Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
bitcoinmagazine.com
Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
1–10 of 91 posts
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#2> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement.
Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright.
It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#3[deleted]
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#4> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement. Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright. It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
Uhhhh... what? Doesn't the Copyright Act of 1976 place government works into public domain?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by...
Yes, yes it does.
Reading the Fed's C&D, their complaint is about the trademark, not copyright. The magazine's lawyer's response is also about trademark, not copyright. The author of this article isn't as familiar with the law as the lawyers are.
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#5FedNow: https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow
Apparel: https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/products/fednow-shirt-1?_p...
Not a trademark attourney, but the styling is distinct enough. The use of identical name could be problematic I would think?
However, I don't see how this is a "parody" -- I thought parodies have to be clearly different but use similar styling, i.e. call it "FedThen" and cleverly include the `24/7` or something in the lettering, maybe inside the "e" which gets shaped kind of like the "o"
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#6> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement. Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright. It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
[deleted]
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#7> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement. Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright. It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
You're really underselling it. They're replying to the Fed as if their cease-and-desist letter were no more than some sort of internet argument on Reddit or something. Here's a sample, to encourage folks to read the article and have a good hearty chuckle themselves:
> > “The Federal Reserve has extensively used and promoted the FEDNOW mark and has built up substantial goodwill in this invaluable asset. Financial institutions and consumers associate the FEDNOW mark with the Federal Reserve and its services.”
> An interesting point. For starters, what goodwill has the Federal Reserve built up? Have you seen the state of the working class today? Perhaps you have already forgotten how Fed policy directly led to mismanaged bond portfolios in regional banks across the country, such as Silicon Valley Bank, Signature, Silvergate or First Republic? Perhaps you have already forgotten about the historic inflation rates seen throughout the U.S. since government-imposed lockdowns all but forced the Treasury’s hand to stimulate the economy to the tune of trillions of dollars?
> There is no goodwill, Mr. Murphy. And certainly not substantial goodwill either.
Edit to add: there is an actual legal reply by an actual lawyer, to which you can assign your own value.
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect even pursuing this by the Fed.
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#9> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement. Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright. It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
Uhhhh... what? Doesn't the Copyright Act of 1976 place government works into public domain? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by... Yes, yes it does. Reading the Fed's C&D, their complaint is about the trademark, not copyright. The magazine's lawyer's response is also about trademark, not copyright. The author of this article isn't as familiar with the law as the lawyers are.
It appears that they didn't have a lawyer review the final version of an article about a legal case in which they're involved (since I think a lawyer would've caught the "copyright" bit).
When you're being sued, you should be careful about what you say about that, especially what you put in writing, and publish globally.
So I think this is one example of them not consulting a lawyer enough.
Re: Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Mag over parody product
#10> The U.S. Federal Reserve is threatening to sue Bitcoin Magazine, alleging apparel that parodies its FedNow system is not protected speech, but copyright infringement. Looks like infringement of trademark, not of copyright. It might be protected speech, but I suspect that Bitcoin Magazine isn't consulting a lawyer as much as they should.
Uhhhh... what? Doesn't the Copyright Act of 1976 place government works into public domain? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by... Yes, yes it does. Reading the Fed's C&D, their complaint is about the trademark, not copyright. The magazine's lawyer's response is also about trademark, not copyright. The author of this article isn't as familiar with the law as the lawyers are.
[deleted]