Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JoeProBono

I’m not a lawyer but this case seems pretty open and shut. The protection of the symbols are clearly meant to prevent impersonation and what this guy is doing falls clearly into the category of “complaining about the government” which is explicitly covered by the 1st amendment.


3 posted on 11/01/2013 10:38:47 AM PDT by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: thorvaldr

Beyond that, what he’s doing constitutes parody, which is specifically allowed under the Fair Use provision of copyright law.


9 posted on 11/01/2013 10:59:38 AM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: thorvaldr

” “complaining about the government” which is explicitly covered by the 1st amendment.”

I agree. If you can burn the flag as free speech what this gentleman did should be totally acceptable.

.


18 posted on 11/01/2013 11:11:36 AM PDT by Mears (Liberalism is the art of being easily offended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: thorvaldr
what this guy is doing falls clearly into the category of “complaining about the government” which is explicitly covered by the 1st amendment.

At the very least it is political satire which is also protected.

32 posted on 11/01/2013 11:27:30 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (So Obama "inherited" a mess? Firemen "inherit" messes too. Ever see one put gasoline on it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: thorvaldr

Since the wording on both seals has been altered, doesn’t that obviate the *protection of seals* argument? Those aren’t the official seals.


60 posted on 11/01/2013 2:40:54 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: thorvaldr
I’m not a lawyer but this case seems pretty open and shut. The protection of the symbols are clearly meant to prevent impersonation and what this guy is doing falls clearly into the category of “complaining about the government” which is explicitly covered by the 1st amendment.

The criticism is protected free speech, no doubt. The issue is the use of the logos.

For instance, this is from NASA regarding the use of their material:

NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages.

This general permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the retired NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA-sponsored.

My take is this is to prevent someone from giving the impression that NASA endorses their work or opinion, or to prevent someone from impersonating NASA.
62 posted on 11/01/2013 2:56:07 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson