Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Government Controls Online Flag Displays

Posted by timothy on from the but-that's-unamerican dept.

SiliconEntity writes: "According to this article from Matt Gaylor's Freematt's Alerts mailing list, the Canadian Government has trademarked the Canadian Flag and has the power to force Canadian citizens to remove the image from their web sites. The claim is made by one Jan Ovens, ovens.jan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, of the Federal Identity Program, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The site in question, a Canadian smokers' rights group, was forced to remove their image of the flag after Mr. Ovens contacted them. Ovens claims that the flag is a registered trademark of the Government of Canada and writes: 'The flag symbol is a global identifier of the Government of Canada. It is used to identify federal institutions and is protected under the Trademarks Act (Section 9 (1)(n)(iii) of the Act). The flag symbol was approved and entered as an official mark of the Government of Canada on the Trademarks Register held by the Canadian Trademarks Office, which is part of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office at Industry Canada, on 30 September 1987.' Are any other countries claiming the power to stop their citizens from showing the flag?"

34 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Flag is controllable? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2
    How can a country control something outside of their borders? Isn't this the reverse of "if it's on the net, it's in my country and subject to my laws?"

    If I display your flag upside-down, backwards, inverted with hot green and fuscia colors, what does it matter if it is outside of your country?

    What about if I say it is "art"?

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Flag is controllable? by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      They're not controlling anything outside their borders. The entire issue is about controlling Canadians' use of the trademark.

      That being said, the US is imposing sanctions against the Ukrane for not having the same law, so maybe that will directly answer your question, even if it's not relevant to the topic.

      --Dan

    2. Re:Flag is controllable? by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      #$%#$

      'for not having the same laws as the US on copyright'

      Last time I post first thing in the afternoon, I'm too damned tired...

      --Dan

    3. Re:Flag is controllable? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      the US is imposing sanctions against the Ukrane for not having the same law

      That's actually a better approach than the usual one taken these days. France had no legal standing in demanding Yahoo edit auctions worldwide so that they conformed with French law, nor did the MPAA with Johansen or the US with Dmitri or a dozen other examples. The business with Ukraine is more like "We don't like your laws so we're not going to trade with you until you change them". It's not particularly nice, but it's not as bad as "We don't like your laws so you'd better change them or we'll start arresting your citizens as terrorists".

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  2. Re:Start Mirroring! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

    ...all I see are two guys arguing...

    --
    Yeah, right.
  3. The people by Score0,+Overrated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a coutries flag - a symbol if its identity - isn't owned by the people then nothing is.

    If I was a Canadian citizen I would be annoyed right now and if I was in the Canadian government I would be v.worried about keeping my job come the next election.

  4. Which Symbol by linuxbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Canadian Gov has a identifying mark whic is the word Canada with a cnaadian flag flying from the d, over the letter a. This Idnetifies gov departments and should not be used by others.

    The Candian Flag however should be free for all citizens to use in a respectfull manner.

  5. Selective enforcement? by Evro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know if Canadian trademark is the same as US, but in the US I don't think you can selectively uphold your trademark. You have to fight every instance of trademark infringement or the mark becomes diluted and you lose it. If Canadian trademark works the same way then I don't see how they can possibly uphold this. There must be thousands, if not millions, of Canadian citizens using the Canadian flag in some way or another without the government's authorization, and unless they intend to go after them all, I just don't see how this can work. But this is all contingent on Canadian © law working like US, so maybe it's completely wrong.

    --
    rooooar
    1. Re:Selective enforcement? by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      In Canada, the government does as it damn well pleases. Who will oppose it?

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  6. I'm gonna get modded to hell for saying this... by tregoweth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...but I wish the U.S. did the same thing with its flag, if only to reduce the flow of cheesy "patriotic" items that have appeared since September 11. Profiting from tragedy is always ugly.

    But anyway, if the U.S. or Canadian government got a royalty for every commercial use of its flag, it would have made a fortune. Canada can get a cut of the Maple Leafs' merchandise profits, the U.S. can get a cut of Tommy Hilfiger and Ralph Lauren's profits...

    1. Re:I'm gonna get modded to hell for saying this... by cymen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but I wish the U.S. did the same thing with its flag, if only to reduce the flow of cheesy patriotic" items that have appeared since September 11. Profiting from tragedy is always ugly.

      Personally as a U.S. citizen I would much rather live with cheesy flag displays than have our government put yet another idiotic law on the books. Sure you are making light of the situation but do you really want another law too? There are way too many at this point in time. Way make more for worthless causes.

    2. Re:I'm gonna get modded to hell for saying this... by ElDuque · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After seeing those "Thanks for Traveling" signs at hotels on my way back to school, I began to wonder if those were legal. Turns out we already have a law, the U.S. Flag Code which states

      (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

      Now, the Flag Code is an interesting piece of legislature, at the top of the link above it talks about the lack of penalties included, and how other, stronger, legislation has been struck down. The article also states

      The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.

      We all know that those signs are marketing for the hotels as much they are promoting "Unity" and that jazz. Is that disrespect?

    3. Re:I'm gonna get modded to hell for saying this... by ElDuque · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is this what you are referring to?

      Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

      While the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal or prescribe additional rules regarding the Flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue 'official' rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups. Consequently, different interpretations of various provisions of the Code may continue to be made. The Flag Code may be fairly tested: 'No disrespect should be shown to the Flag of the United States of America.' Therefore, actions not specifically included in the Code may be deemed acceptable as long as proper respect is shown.

      The Acts declared unconstitutional imposed penalties for desecration. I don't really understand how it can be all right without penalties, but unconstitutional in the "Flag Protection Act". The Flag Code is still on the books, and the "Thanks for traveling" signs are clearly in violation.

    4. Re:I'm gonna get modded to hell for saying this... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      I don't really understand how it can be all right without penalties, but unconstitutional in the "Flag Protection Act".

      Because you have to have standing to sue to have something found unconstitutional. Police aren't going to waste their time running around trying to enforce laws without punishment, and judges would probably throw out any such case brought to them as being moot and a waste of the court's time. Since no one's being arrested for it, no one has standing to sue, and the Supreme Court doesn't get an opportunity to rule it unconsititional.

  7. The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Just to quote that particular section of law...

    Prohibited marks
    9. (1) No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for,

    (n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark
    (i) adopted or used by any of Her Majesty's Forces as defined in the National Defence Act,
    (ii) of any university, or
    (iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services,

    in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority, as the case may be, given public notice of its adoption and use;


    I can't find the bit about enforcement, but I would assume that lack of enforcement equals acceptance until it is enforced.

    --Dan
    1. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that, in this instance, the flag's use is on a pro-cancer (smoker's rights) website, and that's a distinctly partisan topic. The government wants to make absolutely certain that it is in no way affiliated with this kind of issue.

      Which I think is a good thing, since it's a stupid issue.

      Anyway, the law, as my reading goes, says that the emblems of the government (flags and whatnot) are trademarked, and not usable, just like I couldn't arbitrarily throw IBM and Lucent logos on my pages or products.

      I could use a logo to refer to them (that's fair use) but not to refer to me (that's trademark infringement).

      --Dan

    2. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      Does the flag belong to the government, or the people of the country?

      Par for the course for Canada - "the country is your corrupt socialist government. Dissent against the government is dissent against the country."

      I believe wholeheartedly that Canada's government would disallow use of the flag. It's a country without free speech rights that fears political speech that opposes the cabal that makes up its dictatorship.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    3. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      The issue is not to whom the flag belongs, the issue is misrepresentation. The government wants to prevent anyone from mistaking this website for a government-sponsored or -condoned website.

      Besides, your argument is somewhat flawed. For example, the passport office is owned by citizens. Does this mean I should be able to dictate to the Passport Office? If so, I'm going to get myself a diplomatic passport. Likewise Petro-Canada. I don't think I should have to pay for my petrol.

      --Dan

    4. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      Passports are issued by governments, not countries, so that shoots that point down.

      And BTW if as you say the flag represents the government and not the country, that says something a little disturbing. I will burn my flag tonight, cause it represents Jean Chretien and not the country in which I was born.

      You don't see people misconstruing the "Patriot/Militia" type web pages out there as being condoned by the US gov't cause there's US flags on those, do you? Nobody in his right mind thinks that the Waco types who fly the flag are condoned by the US government, do you? Get a grip. The moment I need Jean Chretien's permission to fly a Canadian flag is the day I burn it. So off to the pyre tonight it goes.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    5. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      You have some verbal diharrea problems here. The flag trademark in question is for the flag accompanied by the words "Government of Canada" in French and English, making up the logo for the Government of Canada. The flag itself is not listed afaics and use of a company or governments representation symbols (trademarks) is illegal in the "free" US of A as well.

      If you don't like canadian views on things like the "freedom" to own child pornography or the "freedom" to incite hate against other groups for whatever reason, stay away.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    6. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      Absolutely wrong, and don't talk to me about verbal diarrhoea until you've done your homework.

      Here's the site before the flag was pulled http://canadianflag.org/images/canadaforces.jpg. I don't see any Canada with a flag over the a which would be a trademark of the government. I do however see two Canadian flags, which were removed at the request of the government.

      And I stand by my initial statement that the flag proper should stand for the country, not Jean Chretien.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    7. Re:The Trade-marks Act Section In Question by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

      Want a pile of ashes? I'll dig em out of the trash.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  8. Tabagism by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 2

    Well, probably moderators who smoke are going to lower my karma for this, but...

    I think Canada's government may know the economic impact of smoking, not only healthy-wise but also related to lower production (smoke-breaks, more time sick, etc etc).

    They probably wanted to do some pressure against this pro-smoke site. The only legal way they had was this.

    And also, by using a flag, the smokers could lead some [stupid] people to think the official position of the government was being pro-smoker. Anyway, a flag gives a more "official" look on the site.

    --

    -
    Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    1. Re:Tabagism by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
      Canada's government may know the economic impact of smoking, not only healthy-wise but also related to lower production...
      What about the enormous savings in pensions payouts? This is especially true in countries that don't have a comprehensive welfare system.
  9. Were they using the flag, or the Canada symbol? by Trebuchet · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a symbol that the canadian government uses to signify a government building/web page/document etc. (http://www.gc.ca/images/canada.gif). Were they using this, or just the flag? If they were using the symbol, then I think this was reasonable.

    --

    Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw,
    And he never has the same problem twice.
  10. Re:what do they need the flag for anyway? by Webmonger · · Score: 2

    Probably to distinguish them from the other national FORCES sites.

  11. Fact: The Canadian flag is only 37 years old. by dstone · · Score: 2

    Can't someone submit "prior use"? ;-)

    Flag info

    "The maple leaf flag was raised for the first time at noon, February 15, 1965 during special ceremonies on Parliament Hill in Ottawa."

  12. Re:As a non-French . . . by Glytch · · Score: 2

    I'm American, and like many other Americans, I respect the idea of a free Quebec.

    You don't understand what's at stake. I'm from one of the Atlantic provinces (For people who learned geography in the US, these provinces are the ones that border the Atlantic ocean) and I don't want to be physically seperated from the rest of the country, as would happen if Quebec became independant.

    And before some wiseass says "Join the US!" let me just say that the US is a festering cesspool of political corruption, racial bigotry, media censorship, and environmental destruction, and I want no part of it.

    And regarding signs, not all French speaking people live in Quebec. Ever heard of Acadians?

    That buttfucker DeGaulle really screwed things up. May he rot in hell.

    (PS: Fuck my karma. I'll speak my mind, and I'll use the +1 bonus if I want to.)

  13. Trademark record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the trademark database record the article is refering to. The trademark consists of the flag plus some text beside it, not just the flag.

    1. Re:Trademark record by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      People need to read the information; thanks for that link.

      The Government of Canada symbol is the flag with "Government of Canada" written in English and French next to it. This is trademarked, the generic canadian flag is not, afaics.

      If in fact the smokers' rights group used the Government of Canada logo on their page without permission and/or proper recognition of its status, they would be misleading people.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  14. Re:Bad comparison. by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

    Or tell that to OVER HALF of Quebec, as indeed over half of its citizens want to secede.

    Uhh, ok. That's why they've voted not to secede in every referendum they've done so far, right?

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  15. Re:Here is a disgruntled Canadian by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

    What are you to be proud of? A 60c dollar? Your tax dollars going to art projects involving Mexicans doing unpleasant things to test tubes? Shovelgate? The golf course in Shawinigan? The HRDC?

    The Liberals paradoxically enough wanted flags everywhere to try and raise national pride a la Nike Swoosh. Seems that if you want to use it to oppose the government, in comes the law. Interesting message, though - "the flag is the property of the government. Not you. Now shut up, and work harder. I've got more taxes I want to shove your way."

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  16. Flag is OK by gordguide · · Score: 2

    The Canadian Flag (the one at hockey games, for example) is fine. Throw it all over the website if you want.

    The Government of Canada LOGOS are trademarks, like the McDonalds arches or any number of stylized symbols. MLB (American League) and the NFL also have "stars & stripes" logos, all protected. If some readers are confused, see the links:
    Canada's flag (ok to use):
    http://collections.ic.gc.ca/flag/images/canadafl ag big.jpg
    Trademarked Government Logo, examples:
    http://canada.gc.ca/
    The GC site has two examples of the trademarked logos:
    1) Flag and text, in Canada's official font. The flag alone is fine, don't imitate the flag and text/font.
    2)Canada logo with small flag above last "a". Again, the flag component is fine, but don't imitate the trademark.

  17. Confusing terminology... by gordguide · · Score: 2

    Part of the problem is terminology used in the issue. The Government of Canada refers to a "flag symbol" which is NOT simply the flag alone.
    The site refers simply to the "flag", but they really mean "flag symbol".

    The site had an imitation of Health Canada's official, trademarked logo, in the form of:
    Canada flag image/Health Canada (english, french in the modified Garramond font).

    The font is also copy-protected, by the way; printers who have it to create GC documents cannot use it for any other purpose (it's convered by a SW license).