Library of Congress Threatens Washington Watch Wiki

BackRow writes "Washington Watch, a site devoted to tracking the cost of federal legislation, has raised the hackles of the Library of Congress with a new wiki that makes an unfavorable comparison to the LOC's THOMAS legislative search engine. After Jim Harper, Washington Watch's creator and the director of information policy at the Cato Institute, announced the wiki, he received a nastygram from the LOC." Quoting: "After the announcement, he was contacted by Matt Raymond, the Director of Communications at the Library (and the author of the Library of Congress' blog). Raymond said that he possessed 'statutory and regulatory authority governing unauthorized use of the Library's name and logo and those of Library subunits and programs,' and he asked that Harper stop using the names 'Library of Congress' and 'THOMAS' in his marketing materials."

Comments

Ironic, no?

[JohnnyBGod]

Does anyone else find it ironic that a library, of all organizations, is (supposedly) exercising its IP rights?

Re:Ironic, no?

[MindStalker]

The offending bit was.
"WashingtonWatch.com provides a more user-friendly and interactive way for the public to learn about legislation than the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. It's all about government transparency."

Sorry, but its still legal to say that Nike provides a better running experience than Reebok (assuming its true).

The Library has no trademark ground to stand on, BUT they have extra Federal Statute protecting their name. When did it stop becoming a government "of the people"??

The LOC is wrong

[HaeMaker]

The LOC is wrong. Making a comparative in an endorsement is protected speech, and goes beyond trademark protection.

If he had said, "The LOC, and their THOMAS service, fully back the use of Washington Watch." that is misuse of trademark in the context of an endorsement.

To say a service is like another service only better, fully protected.

IANAL/JM2c.

I pay may taxes.

[EaglemanBSA]

How soon before we're not allowed to make derogatory remarks about Congress itself, or the president? I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[metrometro]

Oh boy. For what it's worth, I work for a D.C. government watchdog and am very familiar with Cato. I read their books, I go to their events. Their office is sweet - lots of windows, big atrium. Bottom line is their science positions are intellectually dishonest at a comprehensive level, and that keeps them well funded by industry. So yeah, I distrust the information they put out, because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders.

Re:Cato Institute? Eh, whatever.

[WilliamSChips]

It's called a track record. Ignoring it is called insanity.

The LOC statute is irrelevant.

[AllParadox]

This is not a situation where some commercial outfit is making money off of using the name of the Library of Congress. If I see some commercial business doing that, I will turn them in myself.

This is plainly about freedom of political speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Harper's use of the site, even his comparison of his search engine against THOMAS, is aimed at promoting his personal political agenda, both for his site and including his comparison.

Congress did not repeal the First Amendment.

For once, somebody has a beef with some meat on it. This is where you hire the attorney to reply with a nastygram.