File talk:Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg

 

This file has been used in:   JOHN SCHWARTZ (2010-08-03). "F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law". New York Times.

Unauthorised posting of the FBI Seal (disputed)

In July 2010 the Wikimedia foundation has been instructed by the U.S. Department of Justice to take down this image. The Wikimedia Foundation has argued to the contrary. Siebrand 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

a joke of a "debate"

It is not a "debate" when some admin closes down discussion before there has been any discussion. If Wikimedia is hosting high resolution images of currency bills on its website (are currency bills not created by government employees?) then for consistency's sake this image should presumptively remain but if there are no such images because of a policy argument against facilitating forgery then why is Wikipedia facilitating forgery by hosting a higher resolution image here than the namespace needs? What is head scratching is why the courtesy Wiki routinely extends to complaining individuals (e.g. the WP:BLP policy) is denied to a complaining government. It appears that the FBI would be satisfied if the resolution of the seal was cut down, a request that could be accommodated without any discernible change to the Wikipedia namespace since the resolution here is far in excess of what could ever be used in Wikipedia. This appears to be another case of wanting to stick a finger in the eye of the govt. Surely we could be more professional (read: neutral and focused on the needs of Wikipedia) about this.Bdell555 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also a larger issue here, and that's using the US government's policy of general openness against it to preclude its discretion to withdraw that openness in limited and unusual circumstances. I find that a dodgy move that relies on legalese to trump a moral argument, the moral argument being that the wishes of the creator should be generally respected. Even from an entirely amoral perspective, think of the consequences to the Commons of a policy stance that effectively discourages the donation of material to the public domain. The US govt has released millions of images that it is the legal creator of to the public domain, and not only can the creator not have just one of them back, but the creator's request cannot even get serious consideration? How is such an unforgiving stance going to encourage other governments to be equally as generous going forward? I might add that Britannica had an internal discussion on whether to delete and the decision was... TO DELETE. If the Wiki project is truly neutral as opposed to some activist organization, the view of responsible analogous entities like Britannica ought to act as a check against a Wiki crusade against government "censorship" or whatever the spin is on this issue. If nobody is trying to "make a point" here, then let's hear why, for educational purposes, a 200px version isn't enough. Deleting the 500, 1000, and 2000px versions strikes me as a reasonable accommodation. If the FBI wants more, I'd accuse them of being litigious. But if Wikimedia demands a court appearance before even considering deletion of the 2000px image, I suggest it is Wikimedia that it is being litigious.Bdell555 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's an SVG. It's a vector graphics format; the sizes you mention are not separately hosted, but generated on the fly (and cached on the servers). The links on the page are nothing more than links of convenience for people who want a quick way to get a particularly-sized PNG created from this SVG. Second of all, the FBI is not humbly explaining that they wish to remove this logo from the Public Domain; they are demanding that we take it down because the law requires that we do so. They are clearly wrong here. If they were making a request and acknowledging that we have no legal requirement to accede to it, that'd be one thing; instead, though, they're making a demand and claiming that we have to comply. BIG DIFFERENCE. Powers (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When I say "versions" I am just phrasing. Technically, I am suggesting deleting the SVG and uploading a new image of sufficient resolution to accommodate any conceivable display need that Wikipedia might have. I don't agree that just because we CAN do something we SHOULD (and it is not entirely impossible that a court could rule that we can't). As for the FBI not behaving "humbly", I don't see Wikimedia as so self-important that it cannot tolerate affronts to its dignity. Even if it is reasonable to expect law enforcement to 'ask nicely', a litigious attitude could be defused by responding to it flexibly and respectfully instead of equally litigiously, and that includes to the Wiki editors who, like me, have a hard time seeing the US government as an enemy instead of a friend of the Commons given the number and the quality of some of the images available on Commons courtesy of this entity. A little courtesy could be returned here with negligible compromise to the project's knowledge mission.Bdell555 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The FBI made a request. The WMF legal council found that the request was made on invalid legal grounds and has denied their request. Now we see people who think we should honor such a request none the less, 'out of civility'. Well that's dandy and all, but if we give into things like that too much, before we know it we will have BP knocking on our door about all the things they don't like. There is no reason to do this, we shouldn't do it. It's an image, a high quality image. Welcome to the digital age. I'm sorry the FBI doesn't like it, but removing it here won't help. As a matter of fact, i'm quite sure that within no time, the file would go all over the web if removed here. TheDJ (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the goals of the Wikimedia project is to promote the dissemination of free materials. This image is free, and we have a responsibility, embedded in our very mission, to protect it and keep it free. Powers (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That mission is being undermined when the single biggest creator of free material is being antagonized. That's a downside for Wikipedia, and there is no upside for Wikipedia because Wikipedia could not possibly use an image at this high resolution.Bdell555 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

1) I very much doubt that the FBI is the single biggest creator of Free material

2) The FBI is an institution. It does not have feelings in the sense a human being has feelings.

3) Institutions of the Federal government of the USA (among which the FBI) are required by law to release their content in the Public Domain. Even if Bdell555's asumptions were verified (which I doubt), they would be irrelevant.

Rama (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if Congress repealed the ages-old statute that puts all works of the U.S. federal government in the public domain just because the FBI was annoyed by Wikipedia's use of their seal. PhageRules1 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with copyright. TheDJ (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Letter A in text around the edge of the seal

I was wondering why the FBI would have made the letter A taller than every other letter of the text around the edge of the seal. From the FBI site at https://www.fbi.gov/history/seal-motto, it appears they don't actually do that—all the letters are the same height in their official seal. The way the A's are rendered here, they are pointy at the top, which doesn't really fit in with the font used for the other letters, which have no sharp points. (Looking a bit more closely, I see that the N actually has the same issue, but on the bottom, rather than the top.) The top of the A should be flat and at the height of the other letters. The bottom of the N should also be flat and level with the baseline of the others. Not a big deal, certainly, but if anyone ever does anything further with this file, they might consider cleaning this up. —!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salton Finneger (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Salton Finneger: As explained in the source field of the summary, this SVG has been extracted from the PDF file of an official report. However, there exist also alternative variants from other official documents like File:Seal of the FBI.svg where the letters “A” and “N” are less pointy. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Just the font the government artist chose for that particular representation (sometimes the "A" can look too small if made the same height, so some fonts do have the point ending higher). Seals / coats of arms are not like logos where there is only one exact version -- there can be many drawings which match the design. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The source link has rotted away, but you can still find it at https://web.archive.org/web/20100209201822/https://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf. And indeed it does have the strange A and N characters there. I'd also note that the source for the seal isn't an FBI report, but rather from the DNI, a separate agency. I can't speak to the specific rules for the FBI seal, but with respect to "Seals / coats of arms are not like logos where there is only one exact version," at the agency I work at, specific details on the seal are spelled out in the Code of Federal Regulations, and while sometimes folks do create their own variants, usage of anything other than the exact official logo is discouraged. That said, there isn't enforcement to hunt down and eliminate variants or anything like that. Oh well, while it seems unlikely to me that an official version of a government seal would have these sorts of oddities and make it through bureaucratic clearance, that's just my speculation, so if folks are content with it as is, so be it. If not, my original note had the link to the FBI's page on the subject with what they currently are apparently using. —Salton Finneger (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The bitmap File:FBISeal.png (uploaded in 2005, with another version in 2006) also seem to use the same font. So, perhaps that was the preferred font at the time, which has since been changed. Tweaks like that do happen. In heraldry (coats of arms), designs are usually a written description called a blazon, with many possible drawings which meet the criteria. Some seals may start with an official drawing though, closer to a logo, where the changes are relatively minor from version to version -- sounds like the FBI is one of those. But small things can change I suppose when it comes to vectorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

fringe

Is there a heraldic name for the style of the rays in the 'halo'? I am trying to figure out how to categorise file:big credo star.jpg and was stumped by that. Arlo James Barnes 02:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)