Slashdot Mirror
White House Cease & Desists to The Onion
raj2569 writes "You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion (soul sucking, life sapping, irritating, obnoxious, but still free registration), the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal." The only joke here is that our tax dollars are being spent on this.
why not the government?
Seriously, with the recent frenzy over "intellectual property" restrictions, why shouldn't the government get into the restraining free speech business, like everyone else?
If Reverend Fred Phelps started using Slashdot's logo on godhatesfags.com, you'd do the same exact thing.
Move on. This is a non-story.
I mean... they could find somebody dull enough to believe the Onion was actually a real presidential announcement.
The point is, though, that the seal is used to indicate official documents, etc. Using it on the Onion does make it look official, to the uninitiated. I'd suggest they should use a modified version, like whitehouse.org does.
Does this mean I can use the Slashdot logo any way that I see fit and it's ok with the taco? My guess is that it would not be ok with his overlords.
I heard this on NPR this morning on the way to work. The reason why the White House office even knows about it is because their own staff reads The Onion because at least they have a sense of humor.
On another note, isn't this protected under parody? If not, could they take the logo and add a triangle around it and then say it's protected under parody?
The first thing I get when you go to the Onion's site is a full-screen ad. So, there is money being made. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's not commercial.
Like a red semi-transparent banner across the seal, with the following words;
The Whitehouse thinks you're too stupid to realize this image is a satirical fake.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Onion savages that corporation-killing George W. Bush every chance they get. Nobody who reads the Onion could possibly think the that the President supports them...would you support a publication that repeatedly pointed out you myriad of flaws, poor reasoning and simple idiocy?
Blar.
There's something to be said for reserving one's stamp of authenticity, whether it be a signature or not, for things that are actually from one. It seems unnecessary and precisely akin to protecting one's signature from appearing on material that pokes fun at oneself -- there's nothing funny about the seal itself, and it would not change the humour to replace that seal with a mock seal. Parody should be seen to be a nearly blank check when it comes to making fun of the attributes of someone or something, and in my opinion, traditional intellectual property law totally sucks, but protecting one's sigil/signature is a reasonable thing to do.
Obviously, this is not forgery with an intent to fool, but like posting unaltered dollar bill photographs on a website, it's at least uncool and asking for trouble.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Thought that the Presidential Seal was also in the public domain.
Not really. Making fiction that includes references to a President either current or past is protected by the fact that the person is considered a "public figure", and has thus consented to having works made about them.
The problem with the Presidential Seal is that it's intended to carry the full power and weight of the office of the President and is NOT allowed to be used for anything that the President's office does not directly stand behind.
This "parody" thus places the President's office in a bit of a bind. It's not that they necessarily mind the parody, but they cannot have the seal used inappropriately, even if it seems harmless enough. Yet by requesting its removal, they look like the bad guys to the public.
The best solution I can think of is that the Onion should develop a "fake" seal that conveys the fact that it's fake in some way, shape, or form. In that way they would also parody the seal along with the President himself. This would be covered by fair use, and would not cause any confusion with the real seal.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
IANAL. But, if they took down the ads and got rid of the registrations then it would not be a commercial venture. However, since they are using the articles to drive traffic to the ads and they are being paid for ad placement, it _is_ a commercial venture.
The redesign sucks anyway, I don't know who bothers reading it anymore.
www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,53048,00.html
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
And not only NPR, but TFA.
Pretty cut and dried.
Hardly. It's political satire, exactly the sort of thing that freedom of speech is all about.
Because the government belongs to . . . (drumroll please) . . . the citizens of the United States!
Yes, and the Bush Administration is saying they don't need The Onion's help to make them look foolish.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Are we really willing to give in that easily?
I like how you bold "in any way" to imply no qualifications, when the phrase is immediately followed by the actual qualification "that suggests presidential support or endorsement". Was that intentional, or are you just happy to boldface whatever makes the government correct? I'm sure they'll make their case, no reason to make it for them.
The enemies of Democracy are
You took "in any way" out of context... Let me revise for you:
Moreover, if the US Code states that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement,"
I think it's safe to say that nobody would confuse the Onion as having presidential support or endorsement.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Argh. Generally, government-created works are considered to be in the public domain and are not subject to copyright. Just as in trademark law, you can't put up your own website and use the FCC logo, the EPA logo or any of a number of other government logos in a way that might confuse people. Under the Necessary and Proper clause the government has the power to do exactly this sort of thing.
I suspect that the seal itself is, for copyright purposes, in the public domain in that anybody can reproduce it. But, there are limitations on its use imposed by other laws.
Here's another example: O'Reilly uses a bunch of public domanin line drawings on the covers of their books. But, they would have a valid trademark infringement claim against anybody who used the same line-drawing of a camel on the front of a competing book about Perl. The drawing is still in the public domain, but cannot be used in certain ways because of trademark law. The government seals & logos enjoy similar protection.
I can't believe some of the comments here. It looks like no one is educated enough to realize using the seal in the way they are is in violation of the law. I don't know why they even made a big deal of it. It doesn't matter how corrupt anyone thinks the government is, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just modify the seal so that its not the same and get on with life.
What's new about this? This law has been on the books for years:
/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
You're correct that the US Code states the seal is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures, etc.
But the seal is routinely used on the cover of texts, novels and other punlications. In the case of the Onion, the seal wasn't used in in an ad, it has been used in parody articles, ones the present administration doesn't appreciate.
It shouldn't be an issue of taste or support. If the government wishes to enforce against the Onion, they need to enforce against all "unauthorized, commercial or illegal" use of the seal, supportive or not.
...carrier dead.....
"used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way thatsuggests presidential support or endorsement,"
Pardon me but if anyone that thinks that the Onion is not a joke and the the use of Bush's picture (and seal) is anything but satire, then you need to get out more, and I have a nice east coast bridge to sell you.
That being said the syntax above includes the qualifying phrase, "in any way thatsuggests presidential support or endorsement" whis is key. The in any way in not unquailified. Political satire by its nature is not-endorsed nor suggesting of endorsment or support. On the contrary is exactly the opposite, an un sanctioned criticism. Political Satire is also protected speech. So the White House counsel clearly did not read the law he put in his letter, or he was just telling the Onion that they certainly did not have support or endorsement of the White House. So now the Onion knows that that they are really doing Political Satire that is biting a little. Good for them.
You obviously didn't read your quote or understand the English of it. I think that makes you a prime canditate for a Bush White House appointment to a top critical Cabinet level post.
When you watch shows like the "The West Wing", movies like "Air Force One", none of them display the seal verbatim. They all do some minor tweaking to alter how the seal slightly so that it is not an exact replica of the seal.
The changes will usually be very minor, like changing the direction the eagle is facing, swapping the arrows and olive branches, or something equivalently minor. There is no reason that the Onion could not do the same thing.
Yeah but read sect a) again, my emphasis:
...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
The Onion is a parody. They're not seriously conveying the impression of sponsorship or approval. There was a similar law about buring the sacred flag but that was struck down as unconstitutional. I would guess the courts would say people have a right to make fun of the government and the seal.
I could be wrong.
"Satire will only cover you so far."
Your kidding of course. Showing the Presidential seal does not fall outside of the bounds of Satire, because clearly they are not implying Presidential support or endorcement. Therefore the use is acceptable. And if there is any White House that deserves Satire it is this one. But then again this White House now understands that their public ratings are so low that they can't afford any Satire that exposes the sad humor of the current administration. Go Onion, go free speech, go America, America, America.
"are NOT the property of the people of the USA they are the property of the government of the USA and there is a major difference between thoses two"
I've never heard that before. Can you point to a link that explains the difference? It sounds interesting.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The question should be: can for-pay encyclopedias use it at the top of articles, implying that the content of those articles is officially approved?
Answer: no, they can't.
I state no opinion of whether The Onion should be allowed to use the seal, but would rather not argue by (flawed) analogy in any case.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
A trademark can be used by anyone to refer to the owner of the trademark. (With or without approval, as long as you do not violate any other laws.)
An encyclopedia would likely be using it to refer to the owner, and not implying the trademark owner endorses them in any way. Therefore, there is no problem.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
If someone is stupid enough to be fooled by "Study Reveals Pittsburgh Unprepared For Full-Scale Zombie Attack" or "Bush Disappointed To Learn Chinese Foreign Minister Doesn't Know Karate" then something tells me a slight modification to the presidential seal isnt going to make any difference.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
So I guess the phrase "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" means nothing to you? WTF is wrong with this country when the government is held to be a higher, "special", separate class from the governed? WTF happened to free speech?
Nathan's blog
The seal is used in movies, too. No one seems to care about that, either.
The Onion, along with Comedy Central, are practically the only media outlets that have actually hurt the Bushists in the last five years. They are Cheney's #1 targets for vengeance.
Although he might want to hurry up. One of his little campaigns for payback is about to bear fruit as a series of indictments from a federal prosecutor. He's going to be a busy man, trying to take down the justice system.
Sorry, but I did not know that "the administration" was elected as governor of the state of Louisianna and the mayor of New Orleans. Oh wait, no... they weren't. It seems odd how they "mismanaged" this relief effort but did just fine and dandy during the most recent Wilma that hit Florida.
Sorry bub, but I happen to live in New Orleans. The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal, including the first ever truly successful contraflow evacuation of such a large American city. Afterward, with their resources scattered and the city under water, they begged the federal government for help. While the storm was still raging governor Blanco was on the phone with FEMA telling them what we would need -- helicopters, water, food, and tents, in more or less that order. Contrary to what you may have read in some quarters all of the paperwork was filled out properly and submitted ahead of time. The state of emergency was declared.
The Katrina disaster was much too large for the locals to handle it themselves; things like this are why we have a Federal government at all.
So what did the Feds do? Day 1: Nothing. Day 2: Nothing. Day 3: Nothing. Oh wait, not quite nothing. Blanco complained that they were very interested in "negotiating an organizational chart," e.g. figuring out who would be in charge. And by Tuesday they did get around to trying to strong-arm her into abdicating her position as our elected leader and federalizing the state resources that remained viable.
Oh, and they did manage to turn back anyone who "self-responded" like the convoy of rescuers with boats who assembled from the Lafayette area the day after the storm. They managed to turn back the trucks of water offered by Wal-Mart. Yeah, the Feds weren't entirely idle in those first few days; they managed to fucking TURN AWAY what little aid our local people managed to assemble when the government failed them. They managed to order doctors at the airport NOT to save lives because they hadn't been "federalized."
And what turned FEMA from the heroes of hurricane Charley to the rat fuckers who probably killed hundreds of my neighbors as they waited in their attics? After 9/11 they were wrapped into the department of Homeland Security and their focus shifted from disaster relief (first priority: save lives) to anti-terrorism police (first priority: establish control of the situation).
You can't blame that on Clinton or the Democrats. That reorganization was this Republican Administration's idea, passed by this Republican congress. And while the newly cop-oriented FEMA was polishing their guns and turning away help that didn't arrive with the right paperwork, my neighbors died. For that reason alone they all deserve to be tossed out of office and charged with malfeasance.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title..."
So where is this not the case? I don't see anyone excepting a single reporter in China a few years back taking The Onion seriously... And the commercial clauses would have to show that The Onion purposely used the seal to gain profit. Not a lawyer, but I think that'd be hard to prove in most cases of use of the presidential (etc.) seals. I think they'd have a better case against book publishers and movie makers who seem to use the seal often on political thrillers because the medium the seals are conveyed on are specifically on items that are not free access. You have to buy your ticket, book, whatever.
I get your point, but unless The Onion can't defend itself in court somehow I don't see this lawsuit going very far. Especially with the negative repercussions in an already poor public opinion atmosphere at the White House. It's not enough of a smoke-screen issue to distract the public from the current scandals there, so this is really a puzzling move. Carl Rove must be slipping. :D
> Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republican Majority balanced it. In fact, Bill Clinton vetoed the budget causing the longest shutdown of the federal government. He then went on to sign it as he was practically forced into.
...?
I call BS - and the usual 'conservative' attempt to rewrite history. The two sides went at it and the budget was balanced. You so called conservatives will soon be saying Reagan balanced his budgets.
>As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
More US soldiers died last month than in above mentioned actions. Also, Clinton didn't personally profit from his military adventures, unlike the current administration.
Rwanda I (and Clinton) will grant you, but imagine the Republican stink if Clinton had called out the troops.
And when some righty lies about national security it's ok because
>Hrmmm maybe it wasn't FEMAs fault afterall.
Take responsability for nothing, ever. Shout traitor. Stuff your fingers in your ears and mumble: "Lewinski, Lewinski" over and over. Your entire movement is morally bankrupt and incompetent. Your guys even make Clinton look good, and that takes some doing. Fiscally, conservatism has been a fraud since Reagan.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Maybe the fear is that people will think the current administration is a joke too. Oh wait...
:(
The fact that your post was modded as funny makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry
I am guessing it has something to do with this
Let's do some "history correction".
Sure, lets.
Now this administration may be able screw up the invasion of the wrong country...
As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
I am no fan of Clinton, but you can't seriously be comparing the scope of Haiti and Kosovo to Iraq.
leak the names of CIA agents...
At this point unfounded speculation at best. Besides, it's not a crime to "leak" the names of CIA agents unless the intent was to expose them. In this case, it was hardly the intent to expose an undercover CIA operative (which Mr. Wilson's wife was not), but simply to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment. But speaking of breaking laws, who was it that lied to a Grand Jury abou a blow job? Oh yes, that was Bill Clinton.
First off, yes, it is a crime to leak the name of an undercover agent (or any other classified information) regardless of intent. And yes, despite the administrations carefully worded talking points she was undercover, and the information was classified as "secret" in the memo the CIA provided to the WH.
And the "intent to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment" fib has been sunk by the time lines--unless you are claiming they began an organized campaign to clarify a statement three weeks (mid June) before the statement was made (early July) and are intending to split hairs about the distinction between why Wilson in particular was send (selected by the CIA, after being suggested by his wife) from the real question of why anyone was sent on this particular assignment (do obtain more information, as requested by Cheney).
As for the "unfounded speculation" aspect, you may want to catch up on the news. We now know that the administration has repeatedly lied about this issue, including the claim that Rove & Libby had "nothing to do with it" which was changed to "first heard about her from reporters" and then to "were acting alone, not as part of any organized campaign" and that they were doing it "in response to Willson's NYT opinion piece" but started weeks before the piece was even written and did so in an amazingly unified and coherent fashion. We were told that "Cheney knew nothing about it," even though today we learn that Libby's hand written, dated notes of a meeting with Cheney in the days before the campaign started include the salient details.
But I guess all this overshadows the fact that the 9/11 commission says Mr. Wilson lied about the Nigeria-Iraq connection, which is what the liberals want.
Stripping the political baggage from your statement (facts don't care who "wants" them), Wilson was disputed on a single point; he said he "saw" that the documents were forgeries, but had not in fact personally "seen" the original documents. Understandable as a miscommunication, and hardly discrediting, especially as (IIRC) he clarified the point as soon as he was called on it. He has been proven correct and Dick "We know they have WMD" Cheney has been proven incorrect on every substantive point.
--MarkusQ
P.S. For the record, I was up in arms about Clinton and the BJ too. Both for the perjury and (perhaps more importantly) for the effect on his family. Hillary can take care of herself, but imagine the effect that must have had on his daughter. Not to mention that the Democrats would have been up in arms, crying sexual harassment if a CEO or the president of a university had done something similar.
But just as I hold the Democrats responsible for their actions, I expect the leaders of my own party to behave themselves in a way that brings credit, not shame, on the party. And this cabal of nincompoops is doing more damage to the Republicans than any Democrat could dream of doing.
This is NOT a matter of copyright law
You are entirely correct, in large part because the government cannot hold copyright. Or a trademark. Or a patent. IP law does not come into play here.
it is a matter of CRIMINAL law
It's also a matter of the 1st Ammendment, particularly as it relates to political satire. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that issue -- not only is satire protected free speech, but political satire is given the widest berth. This could certainly be viewed as an attempt to suppress that free speech, and I doubt the high court would allow it.
And this is particularly true if The Onion can show that they are being singled out here. That shouldn't be hard. Unless the WH or AG office sent C&D letters to every other prominent media outlet that uses the Seal (or a likeness thereof -- note that it doesn't have to be identical) then The Onion can show that they are being targeted specifically. Did NBC (The West Wing, Saturday Night Live), ABC (Commander in Chief), Fox (24), and Comedy Central (The Daily Show) receive letters, or do they have pre-exisiting allowances to use the seal? What about the movie studios that have produced movies such as Air Force One, Independance Day, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or any other movie that involves the President, the VP, or either house of Congress and shows the appropriate seal?
No, I think that if The Onion was to go to court on this that the eventual ruling would be clearly on their side.
You know we're fucked when the White House doesn't even understand the first amendment or parody exemptions.
No, free speech means saying anything you want, no matter who said it (or thought it) first, or any other qualification. Practical free speech means some limits necessary to running a working society are imposed, like the proverbial "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater' (except from the stage, or when there's a fire). Those limits do not prohibit satirical speech, because private commercial interests are overbalanced by the public interest in commentary. Especially where the government is concerned, satire is more important. There's no prohibition on profiting from satire - the profits enable the satirist to satirize.
So, in fact, this story is entirely about free speech, as is perfectly obvious. And it's about the most important speech that's protected by our laws: criticizing the government. The government isn't just some corporation with a product, it's us, it's ours. Especially right now, while this government is run by people under indictment for suppressing info, attacking legitimate dissenters, publishing lies unchallenged by most media, violating conflict-of-interest restraints on commercial communications, secret deals to launder money for illegal advertising. We need more speech, more criticism of the government. And satire lets us do that without the truth drowning us in numbing cynicism. Hail to The Onion, America's Finest News Source.
--
make install -not war
This cease and desist letter is just what most are... a scare tactic. The only difference here is that when the govenment trys to scare you is called a Civil Rights Violation and the person who sent it should be imprisioned.
Two lies:
Person 1: "I did not take that cookie!"
Person 2: "I did not push that button setting off that nuke!"
Obviously, they're both fucking lying scumbags and should be hanged for their crimes.
Perhaps the Onion can make a spoof seal with a picture of George W. Bush pissing on taxpayers, and half of them smiling as they drink it up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Leave it to the intarweb's finest to misinterpret everything. Let me clarify: Remove said bums from the train station, placing them in a warm and safe shelter where they will be fed and clothed and maybe even be treated like a human being. Wet concrete steps hardly seem to be the place for man or beast. Let's not forget the hazardous conditions posed to the said bums and commuters should someone actually trip down 40 stairs.
If Katrina had spared us that probably would have been the next thing on the agenda. Of course there's a lot more to it than cranking up the buses and driving them toward Houston; you have to have destinations lined up, and because you have to also plan for the hurricane NOT to hit you also have to have a plan for getting the buses back. Of course it's easy to forget little details like that if you're back-seat driving and ragging on the locals to deflect attention from the high-level failures.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
here. Google turns up many more ("katrina"+"flotilla"+"turned back"). A lot of the reporting is partisan, but can you blame them? There is little doubt that it happened.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
I guess that the people at the Onion aren't creative enough to make up a satirical seal...
People who don't vote for these animals don't have to feel as bad. People who vote for someone better get to feel good about our part. People who get other people to vote for someone better get to feel even better. And when we get people who actually manage our government in the interest of our citizens, we get to feel like real Americans - the best feeling in the world.
--
make install -not war
I may not be an expert in DP/DR planning, but I happen to live here and I have seen the process. I have watched things improve a little every time the city tries this. It is fucking annoying to watch a bunch of nerds sit in their mother's basements and pronounce how they would have handled the situation so much better and what a bunch of morons a bunch of people they never heard of before are.
We actually succeeded in getting more than a million people out of the city -- about 90% of the population -- in less than 48 hours. The people who are ragging on Nagin and Blanco for what they didn't do should actually be on their fucking knees thanking them for their efforts. This required coordination between more than 10 parishes and counties and two state governments.
I have been in these traffic jams. I have stayed at times because I weighed the traffic jam potential against the hurricane. I have watched them get better at it every time they try. What in the name of Bob makes you think they haven't been looking and learning?
For Katrina nearly every existing plan at the local level actually went smoothely, many for the first time ever. To complain that such-and-such other plan wasn't in place is stupid and rude. Maybe a few more cycles down the road there would have been bus evacuations. There was no infrastructure for that this time nor was there any sane reason for such infrastructure to have been introduced. It's very easy to show pictures of the flooded buses and yell "Nyahh nyaah" but there are damn good reasons those buses stayed where they were. A lot of this bullshit is propaganda that was deliberately constructed to deflect blame from FEMA, which did not content itself with merely not showing up in time to save hundreds of lives but actively thwarted the efforts of people and agencies that did show up. Do not talk to me about what Nagin and Blanco didn't do when FEMA was turning away rescuers and aid and ordering doctors not to work on dying people because their papers weren't in order.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]