So far, it does not seem to have gained consensus, first for failing the DYK criterion of having "been created, or expanded fivefold or more, within the last 5 days", but also because several users found it would be unwise in the current situation (Jimbo Wales opined that "It is clearly politically provocative, and it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia to behave that way"). Soon after the story broke on Tuesday, a DYK nomination of the article Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was submitted, which would presumably entail displaying the image on the Main page.
However, this does not affect the copyright status. Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. Sanger and other Wikipedia critics later noted a passage at Wikipedia:Logos#U.S. Although Foundation staff stated several weeks later that they had not received any notice from the FBI that the images in question would violate federal laws, and there have been no media reports about actions of the FBI in this matter, Larry Sanger appeared to interpret the letter about the seal as the FBI's indirect reaction to his complaint: "The FBI finally got back to Wikimedia, but not about its child porn holdings", "this action from the FBI is a not-too-subtle hint to get its house in order", "hubris, meet your nemesis. The BBC questioned why the FBI "singled out Wikipedia, when the FBI seal is published on numerous other websites." Asked by The New York Times to comment, Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the FBI "has better things to do than this."Įarlier this year, Wikimedia and the FBI had already appeared in headlines together, in news reports about Larry Sanger's announcement that he had reported the WMF to the FBI for "knowingly distributing child pornography" (see Signpost coverage). we are prepared to argue our view in court." Godwin signed off his letter "with all appropriate respect."Īn FBI spokesperson told the newspaper that by law, its seal cannot be used without "the permission of the director”. is in no way evidence of any 'intent to deceive', nor is it an 'assertion of authority', recognizable or otherwise. "the enactment of was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognisable assertion of authority with intent to deceive. we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version. "Other organizations might simply back down", says the newspaper, "but Wikipedia sent back a politely feisty response, stating that the bureau’s lawyers are misquoting the law." The response, by the Foundation's general counsel, Michael Godwin, read: “while we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it. Many sites, including the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, display the seal." (In the following days, the image seems to have been removed from the page on .) The letter stated that the FBI finds the issue "particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting violations of restrictions by Wikipedia users." U.S.C.) "is largely about keeping people from flashing fake badges or profiting from the use of the seal, and not about posting images on noncommercial Web sites. The New York Times reports "those at Wikipedia" as saying the problem with these demands is that the law cited in the FBI's letter ( Section 701 of 18.
We appreciate your timely attention to this matter. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has written to the Wikimedia Foundation requesting that their seal be removed from Wikipedia, threatening that "failure to comply may result in further legal action. The image of the Seal of the FBI at the center of the dispute
0 kommentar(er)
