NSA, Homeland Security issue ‘cease and desist’ letters to novelty store owner
Source: The Washington Times The National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have issued cease and desist letters to a novelty store owner who sells products that poke fun at the federal government.
Dan McCall, who lives in Minnesota and operates LibertyManiacs.com, sells T-shirts with the agencys official seal that read: The NSA: The only part of government that actually listens, Judicial Watch first reported. Other parodies say, Spying on you since 1952, and Peeping while youre sleeping, the report said.
Federal authorities claimed the parody images violate laws against the misuse, mutilation, alteration or impersonation of government seals, Judicial Watch reported.
Mr. McCall removed the items from his website, but he also has filed a federal complaint claiming the government is violating his First Amendment rights...
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/3/nsa-dhs-issue-cease-and-desist-letters-novelty-sto/

hobbit709
(41,694 posts)CurtEastPoint
(19,316 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,012 posts)and a big red NSA imprinted.
Lovely idea he has.
Japing NSA is an excellent tactic.
treestar
(82,383 posts)then what's the beef? Even the biggest Snowden fan should realize that people don't get to violate the laws based on their beliefs. Instead make these dummies new victims. They should have simply used a different design, rather than one that violates the laws. The laws do seem to make sense as we don't need any agency logo used where it's not really acting itself.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,974 posts)Glad to know you're already on the case and have decided they broke the law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that was not in doubt. But yet people are still acting like it's horrible to enforce that law, merely because they love Snowden. Who also follows the law only when he feels like it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,974 posts)I think you're a little obsessed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We all know the outrage at enforcing this law is from the same ones who always support Snowden and NSA is the defining issue there. Your post is merely ad hominem. I'm not one obsessed with Snowden. I just think he should come back to the US and face trial.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,974 posts)You THINK that. Much different.
christx30
(6,241 posts)and I hope he is able to elude them forever, and continue to make them look like opressive fools. He's under no obligation to turn himself in. Any "damage" he's done is far less than our supposed leaders have done. If the US wants him, make them work for it.
eggplant
(4,020 posts)Because the government trying to ban a t-shirt has anything to do with Snowden.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)assert you know what "we" are thinking.
I for one of many consider Snowden a hero for exposing the egregious, out-of-control, unsupervised activities of our government that, in my opinion and that of many others, violate our 4th Amendment rights.
Why would Snowden return to the U.S. for trial? There is a significant body of evidence Manning was tortured by our government.
I wish Mr. Snowden the best.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Uncle Joe
(60,555 posts)There was no fuss raised about it even though some of those skits were critical of the sitting President.
The NSA has become too thin skinned in attacking a small business owner engaged in satire.
What would be a good or logical basis for having such a law preventing a seal's use for the purpose of satire?
alfredo
(60,158 posts)GE logo on one of our commercial products. Remember when the World Wildlife Fund sued the Worldwide Wrestling Federation? You have the right to protect your organization's trademark.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)alfredo
(60,158 posts)§ 105 . Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works37
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)If the sneaky little bastards didn't want it made fun of they shouldn't be sneaky little bastards.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)protect their intellectual property.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)your point about patent law. I also know we have had stupid laws throughout our history, and sometimes utterly cruel ones, so just because there is a law doesn't mean that much to me.
And I think I am going to buy one of his mugs for Christmas. And if I can't, I'll make my own.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)That's what the code section you cite means.
On the other hand, if a writer doesn't pay his taxes the IRS can go to court and theoretically get his copyrights, or a writer could will his copyrights to the US government. The government can acquire, hold and sell copyrights on private works, but the government cannot create copyrights on its own work.
The seals are not copyrightable nor trademarkable.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)they would "own" that work of art.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Here's the current US trademark law. Note that it starts out "The owner of a trademark used in commerce ... "
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/Trademark_Statutes.pdf
You tell me how these seals are used in commerce? As part of the application one has to certify that they are used in commerce and specify the goods in connection with the trademark is used in commerce.
The t-shirt concessionaire does not own the trademark, so he cannot register it. The government cannot register the seal as a trademark because it is not used in connection with commerce.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Use of the Department of Homeland Security Seal
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seal is protected by several sections of the United States Code (USC) and any unauthorized use is a violation of the USC, specifically Title 18, sections 506, 701, and 1017.
If you would like to use the DHS seal, please contact the Office of Public Affairs at (202) 282-8010, or you can e-mail [email protected].
Please note, any approval of such request shall not constitute an endorsement by DHS of a requestors products and/or services.
NARA seals are protected too. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1200.4
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)the statutes or regulations governing use of such logo or seal, you are free to lobby Congress for appropriate legislative relief or to file a petition for rule-making with the relevant agency, and should you fail to obtain the relief you desire from Congress or the agency, you may campaign to replace Representatives, Senators, and Presidents with those you consider more likely to share your views
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)their views are - they can be replaced rather quickly, or with slightly less trouble their principled stand can be purchased for less than a top of the line car.
And my ownership is the same as yours. I just choose not to accept that I just live on someone else's plantation.
ymmv.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)satire, and commentary/parody is protected, otherwise documentaries like "The Corporation" can be sued for using multiple company trademarks, and many places that use satire and parodies can also be sued.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)
I wish he had altered the seal somewhat by adding a pair of binoculars and big ears on the side.
His slogans are funny and are protected speech -- just not the exact seal.
yourout
(8,227 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The parody defense hinges on using only so much as is necessary to call to mind the target of the parody.
Towlie
(5,464 posts)The law is pretty obviously meant to prohibit scams involving fraudulent use of government seals, but this is clearly a protest of government policy, and probably an excellent example of what our Founding Fathers intended to protect when they wrote the First Amendment.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)in this case there might be a First Amendment issue.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though I bet that law would not allow you to use a corporate logo that way. So perhaps the government has the same protections.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)The law is clearly intended to attack misuse of government logos "with fraudulent intent".
If this guy were selling counterfiting kits, he'd be clearly breaking the law, but the law requires that the use be intended to deceive, and there is a good argument to be made that the guy making these are making a political point and no one could possibly be deceived.
It's the same exact way that U.S. entertainment can display symbols of the U.S. military or FBI in movies and T.V. programs. Nobody goes to a movie thinking that "Rambo" is a real soldier and is an official spokesman for the Army. But if FOX news put up a fake Colonel with a fake uniform denouncing Obama on one of their "news" shows, they'd be in a lot of legal trouble.
If this guy fights this, he'll win in the courts.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
reACTIONary
(6,262 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's like they are clearly not the NSA itself.
But then you never know with juries.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Of course he'll win in court.
Regardless of whether he would or not, why, when we are cutting food stamps to save money, are ANY government resources being devoted to saving us from the scourge of satirical t-shirts?
This is a guaranteed loser in the court of public opinion.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Youll find that many public domain US government works have restrictions similar to this one, from NASA:
NASA material may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a commercial product, service, or activity, or used in any manner that might mislead.
That doesnt mean you cant use the material, even commercially. It just means you cant mislead people into thinking that the agency is in any way connected with your use.
And dont even think about using US government seals or other insignia without permission. (That should be common sense, though, right?) Heres another statement from NASA:
NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages. . . . This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored. (emphasis mine)
Thats pretty clear, yes? (Although ... if material isnt copyrighted, you should be able to use it any way you wish so whats with the for educational and informational purposes bit?) The bottom line here: dont imply endorsement or sponsorship. it's satire. He'll win, not the Govt. Hope he gets a big settlement too.
christx30
(6,241 posts)as long as he makes it clear that not only does the NSA not support his products and do not give approval for them, he's in the clear. And he can use that in his advertising. "The shirts the NSA doesn't want you to buy!" He can put a scanned copy of the cease and desist letter on the page. He won't be able to keep them in stock. A good problem to have. I'll buy one.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)There is no law that Congress can make that supersedes the natural and moral right to free expression, as embodied in the Constitution.
I distrust people who do not question authority, especially when authority tries to silence critics.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Questioning authority it not an excuse for outright disobeying a law, unless you want to take the consequences.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)From US copyright law:§ 105 . Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works37
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There is another statute that addresses the use of official seals.
18 USC § 506 - Seals of departments or agencies
(a) Whoever
(1) falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters the seal of any department or agency of the United States, or any facsimile thereof;
(2) knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description; or
(3) with fraudulent intent, possesses, sells, offers for sale, furnishes, offers to furnish, gives away, offers to give away, transports, offers to transport, imports, or offers to import any such seal or facsimile thereof, knowing the same to have been so falsely made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered,
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Your citation to the copyright statute is neither here nor there. There is no copyright in US government works, and highlighting the fact that the US government can own private copyrights assigned to it has nothing to do with agency seals.
If it is a trademark as they claim, they have to defend it.
15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1129
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1051.html
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I copied the relevant statute on agency seals above. That's what the guy is charged with.
You seem to be confusing copyrights with trademarks. They are two different things.
This is neither a trademark issue nor a copyright issue. The statute in question is 18 USC § 506.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)"Copyright and Logos
In order for a work to have copyright protection, it must reach a requisite level of creativity. Many logos, however, do not. Since copyright cant protect a name, colors or the design of the logo, most simple logos simply do not have the required level of creativity to be considered copyrightable. However, many ornate or artistic ones do.
And here lies the confusion with logos. Many of them actually qualify for both trademark and copyright protection. In fact, the entire Omega v. CostCo case hinges in part upon a logo stamped onto a watch being copyright protected (thus making the import of the watch a violation of the copyright).
In short though, if a logo would qualify for copyright protection as a piece of artwork separate from its use as a corporate identifier, it is copyright protected. Nothing in the law makes the two rights mutually exclusive so many logos can and are enforced using both trademark and copyright."
http://www.legalzoom.com/trademarks-faq/trademark-versus-copyright-protection.html
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Not for nothing, but I practice IP law for a living.
No, they don't hire someone to make official US government agency seals and then have the artist assign a copyright in it. Insofar as they are government works, they aren't covered by copyright. They ARE covered by the specific statute on point, in relation to copying US government seals.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)any outside agency would have signed away any copyrights in the commission of the work.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)seals and such are protected by particular laws not related to copyright law.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)whether public or private.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You have to remember the OP, its a cease and desist letter, those are generally used to threaten, and IF followed through, will lead to a judge making a decision. Until that point though, we don't really know how valid the claim is. After seeing the shirts in question, I really don't see how any reasonable person can confuse them with the real deal, its pretty much commentary on the actions of the NSA.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...have literally no sense of humor.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...there'd be no suit. Do you agree?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)beyond trademark law. The seals for some federal agencies are protected by explicit statute. Other agencies have established regulatory restrictions of the uses of their seals. Some statutes instruct that the courts taken judicial notice of a particular agency seal, and some agencies use their seals as agency signatures authenticating documents
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Seriously, when this is so obviously a work falling within the bounds of speech exceptions, why did the gov do this?
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/2006011001.html
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)or commentary. So presidentially sealed condoms sold under the brand name "Get fucked by the Chief Executive" might pass, because I doubt a credible claim of confusion could be made.
You could not if the presidential seal were private property. You could not if the condoms were marketed as the official presidential condoms in such a way that a reasonable person would believe that these were genuinely presidentially approved, issued or endorsed. Creating confusion as to whether the use is official is the key.
Even a privately owned mark may sometimes be used in satire, criticism or commentary if the owner is a public figure and the context is such that there is no confusion as to the purpose and message.
So, for example, if I had a business card printed up with my name or another name with the NSA seal such that a reasonable person could believe that the cardholder was indeed an agent of the NSA, that would be illegal misappropriation.
But if I had my name printed up with a seal and a clearly satirical job title such as "NSA, Director of Internal Security, with a large emblazoned motto "All your colonoscopy images belong to US". I think a court would hold that such use was entirely legal.
Thank you for the business idea.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Look at what is used in the background of the packaging, etc.
Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #77)
RitchieRich This message was self-deleted by its author.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)of its logo and (say) starting a world war or murdering millions of civilians in industrial-style death camps
Psephos
(8,032 posts)...and understand that the line of argument concerns the dangers of blind acceptance of "legality," not the Holocaust.
But not you.
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)of government agency seals, and that so enfeebled the country that just a few days later the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, giving the Chancellor dictatorial powers!
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Camel. Nose. Tent.
They wouldn't have gone after this guy if he hadn't been making fun of them. Which reveals the actual reason behind this.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)As I said earlier here, "I guarantee you that if the logo was used for T's that put the NSA in a positive light there'd be no suit."
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)not to have contacted Zazzle since 2011
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)Seal and Motto
... Unauthorized use of the FBI seal (or colorable imitations) may be punishable under Title 18 United States Code, Sections 701, 709, or other applicable law ...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/seal-motto
38 CFR 1.9 - Description, use, and display of VA seal and flag
... The official seal, replicas, reproductions, embossed seals, and the distinguished flag shall not be used, except as authorized by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary ... Any person who uses the distinguishing flag, or the official seal, replicas, reproductions or embossed seals in a manner inconsistent with this section shall be subject to the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. 506, 701, or 1017, providing penalties for their wrongful use, as applicable ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/1.9
Seals and Insignia
A Rule by the Small Business Administration on 01/11/2008
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is revising its regulations specifying the description and authorized use of its official sea ... SBA believes that this rule is non-controversial ... This rule is effective February 25, 2008 without further action ...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/01/11/E8-338/seals-and-insignia
Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research
Nicholas H. Steneck
illustrations by David Zinn
... The seal of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) authenticates this
publication as the Official U.S. Government edition of the ORI Introduction to the Responsible
Conduct of Research. Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 132b-10, the unauthorized use of this seal in a publication is prohibited and subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each unauthorized copy of it that is reprinted or distributed ...
http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf
FDA Logo Policy
The FDA logo is for the official use of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and not for use on private sector materials. To the public, such use would send a message that FDA favors or endorses a private sector organization or the organizations activities, products, services, and/or personnel (either overtly or tacitly), which FDA does not and cannot do. Unauthorized use of the FDA logo may violate federal law and subject those responsible to civil and/or criminal liability ...
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/AboutThisWebsite/WebsitePolicies/ucm218116.htm
The Seal of the Department of Veterans Affairs
... The reproduction and use of the VA seal is specified by law (38 CFR 1.9). It is reserved for limited use as the symbol of governmental authority invested by the Department. The seal identifies all official documents, certifications, awards, publications, regulations and reports. Variation and modifications of the seal are prohibited. It is VAs legally sanctioned official signature ...
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/vaseal.pdf
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal
... Federal law prohibits use of the words "Central Intelligence Agency," the initials "CIA," the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency ...
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/site-policies/#seal
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
<Page 111 STAT. 2248>
Public Law 105-107
105th Congress
... SEC. 503. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NAME, INITIALS, OR SEAL OF NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE ... Subchapter I of chapter 21 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "Sec. 425. Prohibition of unauthorized use of name, initials, or seal: specified intelligence agencies ..."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ107/html/PLAW-105publ107.htm
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)..."I guarantee you that if the logo was used for T's that put the NSA in a positive light there'd be no suit."
You responded with something non sequitur.
I asked you, "Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?"
You responded with something non sequitur.
I ask again -- Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)Letter to the online encyclopedia says displaying the official seal on the site's FBI article is unlawful. Wikipedia says the FBI is misinterpreting the law.
by Steven Musil
August 3, 2010 6:03 PM PDT
... In a letter to Wikipedia (PDF) dated July 22 and posted by The New York Times, the FBI demands that its official seal be removed from a Wikipedia article about the FBI because the agency had not approved use of the image.
"The FBI has not authorized use of the FBI seal on Wikipedia," the letter said. "The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting" copying and reprinting of the FBI's seal.
The letter goes on to threaten legal action if its demand is ignored: "Failure to comply may result in further legal action. We appreciate your timely attention to this matter" ...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20012575-93.html
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...but what do you think? Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?
Deep13
(39,157 posts)alfredo
(60,158 posts)Deep13
(39,157 posts)alfredo
(60,158 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How is forgery illegal?
Deep13
(39,157 posts)Sorry, I was assuming people actually knew something about the Constitution.
forgery is only illegal if it is fraudulent. the crime is the fraud, not the forgery.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)18 USC § 506 - Seals of departments or agencies
(a) Whoever
(1) falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters the seal of any department or agency of the United States, or any facsimile thereof;
(2) knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description; or
(3) with fraudulent intent, possesses, sells, offers for sale, furnishes, offers to furnish, gives away, offers to give away, transports, offers to transport, imports, or offers to import any such seal or facsimile thereof, knowing the same to have been so falsely made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered,
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
-----
Note: that "or" is not an "and".
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Good one.
And now, General Alexander, may I ask how that compromised national security?
Journeyman
(15,233 posts)otherwise, they're deemed uncreative and beneath contempt.
Bit of a litmus test to gauge what is real and what merely illusion.
dballance
(5,756 posts)Link:
http://www.cafepress.com/libertymaniacs/10128143
On Edit: I just bought a long-sleeved t-shirt. Go pound sand NSA. Your ignorance just made this guy a very rich man. Idiots.
denbot
(9,916 posts)The NSA is going to line this guy's pocket.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)They just increased that guy's business revenue and attention to the issue by quite a bit.
dballance
(5,756 posts)If they'd kept their mouths shut those would have gone largely unnoticed. Now, that guy will be selling out of those products very quickly.
When are these idiots going to get it? It's just like when Rick Perry complained about an editorial cartoon in the Sacramento Bee. I, and literally millions of others, would never have seen that cartoon if he had just taken the criticism in stride as a politician usually should and kept his mouth shut. It would never have gotten national attention if he hadn't let his tender little feelings be hurt.
marble falls
(62,893 posts)alfredo
(60,158 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)but the claim won't hold up in court.
alfredo
(60,158 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The NSA claims it didn't send any letters in connection with these t-shirts:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/30/the_parody_shirt_the_nsa_doesnt_want_you_to_wear_partner/
The NSA does say the seals are protected by 86-36, but here is the relevant section:
Sec. 15. (a) No person may, except with the written permission
of the Director of the National Security Agency, knowingly use the
words 'National Security Agency', the initials 'NSA', the seal of
the National Security Agency, or any colorable imitation of such
words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise,
impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner
reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is
approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency.
(b) Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that any person
is engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice which
constitutes or will constitute conduct prohibited by subsection
(a), the Attorney General may initiate a civil proceeding in a
district court of the United States to enjoin such act or
practice. Such court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the
hearing and determination of such action and may, at any time
before final determination, enter such restraining orders or
prohibitions, or take such other action as is warranted, to prevent
injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons
for whose protection the action is brought. (Added Pub. L. 97-89,
title VI, Sec. 603, Dec. 4, 1981, 95 Stat. 1156.)
It's hard to believe that any court would determine that the mugs & t-shirts were "reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency".
Thus, such a nutty proceeding has never to my knowledge been attempted. Government seals, uniforms and so forth are used all the time in films, for example, without ever running afoul of such legislation. Fair use and constitutional first amendment speech rules add an additional level of protection against such claims.
A person who was selling, for example, Coast Guard caps for which he or she had not received authorization would run afoul of government regs, because such caps would SEEM to be official, i.e, approved, endorsed or authorized. In this case it would be unlikely that anyone would be confused, therefore there is no legal problem.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)oNobodyo
(96 posts)Since there is no mutilation, alteration or impersonation, that leaves only "misuse" but since the government is assumed to be publically owned (which is why a copyright couldn't apply, the rights by extension of ownership would be also granted to the public) AND his first amendment rights are obviously in play...This falls into the same category as attempts to ban flag burning.
villager
(26,001 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 5, 2013, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)
It's part of the personality disorder.

Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)please enlighten us if we are wrong.
Response to diabeticman (Reply #41)
christx30 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)politically.
What genius decided to do this, and has he/she been fired yet?
olddad56
(5,732 posts)For an government agency whose purpose to to make the people of our homeland feel insecure. Created under the Bush Administration. Okay, now it makes sense.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Otherwise a bunch of old Germans would be saying, "Ja, that's very good!"
allan01
(1,950 posts)parody is proctected free speach.
1monster
(11,028 posts)These days, though, it would be a toss up on whether or not it would be considered thus by our current Supreme Court.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Is the parody part overshadowed by the legit part enough to fool people into thinking it's representative of the agency? If so, it probably wouldn't stand.
1monster
(11,028 posts)The NSA: The only part of government that actually listens, Spying on you since 1952, and Peeping while youre sleeping,
I'd say they are very obviously parodies.
Response to Indi Guy (Original post)
struggle4progress This message was self-deleted by its author.
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)Seal and Motto
... Unauthorized use of the FBI seal (or colorable imitations) may be punishable under Title 18 United States Code, Sections 701, 709, or other applicable law ...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/seal-motto
38 CFR 1.9 - Description, use, and display of VA seal and flag
... The official seal, replicas, reproductions, embossed seals, and the distinguished flag shall not be used, except as authorized by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary ... Any person who uses the distinguishing flag, or the official seal, replicas, reproductions or embossed seals in a manner inconsistent with this section shall be subject to the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. 506, 701, or 1017, providing penalties for their wrongful use, as applicable ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/1.9
Seals and Insignia
A Rule by the Small Business Administration on 01/11/2008
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is revising its regulations specifying the description and authorized use of its official sea ... SBA believes that this rule is non-controversial ... This rule is effective February 25, 2008 without further action ...
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/01/11/E8-338/seals-and-insignia
Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research
Nicholas H. Steneck
illustrations by David Zinn
... The seal of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) authenticates this
publication as the Official U.S. Government edition of the ORI Introduction to the Responsible
Conduct of Research. Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 132b-10, the unauthorized use of this seal in a publication is prohibited and subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each unauthorized copy of it that is reprinted or distributed ...
http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/rcrintro.pdf
FDA Logo Policy
The FDA logo is for the official use of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and not for use on private sector materials. To the public, such use would send a message that FDA favors or endorses a private sector organization or the organizations activities, products, services, and/or personnel (either overtly or tacitly), which FDA does not and cannot do. Unauthorized use of the FDA logo may violate federal law and subject those responsible to civil and/or criminal liability ...
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/AboutThisWebsite/WebsitePolicies/ucm218116.htm
The Seal of the Department of Veterans Affairs
... The reproduction and use of the VA seal is specified by law (38 CFR 1.9). It is reserved for limited use as the symbol of governmental authority invested by the Department. The seal identifies all official documents, certifications, awards, publications, regulations and reports. Variation and modifications of the seal are prohibited. It is VAs legally sanctioned official signature ...
http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/vaseal.pdf
Use of the Central Intelligence Agency Seal
... Federal law prohibits use of the words "Central Intelligence Agency," the initials "CIA," the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency ...
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/site-policies/#seal
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
<Page 111 STAT. 2248>
Public Law 105-107
105th Congress
... SEC. 503. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NAME, INITIALS, OR SEAL OF NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE ... Subchapter I of chapter 21 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "Sec. 425. Prohibition of unauthorized use of name, initials, or seal: specified intelligence agencies ..."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ107/html/PLAW-105publ107.htm
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)the geologists that were shot dead by pot growers in Hawaii after DEA agents posed as geologists for drug busts in the late 80's/early 90's?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)progree
(11,541 posts)organization?
Late Breaking News rules include this: "Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. "
But oh well. If it sounds good, post it anyway. No chance of any misleading half-truths or anything like that from a paper owned by such a fine religious organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch
Pholus
(4,062 posts)A more local paper has a better story.
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20131031/NEWS01/310310065/Sauk-Rapids-entrepreneur-sues-NSA-logo-dispute?nclick_check=1
The Washington Post also did a better job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/satirical-artist-sues-nsa-dhs-over-attempt-to-stop-sale-of-merchandise/2013/10/31/e8a14fde-4234-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)... Sec. 15. (a) No person may, except with the written permission of the Director of the National Security Agency, knowingly use the words 'National Security Agency', the initials 'NSA', the seal of the National Security Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency ...
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1959.htm
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Says the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fuck the NSA. Fuck their unconstitutional total surveillance state.
Shame on you and your authoritarian citation of an inapplicable law.
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)That doesn't really win political fights and it doesn't produce stable compromises: you may get short-term gains but the long-term effect won't be to your liking -- because what actually happens is that ever-larger segments of the public conclude that SmoosherSwirler really can't think very clearly
There's nothing wrong with an agency restricting close reproduction of its logo. Such a restriction doesn't prevent anyone at all from criticizing the agency or parodying the agency. In some cases, arguing for unfettered reproduction of an agency logo as a free speech issue rather resembles arguing that forging names on checks should enjoy first amendment protections, because some agencies use their logos as equivalent to actual signatures which receive official notice in a judicial setting
Since many agencies restrict logo reproduction, it is an extraordinarily poor idea to use this matter as a surrogate for other serious concerns you may have regarding the NSA or (say) the National Security Agency Act of 1959: it distracts from more serious issues, to which it bears little relation; a serious fight over this issue would ultimately involve most federal agencies; and you would lose without accomplishing anything of value
The quality of your current thinking is, sadly, rather clearly exposed by the fact that you think agency control of its logo reproduction has anything whatsoever to do with surveillance issues or that you think one can identify people as "authoritarian" or "non-authoritarian" based on their stances towards the issue of agency rights to control close reproduction of agency logos.reproduction
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I'll smoosh what I like and I'll be the judge of the political effects. All I ever see from you is lengthy sophistry and distraction making excuses for the most authoritarian, odious and destructive institutions within the state, and attacking those who stand up to those institutions.
This thread is about how the NSA, an illegitimate, authoritarian total surveillance agency that claims unconstitutional powers, is trying to squash a small merchant for a parody product.
Why would anyone, seeing that, respond by digging up some irrelevant citation from the National Security Agency Act of 1959? Are you their lawyer? Your choice is clothed in reasonableness but this can't disguise that it comes either from a) a pathological distortion of your priorities, such as a need to defend a position at all costs, or b) a more direct agenda to defend said illegitimate, authoritarian total surveillance organization, no matter what the issue.
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)I suppose if you ever were to decide you wanted to do something with actual long-term prospects for successful change, you might then start factually analyzing actual structures of power and would then discover that the structures have very little to do with whether or not federal agencies send occasional letters to prevent unauthorized logo reproduction
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)from the marketplace. Zazzle said the products, "contained content which infringes upon the intellectual property rights of National Security Agency," and claimed they were contacted by NSA lawyers ... McCall's ordeal played out almost identically to Gawker writer Max Read's attempt to market and sell T-shirts with NSA-related logos through Zazzle. Read made a few T-shirts and mugs with the PRISM logo shortly after the scandal first broke. But, almost immediately, Zazzle removed the products because Read was allegedly violating intellectual property rights. At the time, Zazzle didn't explicitly acknowledge getting contacted by NSA lawyers ... But the agency never directly commented on the shirt scandals until Friday ... But then the second message came ...
NSA has not sent a cease and desist letter to Zazzle since March 2011 regarding a mug they were selling using the NSA Seal. At any time that NSA is made aware that the NSA Seal is being used without our permission, we will take appropriate actions ...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2013/08/nsa-doesnt-mind-parody-t-shirts-after-all/68933/
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...but you still haven't answered my question. Once again:
Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)(2) the NSA did contact Zazzle directly, once, two and a half years ago, to insist that Zazzle not sell merchandize containing the agency logo, citing the National Security Agency Act of 1959 as prohibiting such activity; (3) similarly, the DHS contacted Zazzle, over two years ago, to insist that Zazzle not sell merchandize containing the agency logo; (4) Zazzle subsequently refused to allow some of McCall's products to be merchandized at the Zazzle website;
(5) McCall certainly has a clear free speech right to parody or lampoon federal agencies and in particular has a clear free speech right to market products that obviously criticize or satirize such agencies; (6) various agencies are recognized to have the authority to control the reproduction of their logos under a variety of laws and statutes, since (for example) an agency may have intellectual property rights in a logo, or may use such a symbol as judicially recognizable certification that the agency has authorized whatever the logo appears on; (7) reproduced modifications of agency logos become more clearly protected as free speech as the modifications become more obvious and become more clearly unprotected as the modifications become less obvious; (8) McCall has no right to reproduce and distribute the intellectual property of such agencies or to reproduce and distribute materials bearing unmodified logos that such agencies use as certifications of authenticity; (9) one issue with McCall's merchandize will be the question, whether his modifications of agency logos are sufficiently evident to prevent confusion among any discernible fraction of the public about the authenticity of a product that may otherwise appear to have been authorized by a federal agency;
(10) as the agencies contacted Zazzle, rather than McCall himself, and as it is Zazzle, rather than a federal agency, that has removed the products from the Zazzle site, any proper action by McCall may lie against Zazzle rather than against the federal government; (11) McCall's free speech rights do not include a general right to have his products marketed through any particular private website, and free speech arguments cannot compel Zazzle to help McCall market his products; (12) Zazzle, in deciding whether or not to allow certain products on its website, is not obliged to follow any directions contained in a letter from a federal agency but is free to consult with its own lawyers in the course of deciding whether or not to concur with the opinion expressed in such federal agency letter and in the course of deciding whether to contest any proposed federal action;
(13) McCall will not have a recognizable action against the agencies unless the agencies are found to have acted in egregious violation of law or in a manner singularly prejudicial to McCall; (14) action by an agency, allegedly to protect the integrity of its standard uses of a logo or to protect its rights under specific statute, will be countenanced the courts in almost automatic manner, unless the plaintiff is able to establish by clear evidence a contrary, illegal, and prejudicial motive; (15) a mere contrary opinion alone, as to the motive of an agency, will not be considered judicially as clear evidence of agency malfeasance
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)So let me rephrase, and I'm asking for your opinion here:
Do you believe that this vendor would have been smacked down by the DHS if he'd painted the NSA in a favorable light (all other circumstances being equal)?
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Either you agree that the vendor would not have been sanctioned by the DHS if he'd shown the NSA in a favorable light, or you don't. It's a yes or no question, but I'll let you off the hook here because I'm tired of this game and it's clear that you're afraid to answer honestly.
Personally, I think you're afraid to answer because you actually agree with my assertion that no one would have bothered this man if his products were friendly to the NSA. I think this is pretty much a no-brainer. (...I appreciate your honesty though, in that you chose to avoid the question, rather than lie.)
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)He can use his slogan and make his own version of the seal and he still gets all the free attention.
struggle4progress
(121,093 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)bobGandolf
(871 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 03:28 AM - Edit history (1)
Somehow, people with no sense of humor are sometimes funnier than those who do -- and the spooks appear to have no sense of humor whatsoever (except for maybe their own inside jokes).
This story is reminiscent of an episode of "Get Smart."
bobGandolf
(871 posts)The problem is...they have a lot of power to toss around to make people miserable.
Get Smart rocks!
Fearless
(18,458 posts)(And I do mean the NSA just to be clear.)