The NSA has no sense of humor

"You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much" (youcantellafinn) 11/05/2013 at 12:10 • Filed to: NSA, CENSORED

0

42

Or respect for the First (and Fourth and Fifth and Sixth) Amendment. They issued a cease and desist letter to Dan McCall, the artist who created a t-shirt with a modified NSA logo. The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! indicates that the NSA felt the parody violates their intellectual property. While he was ordered to stop making the t-shirts, lawsuits have been filed on First Amendment grounds and it appears that the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! via the internet.

CalzoneGolem > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:17

3

Peeping while you're sleeping. Classic NSA.

Casper > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:17

0

Wow, they are going to have a heck of a time with that. Their intellectual property doesn't protect against satire, nor does it restrict another's right to free speech. Further down the crazy trail there are the matters of everything they own being public assets/property as they are a government entity.

People seem to think intellectual property laws mean anything someone does that you don't like that references your property is fair game for a lawsuit. That is completely incorrect. You have to prove they are attempting to pass their product off as yours or profit from your proprietary property without change. The NSA can not profit, it's a government agency, so they will have a very hard time with that one... and it's clearly satire, so it's not a matter of trying to knockoff NSA t-shirts.

PatBateman > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:18

10

Be it as it may, I think the NSA
undeservingly are punished by this attack,
let alone from the hatred that the
lead designer has for the agency. While
some people make jokes about them,
having the NSA doing their jobs makes me
indescribably happy, and lets me sleep well.
Thanks, NSA.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:18

1

"The NSA has no sense of humor"

EL_ULY > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:19

0

lol niiice!

PS9 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:19

0

thanks to one obscure man's humourus t-shirt, THE NSA'S STIRLING REPUTATION WITH THE PUBLIC IS RUIIIIIIIIINED!

Also he should win, since parodies fall under fair use, as does commentary and criticism.

Nibbles > CalzoneGolem 11/05/2013 at 12:19

2

Also applicable: Snooping while you're pooping

oldirtybootz > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:19

0

Because so many people are buying official NSA tshirts...

CalzoneGolem > Nibbles 11/05/2013 at 12:20

2

Tracking while you're jacking.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > PatBateman 11/05/2013 at 12:21

0

Suck up, you know they're reading this don't you!!!

I'm only kidding btw. The NSA does great things, and like any other spy agency no one ever knows when they get it right, just wrong. And they definitely got it wrong recently.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:21

3

Our government was designed under the notion that it should fear it's people - not the other way around.

PatBateman > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 11/05/2013 at 12:22

5

R
E
A
D
L
I
K
E
T
H
I
S

PS9 > PatBateman 11/05/2013 at 12:23

0

'Attack' lol, it's a T-shirt, not a shot from an RPG. A public agency in a democratic country should not be using the government to insulate itself from public criticism.

PatBateman > PS9 11/05/2013 at 12:24

0

Refer to my second comment on this thread, please.

PS9 > PatBateman 11/05/2013 at 12:27

1

bah, you got me.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > PatBateman 11/05/2013 at 12:27

1

APPLAUSE

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > CalzoneGolem 11/05/2013 at 12:30

2

Seeing while you're peeing.

ttyymmnn > Casper 11/05/2013 at 12:30

0

Yes, parody is generally protected by Fair Use. I'm sure the NSA lawyers know this, but if they can get their way through empty threats, then they win again. Most people can't take the time or don't have the money to fight it.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:30

0

Every other government agency has taken its lumps with parody artists. Unfortunately, the NSA has a lot of people running scared. If they win, it will set a new precedent that will irrepably damage the nations laws going forward in reference to checks on government.

Nibbles > CalzoneGolem 11/05/2013 at 12:33

0

Prying while you're frying

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:35

0

Doesn't the intellectual property of the United States of America belong to "We the People" since we are paying... strike that, are on the hook to pay for those bills with interest?

Oh, wait... that circles back to abeyance to the US Constitution... which they are willfully and directly disobeying.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > PatBateman 11/05/2013 at 12:35

1

well done. Bravo.

efme > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:36

0

so this is what happens when the government gets butt hurt.

Nibbles > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 12:39

1

Sleuthing while you're douching

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 11/05/2013 at 12:39

0

-Are you making fun of me?

"No Ma'am, we have no sense of humor that we are aware of."

(and yes, you just read that in Tommy Lee Jones' voice.)

Casper > ttyymmnn 11/05/2013 at 12:41

0

I think he will be able to easily get the interest of the ACLU, EFF, etc, to come help him out. Right now the NSA is the political pinata of the day.

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > Nibbles 11/05/2013 at 12:49

2

Investigating while you're masturbating.

Nibbles > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 12:54

2

Probing while you're disrobing

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > Nibbles 11/05/2013 at 13:00

1

Lurking while you're working.

Nibbles > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 13:03

1

Tapping (your phone) while you're tapping (that ass)

I'm running out of ideas

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > Nibbles 11/05/2013 at 13:06

0

Looking out while you rub one out.

CalzoneGolem > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 13:15

0

Surveying while you're laying

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > CalzoneGolem 11/05/2013 at 13:18

0

Tapping while you're fapping.

CalzoneGolem > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 13:32

0

Following while you're wallowing.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 11/05/2013 at 13:32

0

I nominate this whole thread for COTD Oppo Edition.

#COTD

PatBateman > Nibbles 11/05/2013 at 13:52

0

Snooping while you're pooping?

niiiiice...

davedave1111 > Casper 11/05/2013 at 14:37

0

It's not at all as clear-cut as you suggest. A parody is acceptable, but that's not a parody, it's a straight copy of the NSA logo with a satirical slogan tacked on underneath.

If it was a cartoonish representation of the logo, or some such, it would be fine.

Casper > davedave1111 11/05/2013 at 14:40

0

They can't make the claim against part of the logo. Since he has changed the wording on the seal it would be a derivative piece. They can't protect just the eagle and they can't protect just the overall concept.... unless you think "Peeping while you're sleeping" is part of the original seal.

davedave1111 > Casper 11/05/2013 at 14:59

0

"They can't make the claim against part of the logo."

No? I'm no expert here, so you may well be right. I understood that the overall concept can be protected.

Without being an expert on the legalities, it seems reasonable to me that this ought to be something of a grey area, of the kind that needs to be subject either of a negotiated agreement, or a court fight. It's plainly parody on examination, but it's not immediately obvious that it's a parody at first glance or at any distance.

Casper > davedave1111 11/05/2013 at 15:02

0

Here is what the EFF says on the point:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

There are no hard and fast rules for fair use (and anyone who tells you that a set number of words or percentage of a work is "fair" is talking about guidelines, not the law). The Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to look at ( 17 U.S.C. § 107 ):

The purpose and character of the use. Transformative uses are favored over mere copying. Non-commercial uses are also more likely fair.

The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the original factual in nature or fiction? Published or unpublished? Creative and unpublished works get more protection under copyright, while using factual material is more often fair use.

The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Copying nearly all of a work, or copying its "heart" is less likely to be fair.

The effect on the market or potential market. This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it's unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect. Note that criticism or parody that has the side effect of reducing a market may be fair because of its transformative character. In other words, if your criticism of a product is so powerful that people stop buying the product, that doesn't count as having an "effect on the market for the work" under copyright law.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yes. Works produced by the US government, or any government agency or person acting in a government capacity, are in the public domain. So are the texts of legal cases and statutes from state or federal government. Private contractors working for the government, however, can transfer copyrights to the US government.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Yes. While trademark law prevents you from using someone else's trademark to sell your competing products (you can't make and sell your own "Rolex" watches or name your blog "Newsweek"), it doesn't stop you from using the trademark to refer to the trademark owner or its products (offering repair services for Rolex watches or criticizing Newsweek's editorial decisions). That kind of use, known as "nominative fair use," is permitted if using the trademark is necessary to identify the products, services, or company you're talking about, and you don't use the mark to suggest the company endorses you. In general, this means you can use the company name in your review so people know which company or product you're complaining about. You can even use the trademark in a domain name (like walmartsucks.com), so long as it's clear that you're not claiming to be or speak for the company.

Since trademark law is designed to protect against consumer confusion, non-commercial uses are even more likely to be fair. Be aware that advertising may give a "commercial" character to your site, and some courts have even gone so far as to say that links to commercial sites makes a site commercial. (See PETA v. Doughney )

davedave1111 > Casper 11/05/2013 at 15:12

0

Are there no restrictions in law specific to the logos of government agencies? Even in the absence of that, I think the quotes from the EFF tend to support my argument, at least to an extent. These things tend not to be clear-cut, hence all the back-covering wording - 'less likely', 'more often', and so-on. And the third bullet would seem to be where the question is, wouldn't it?

Casper > davedave1111 11/05/2013 at 16:08

0

That is trademark... which has generally resulted in government agencies losing because all their "content" is public domain. They can't create and trademark anything that isn't publicly owned with the exception of classified material.

That is why I included the trademark topic. It depends what they are arguing... whether it's a copyright matter or trademark matter. They may not be able to have any case at all if they are arguing as a corporation and ignoring the fact they have no rights to created materials.

The way they get around this for technology and other matters is via contractors/3rd party organizations. For instance, DARPA wants to make tech but not give it away, so they provide money to universities or companies to develop tech, then sit on the patents. That way it isn't a government agency creating anything and thus not public commons. It is possible the argument they maybe attempting to use is that there is some 3rd party copyright on the logo.... but it still won't hold up to scrutiny. They are just hoping to intimidate him to stop making the t-shirts.