NSA uses "Copyright Infringement" to silence criticism/free speech

There's a guy named Ben Swann who was fired from a Fox News Affiliate for basically trying to tell the truth about BOTH sides of our screwed US political fraud, er, system and he's gone out on his own in an attempt to bring the truth back into journalism. While I may not agree with all of his views I certainly do appreciate his attempt reviving genuine journalism in the U.S. again.

Journalism that is free of corporate or political agendas and control.

Today he released an exclusive story he investigated about the NSA effectively shutting down sales of, wait for it, a T-SHIRT!

The shirt was mocking the NSA based on the recent revelation that they have been listening to and reading everything any of us communicate to anyone else. The NSA contacted the site that hosts the store the shirts are sold on, www.zazzle.com, and claimed the shirt was infringing on their copyright by using the NSA's logo. The e-commerce site contacted the store owner and informed him they would be removing the shirt from their site and his store due to a copyright claim from the NSA.

Here's the video...
benswann.com...

I am blown away at the sheer in your face arrogance of these people we pay to do a job for us. The best part is according to the American Bar Association (and every other thinking person) the use of a Government logo in a parody is certainly NOT copyright infringement.

What the NSA's action is called however is intimidation. I'm pretty sure zazzle.com just didn't want to risk it or deal with huge legal bills trying to fight the almighty NSA so one of our fellow citizens had his ability to make a liviong and, more importantly, his right to Free Speech trampled by the overreaching U.S. Government.

Disgusting...

Springer...

Fair use would allow the use of other peoples copyrighted material for the purpose of critique or satire. So they gave in too easily. Trademark might be bit more difficult but I guess they haven't trademarked NSA logo yet.

Man how did I just hear about these shirts now that they can't be bought anymore? Man I'd love to own one. Though it is fun to laugh at the blatant damage control the government keeps doing as more things get leaked. Like that speech Obama gave a week or so ago where he claimed that they were already planning on overhauling the NSA's spying program and had been planning it since a month before Snowden leaked all that stuff. The best part is that all these stupid damage control attempts just keep making the government look more silly and guilty. Keep digging that hole NSA and don't pretend that you didn't hear me I know you are reading these forums

reply to post by Springer


Any artwork created by publicly funded federal agencies is automatically in the public domain. They "pulled the wool" over the eyes of the store owner.

Just another example of selective enforcement by the government.

Many laws exist for the sole purpose of "just in case" We want to, how they got Al Capone when they couldn't get him for what they wanted.

Despicable that its expanded to effect free speech just because they don't like a t-shirt, think it would be covered by Parody...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by Springer

 

Any artwork created by publicly funded federal agencies is automatically in the public domain. They "pulled the wool" over the eyes of the store owner.

Which begs the question, "If artwork that is funded by public monies is publicly owned and therefore usable by the public in pretty much any manner, does that mean we can duplicate money ourselves, privately?" It's basically a natural progression as far as logic goes. The FED I believe is funded by the American public, so its "artwork" meaning money is owned publicly. The same would apply to the Bank of Canada or the Bank of England, etc., wouldn't it?

I thought I'd just take a snipe at this one LOL

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Canadian bank notes have a copyright on them... lol

I can't believe this news, tho... What next?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by Springer

 

Any artwork created by publicly funded federal agencies is automatically in the public domain. They "pulled the wool" over the eyes of the store owner.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate? I'll say right up front, I don't know CW or TM law well enough to say anything here with certainty. I go by experience. In one experience, I can say the NASA site gives you wide open and near unlimited access to everything they have as a product of Government work and hence, public domain. Except for one thing. Their logo. They make it very clear they will not tolerate their "Meatball" being used by 3rd parties without their express written permission.

In what may be more meaningful though...and I'm going by memory here, so forgive me, but Corel Draw v.5 (which I do have the full disks for, btw) was the last set I'm aware of that had the full quality vector graphics for every major Government agency, including the military and intelligence agencies. As memory serves, Corel was either asked or ordered to drop that set from future clip art collections because of impersonation and abuse potential. Kinda silly by modern standards..but back then, I guess it made sense?

I'd love to be corrected if I am wrong here..as correction would bear directly on my own projects at the present time?

And other agencies aren't upset by crass uses of their "logo" (aka three letters)?

How about those Female Body Inspector t-shirts that frat boys love to wear?

It's quite amazing how a federal agency, one that should be bound tightly by law is allowed to operate so far removed from it's confines.

I'm not sure who I blame more though, the NSA for making such a ridiculous claim or Zazzle for rolling over like a dog who wan'ts his belly scratched.

You cannot use U.S. government trademarks or the logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. For example, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page.

That's what they say on this page. Not sure what they base that on.

reply to post by Springer


Ben Swann isn't a great source, according to him Ron Paul was hands down winning the Republican Primary.

Regardless of that, Ben Swann is making a huge assumption saying the NSA took this shirt down, all they have from Zazzle is this note to the user who had this shirt.

“Policy Notes: Design contains an image or text that may infringe on intellectual property rights. We have been contacted by the intellectual property right holder and we will be removing your product from Zazzle’s Marketplace due to infringement claims.”

It doesn't say it does infringe, it says it may infringe...and it doesn't say anything about who the actually intellectual property right holder is. It may be another Zazzle member who is claiming they made the shirt first. It may just be Zazzle being overly cautious to avoid lawsuits...if they get a complaint, they remove the item...many websites do the same thing just to stay out of trouble.

As usual, Ben Swann is stretching the truth and make huge assumptions to create his own version of the story. This isn't journalism, this is speculation...pure journalism deals with facts and facts only, not speculation.

reply to post by PsykoOps


The point is a small web operation (which I assume zazzle.com would be when compared to say, Amazon.com) can't afford the legal fees to fight the NSA and prove it's a parody and thus free of copyright restrictions. It's pure intimidation like any other copyright troll, even worse actually since they ARE the NSA.

S...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Right (in theory at least), but zazzle.com isn't going to get into a pissing war with the NSA over a small T-Shirt vendor, I'm betting they don't have the resources to do so nor the energy. They probably don't understand copyright law either (I don't know if they're a U.S. company for that matter).


ETA: Actually I believe you're wrong about Federal logos being free to use, we couldn't use the FHA's logo without their written permission and qualifying as a full eagle lender years ago.

The point to this is, copyright law allows for parody use, this was definitely a parody and therefor, legal. The problem is nobody is willing to take on the NSA to prove it, who would?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

You cannot use U.S. government trademarks or the logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. For example, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page.

That's what they say on this page. Not sure what they base that on.

This page also clearly says:

A United States government work is prepared by an officer or employee of the United States government as part of that person's official duties.

It is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions [b] on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:
reproduce the work in print or digital form;
create derivative works;
perform the work publicly;
display the work;
distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.

Because this is clearly a parody on the NSA logo it would be considered a derivative work, and therefore the copyright claim is invalid.

The part that you quote under restrictions refers to the use of the logo itself, not a derivative work.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
reply to post by Springer

 

Any artwork created by publicly funded federal agencies is automatically in the public domain. They "pulled the wool" over the eyes of the store owner.

Maybe you should tell this to the store owner? I think they need to make a stand, and a very public one at that.


reply to post by Springer


I most certainly would. And I would make it very public to protect myself. All of my local
news stations would bite on this, I am certain.

Wanna make some shirts?

If anyone actually watches the entire video they'll also see that the NSA stole the logo for "Prism" (the program they are using to spy on us all that was leaked by Edward Snowden) is a REAL copyright violation! The image was created and owned by the son of a BBC presenter.

The hypocrisy and attempted squelching of bad PR through intimidation is thick on this one.

Springer...

Why would they do this
its not even about money its just wanting to silence people, very sad

reply to post by Springer


I'm not so sure they "pulled the wool" over the eyes of the store owner as SO claims. It sounds more like Zazzle caved and submitted to avoid any type of incident they didn't want to deal with.

As Psyops said, copyright law allows for Fair use of a trademarked logo or anything else for criticism, commentary, satire, etc is—under law.

Sounds like Zazzle simply didn't want to butt heads (and spend any type of money) to stand up to the Government.

Also interesting (to me), is what SO said about the logos being in the Public Domain because they are publicly funded. I did not know that, but I wonder exactly how accurate it is. ? My own avatar is the Boston city seal which I used (and also created a T-shirt on Zazzle of the same).

The government is getting VERY desperate and turning even more sinister: when journalism is equated with terrorism, the noose is tightened on free speech more and more, intimidation for exercising of basic RIGHTS, and the increasing use of legal outlets FOR prosecuting the expression of (supposedly) PROTECTED rights, and no one has the backbone to stand up for liberties. Hell this is what journalism and the first amendment are FOR.

Things are getting seriously frightening, and I fear they will only get worse.

When they came for my pants,, i bent over,,
but when they came for my t--shirt,,,,NEEEEVVVVERRRR!,,
lol oh well i tried