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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IronPatriotWhat I don't get is why anyone wants to be part of the private online army for a stalker.08/04/2015 - 2:32am
IronPatriotYes, it's pretty sad that even after GG has been exposed as a fraud designed to harass Sarkeesian, they still want to attack her. Do facts even matter anymore?08/04/2015 - 2:30am
Andrew EisenDammit. For context's sake, I watched that one Chris Ray Gun video Matt linked to and now my recommends are chockful of anti-Sarkeesian crap from the usual suspects. ARGH!08/04/2015 - 2:27am
Andrew EisenIP - Now you just essentially asked Matt the same question twice in a row. Seriously, once is enough.08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattsworkname, do you have any actual evidence for your "complete bollocks" claim? Or are you making up more "facts08/04/2015 - 2:11am
IronPatriotMattswork, prove your claim that the article is "based on complete bollocks"08/04/2015 - 2:08am
Andrew EisenIP - Stop asking me the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It's super annoying. Especially when I've already addressed it.08/04/2015 - 2:07am
Andrew EisenMatt - How? Set aside half an hour. It's not hard if you know your history. It's just time consuming.08/04/2015 - 2:06am
IronPatriotAndrew, so you agree about the lying fraudulent nature of gamergate's origins? So supporting gamergate when it is clearly a fraud deserves to be called what it is, right?08/04/2015 - 2:06am
Andrew EisenFrom an ethics standpoint, there's nothing wrong with that article or posting news on subjects that are of interest.08/04/2015 - 2:05am
MattsworknameAndrew: the toughest thing about Gamergate is that it lacked any form of directed leadership or oganizaotion, How do you really explain something so amourphous that it leterally took months and moths to gain any real shape?08/04/2015 - 2:05am
Andrew EisenIP - A metric crap ton of history and context. GamerGate isn't hard to explain, it just takes a while.08/04/2015 - 2:01am
MattsworknameAnd ip wonders why gamergate went after sites like ARS and kotaku08/04/2015 - 2:00am
MattsworknameWow, its like ARS posted an intentially controversial article based on complete bollocks to get clicks, Imagine that?08/04/2015 - 1:58am
Mattsworknamehttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/arstechnica.com08/04/2015 - 1:58am
MattsworknameWait, wrong link, damn copy function08/04/2015 - 1:57am
IronPatriotAndrew, the logs show the harassing nature of gamergate's creation and the facts show the fraudulent nature of gamergate's ethics claims. What is left to make it hard to explain Gamergate?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Mattsworknamedont belive me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhYQBPFub5M08/04/2015 - 1:57am
MattsworknameAlso, ARS? That webpage that was suffering signigant traffic decrease before the gamergate event and thatt suddenly saw a huge jump. almost like they posted it intentionally to get clicks?08/04/2015 - 1:57am
Andrew EisenTrust me, I'm well versed with GamerGate's history. I was there.08/04/2015 - 1:56am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician