WMF is the namesake of Godwin's Law.

-- Dan Rosenthal

-- Dan Rosenthal

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

Didn't the FBI seal show up in opening bits for several old arcade games talking about winners not using drugs? I'm seriously not fully getting what the FBI is trying to do here. It literally seems to me like they just now decided to be dicks.

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

 I think those were licensed because the director of the FBI wanted to get an anti-drug message out to the "impressionable youth" in the late 80's-the end of the 90's.

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

Looks like this argument already got "Godwin'd" XD

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

"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," said Mr Godwin adding that the firm was "prepared to argue our view in court."

 

Good on you, Godwin.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Your Tax Dollars at Work: FBI Battles Wikipedia over ...

Damn straight.

my vanity is justified

my vanity is justified
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician