File talk:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg

FBI Request for Deletion
This image is creating a little (so far) tempest in a teacup here and here. Lord of the Ping (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slashdot picked it up as well. If people start messing around on what will now be a very high-traffic image, semi or full protection (temporary) may be in order, but I'll leave it for now. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of this on-wiki (though perhaps that's because the only discussion worth having is "Mike Godwin is right"). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It has to be a prank letter. If the FBI were truly trying to take an image of their seal off wikipedia, it would be an embarrassment to their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.169.138 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Things to Note:


 * The Tags for the images are not sufficient protection:

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. This tag does not indicate the copyright status or the source of the attached work. A normal copyright tag and a source are still required.


 * Also, this subject is now being covered by the BBC, here.


 * Despite Godwins arguements (having not read them myself), which wikipedia should stand behind, it might be in our interests as users to demote to a low resolution image for now. Since the FBI seems primarily concerned with the size of the image.Some thing (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SVG images are intended to be scalable and of good quality, which is why they are preferred on Wikipedia. In theory, a criminal could use the SVG version to make a fake FBI badge etc. A low resolution PNG version would address this concern, but this would require a consensus.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that is possible, but I don't think we should do that any time soon. Would be a case of opening the floodgates. Better see if there is gonna be any further communication. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This very issue has been brought up by myself and other editors before and it has now caused an issue Wikipedia_talk:Logos. This is exactly the problem we saw before. SVGs can be rendered very large which breaks our fair use rationale and should be tossed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you're right about that, it's not applicable to the FBI logo, which is not being used under a fair-use claim. It's public domain, as a work of the United States federal government.  The issues being discussed here have nothing to do with copyright or fair use. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another article discussing the incident at New York Times. This also showed up on Fark.com, where there is no shortage of opinions about the legalities and all. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thread concerning this issue exists, here. Some thing (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like something that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany would do? Is the FBI turning into the SS? Of course, this has nothing to do with the argument in question, but Godwin's Law had to be evoked,. . . ;-) WTF? (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, so any reducing of quality, etc., should be discussed there. – xeno talk 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like an idiot! I accidentally edited the archive for the deletion request there! I undid it though. Anyway, I wrote: *Keep: Per it being public domain and ejusdem generis. (I suppose they'll want dollar bills to be taken down next, right?) A notice is already up on it's page about "unauthorized use of the FBI seal, name, and initials are subject to prosecution under Federal Criminal law", and I really don't think that those laws apply here. See also a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. If there still is a problem, perhaps a watermark or the like should be put on the image, so that it's harder to use for "illegal purposes"? --MithrandirAgain ( talk ) 00:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought of this: Could it be that the FBI is stupid enough to think that Wikipedia has something to do with Wikileaks? Yes, I know that Wikimedia doesn't own or have anything to do with Wikileaks, but what if the FBI doesn't think that? -- Mithrandir∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably right, as dumb as it would be of them. I'd also like to say I think its being handled really well so far by wikipedia. I looked it up after seeing it on the Onion. The very low key response is good and prevents it getting out of hand. Kudos. I think that the FBI will probably figure out their mistake pretty soon following a pretty unanimous media response that their request is ridiculous - the person responsible will be reprimanded and the world will go on. Hopefully.Rusl (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I never knew the FBI would sink to such lows. Go sic 'em, Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In compliance with the Streisand effect, I have downloaded this image in SVG and 2000px PNG formats and will spam it on some image boards later today, whereas I didn't care about it until it came into dispute. Smooth move, FBI. ~ Eidako (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean, the way I see it, we already do low quality images of movie posters, why not put up a low-res version of the seal? While we may not be legally bound to do so, if the high-res version could be used for some nefarious purpose, aren't we ethically bound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.255.28 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to the images for which there is clearly a non-free license and are on English language Wikipedia through a claim of fair use, which for legal reasons are of sufficiently low-quality not to affect the commercial value of the original work. Unlike those images, the FBI seal is clearly in the public domain. Beyond that, I find the argument "could be used for some nefarious purpose" to be so ambiguous that it could be used for anything - what if someone references our articles on chemistry to poison their spouse? what if someone reads our articles on racially-charged epithets to use them in hate speech?  what if someone refers Saudi women to our articles on women's liberation movements? - BanyanTree 23:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, we shouldn't look at the visitors as potential criminals. Criminals have their sources, they don't need it from Wikipedia. It's just like those "very sane" anti-terror measures, like banning the photography of bridges. It simply isn't a serious prevention, it might look like that, but it's just pointless bullying of innocent people. 85.181.81.245 (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the high-res version should be kept. The image is explicitly in the public domain per US law on works of the federal government.  And while there are apparently laws prohibiting fraudulent misuse of the seal (which seem sensible), prohibiting all use of the seal not explicitly authorized by the FBI amounts to prior restraint, and I think it would be a clear First Amendment violation. As a logical argument underlying the foregoing sentence's legal argument: it seems quite important to me that citizens have accurate knowledge of the official symbols of their government's departments and offices so that they can illustrate speech about those offices (such as commonly occurs in journalism and political discussion in free societies) using those widely-recognized symbols.  And so that they are less likely to be fooled by frauds using fabricated or subtly-altered imitation seals, such as might be used in order to provide some legal insulation against the very laws regarding fraudulent misuse of a seal which are being cited by the FBI in this case. As a practical matter, neither the FBI nor any other agency or organization should rely solely on the accurate representation of its seal to authenticate its official documents.  While this is perhaps an ironic assertion given the historical function of seals as means of authentication, they have ceased to actually be practical for that purpose for quite a long time.  There are plenty of modern authentication and anti-tampering technologies that can be used to verify the legitimacy of documents without substantially infringing on free speech.Riyuky (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not design a new seal for them?
If they don't want Wikipedia to use their seal, we could design them a new one, and use that for display on pages related to the FBI.

I'll bet they wouldn't like the new one nearly as much, though. (I have already designed a new one, which is basically the same, except the center now features a cartoon image of "the Thinker" with a question mark over his head, and the words "Which way did he go, which way did he go?" I don't really want to mess with their page, though.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrRob (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)