Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, your link refers to the distinction between satire and parody, not "criticism or comment." Had the owner modified, even slightly, the NSA logo so that it was a parody or satire of the original, then it would not violate copyright law. However, by using the NSA logo, without change, he is in violation of copyright law.
True, but this is more of appropriating a copyrighted trademark for purposes of profit (i.e., selling T-shirts and bumper stickers).
Rather like taking the Nike symbol, sticking it on shoes, maybe adding a little slogan ("Nike or Nothing!") and then trying to claim that it is 'fair use' of the Nike trademark.
I will add that, if any of this is true (i.e., NSA ordered the halt of the sale of the merchandise), then the seller should obtain an injunction. Indeed, if NSA did anything (which I find doubtful) its proper course would have been to 1) write a cease and desist letter; and 2) file suit asking for an immediate halt to the merchandise pending a hearing.
True, but this is more of appropriating a copyrighted trademark for purposes of profit (i.e., selling T-shirts and bumper stickers).
Rather like taking the Nike symbol, sticking it on shoes, maybe adding a little slogan ("Nike or Nothing!") and then trying to claim that it is 'fair use' of the Nike trademark.
I will add that, if any of this is true (i.e., NSA ordered the halt of the sale of the merchandise), then the seller should obtain an injunction. Indeed, if NSA did anything (which I find doubtful) its proper course would have been to 1) write a cease and desist letter; and 2) file suit asking for an immediate halt to the merchandise pending a hearing.
The courts are the ones that determine fair use and if something is properly satire and that is the problem. Even if it is a small web business couldn't afford to go to court.
The link states that profit would be one consideration but profit doesn't rule out legal parody or criticism. The government shouldn't be able to copyright a logo to start with. It belongs to the people.
True, but this is more of appropriating a copyrighted trademark for purposes of profit (i.e., selling T-shirts and bumper stickers).
Rather like taking the Nike symbol, sticking it on shoes, maybe adding a little slogan ("Nike or Nothing!") and then trying to claim that it is 'fair use' of the Nike trademark.
I will add that, if any of this is true (i.e., NSA ordered the halt of the sale of the merchandise), then the seller should obtain an injunction. Indeed, if NSA did anything (which I find doubtful) its proper course would have been to 1) write a cease and desist letter; and 2) file suit asking for an immediate halt to the merchandise pending a hearing.
The only thing that was claimed, was that copyright infringement was taking place and the copyright holder claimed this. This usually results in a DCMA notice, which is essentially a cease and desist. If Zazzle, just arbitrarily decided, this it would be a problem. Haven't heard if this was corrected.
The courts are the ones that determine fair use and if something is properly satire and that is the problem. Even if it is a small web business couldn't afford to go to court.
The link states that profit would be one consideration but profit doesn't rule out legal parody or criticism. The government shouldn't be able to copyright a logo to start with. It belongs to the people.
I utterly agree. Hence, my statement that if the NSA was offended or believed in copyright infringement, it would first ask a court to intervene (with the temporary injunction). The court would have the power to decline the TI, allowing the seller to continue to sell pending a hearing or trial.
I utterly agree. Hence, my statement that if the NSA was offended or believed in copyright infringement, it would first ask a court to intervene (with the temporary injunction). The court would have the power to decline the TI, allowing the seller to continue to sell pending a hearing or trial.
Now they just determine whether or not you are having an affair and leak the information to your wife. The courts haven't exactly been the governments best ally as of late.
Perhaps I missed something, but I couldn't find anything in the direct quotes of the Executive Order stating that it was the intent to "gives himself control of communication". What it does say is, "Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience."
If this story is true, that's pretty heavy handed, because my understanding is that parody (an imitative worked intended to mock, comment on or trivialize) is protected and considered fair use under copyright law. They took the NSA logo and changed around the wording to mock and make a political statement on the NSA. I hope this goes to court. The small business can't take on a court case against the government, but it would be nice if an organization that did have the finances to do it would get behind them.
Perhaps I missed something, but I couldn't find anything in the direct quotes of the Executive Order stating that it was the intent to "gives himself control of communication". What it does say is, "Survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies, and improve national resilience."
The article I posted contains a direct link to the EO. People can read it and decide for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
