"Dear Mr. XXX, this is the NSA. We'd like to use the image we've found on your homepage as the logo for a secret massive surveillance and spying program called 'prism'. Could you please sign the attached 20 page license and send it back to us: NSA, Maryland. Thanks in advance, Mr Smith, Chief Officer for Domestic Affairs."
Actually, though... If they've been monitoring everyone's internet traffic, it's feasible they have unwittingly downloaded illegal copies of media. Meaning they've committed copyright infringement on a massive scale?
It's generally not copyright infringement to simply collect data available on the internet. For example, Google downloads tons of copyrighted information; but that's not considered copyright infringement because using it for a search engine is a "transformative" use. Google is not replacing the copyright owner by redistributing the page, but is instead using it in a completely different way to provide an index of all pages.
The same would be true of the NSA. They aren't redistributing the data they download to anyone who asks, they are instead compiling an index to be searched for intelligence gathering purposes.
IANAL, but I suspect there's a difference between uploading a video and saying "I didn't mean to" vs just copying massive quantities of data. For example offering a backup service.
A backup service means you're acting as a dumb pipe/dumb disk. You're copying bytes without knowing the contents at the request of your user. This doesn't apply when you're seeking out data to copy on your own. In some situations you're still fine, like if you're requesting files from public web servers. But I'm not aware of any protection that would blanketly apply to intercepted connections.
If you're operating a dragnet then really you're close enough to a dumb pipe. If you're doing very targeted capture then you can filter stuff out anyway.
Being a dumb service works because you're acting on behalf of someone else. Someone has to order the data to be copied, and they are the ones responsible for ensuring there is sufficient licensing.
The license has enough holes to drive a tank through. They're clearly not using the image to make money. Acknowledgement is done "if possible". Contributing is done "if and when you can".
The "if possible" line is left up to the interpretation of the licensee (in this case, the NSA) and they can simply argue that it wasn't possible because the program was classified and including the name of a civilian who has no clearance might have impacted the classification status. Regarding contribution, that too is left to the discretion of the licensee... "Sorry, we couldn't".
As much as one might like to find fault with their use of the logo, I fail to see how this is infringement.
I guess this means the original photographer is guilty of leaking a secret document to the enemy. Because the secret FISA order classifying this NSA content, by extension classifies the original work, and all documents that include it.
Major oops, actually somehow I commented on the wrong thread! (hope I'm not the first in HN history to do that), how utterly bad it may look, too many HN tabs open I guess.
As stupid as it may sound, it was intended for this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866837 anyone with mod permissions, please delete the my parent comment (and this one as well) oh, the shame :0
