[WikiEN-l] Possible legal violation in the use of a government seal?

[Benjamin Esham]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Now that I've actually seen your picture I wonder whether it is
> copyrightable.  It is essentially a predictable straight-on two
> dimensional representation of another two dimensional object.  It may lack
> the creative element needed for a copyright picture. Some might still try
> to argue that because the original is carved into the wood it is not
> two-dimensional.

This is a good point.  Perhaps I'll change the licensing to {{PD-self}} to
avoid a debate about it.

> > > Including a picture of a seal is not a use for trademark purposes.
> > 
> > I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying here.  Are you just being
> > pedantic about my choice of the word "use"?  The County government
> > certainly seemed to think that we were "using" their seal to some extent
> > that is in violation of the relevant law.  It's not like we're trying to
> > pose as a county website; we're just including the image for
> > illustrative purposes.
> 
> If it ever came to a court argument over this the meaning of "use" would
> probably be a key issue.  Given the nature of Wikipedia work it is
> perfectly understandable that we would view "use" in terms of copyright
> law.  The terms "free use" and "fair use" are so commonplace for us.  Even
> if we misunderstand those terms it is still from the perspective of
> copyright law.
> 
> The distinction may seem pedantic, but I would be inclined to look further
> into the law that you quoted to see if there is another section defining
> the term "use".  We do not normally use something by merely showing what
> it looks like.  Using a seal would most likely arise when it suggests some
> kind of authority to represent the County.

The law states, in part, "such seal shall be used and affixed only [under
certain conditions]," and "the use of said seal or of any replica or
simulation  thereof [...] by  any unauthorized person or for any wrongful
purpose, is prohibited."

Maybe I'll ask the attorney if he can give an opinion on the definition of
"use".  I don't think that Wikipedia's use of the image qualifies as "using"
it, but then again IANAL.

> My fault on this.  There had been talk of taking down the image, and I too
> quickly jumped to the conclusion that that happened.  It turned out that
> it had more to do with my own browser settings.

No worries.

> > I have forwarded the attorney's letter to the Commons OTRS people; they
> > will be able to remove the image from Commons while we try to determine
> > our legal rights and abilities in this matter.
> 
> I really don't see any need to take it down.

Perhaps not, but the gentleman implied that I could be brought up on
charges.  I'm sure you can understand that I'd like to avoid that if at all
possible ;-)  That action was just me covering my arse.  (Although nothing
has been done yet... I just used the general "Commons permission" OTRS
e-mail address.  Is there a separate one I should have used for legal
issues?)

Cheers,
-- 
Benjamin D. Esham
E-mail/Jabber: bdesham at gmail.com | AIM bdesham128 | PGP D676BB9A
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.   — 1 Cor 15:26