Anonymous declares war after French firm trademarks its logo A French company trying to trademark the Anonymous logo and slogan for commercial purposes has inspired an angry response from a team claiming to be affiliated with the hacking group. The company Early Flicker, or E-Flicker, has registered the headless man logo and the slogan 'We are Anonymous, We do not forgive, We do not …
This time it's not actually self righteous kiddie anger. E-Flicker has copyrighted an image and a slogan they quite clearly did not create or buy the rights to. I'd say the Anonymous lot are justifiable in their anger, although considering their stance towards piracy it's also very hypocritical.
"E-Flicker has copyrighted an image and a slogan they quite clearly did not create or buy the rights to."
You do realise that anonymous have no qualms about using images and styles from the V for Vendetta comics, right? If they were so bloody intelligent and creative they might at least try and create their own. However given that they're mostly just a bunch of juvenile keyboard warriors who think they'll change the world inbetween bouts of Call of Duty without an original thought in their heads its hardly a surprise.
"Anonymous lot are justifiable in their anger"
So let me get this straight - these muppets hack into systems and release personal data and cause generally chaos internet chaos wherever they go , yet THEY are justified in some company ripping off a style they themselves ripped off from a film and comic book? Give me a friggin break.
Oh yes. On the one side, a group who studiously avoids any accountability and thus seems to think it's above the law. Ergo, anything they do in one and the same place is a risk as it may expose members.
On the other side, a company who used the lawless state of the other party to play games and take something that has no *official* owner but which is definitely NOT theirs (unless they want to accept the associated liability like another commenter already remarked), and thus did the electronic equivalent of bashing a nest of bad tempered hornets without an escape route.
This could get very entertaining. Or boring, because it's not exactly hard to work out what Anonymous is going to do..
Anonymous, but not a member of THAT Anonymous..
"It also means that company could be held accountable for anything done under "their logo" or "their banner"."
So, if I create a logo. Some one rips it off and sticks it on a tshirt. They then rob a bank with their faces hidden and the only recognisable mark is the t-shirt. By this argument I would be responsible.
By having copyright over the logo, the company could sue Anonymouse for copyright infringement, but that's about it. How can they be held responsible for someone breaking their copyright.
It also means that company could be held accountable for anything done under "their logo" or "their banner".
E-Flicker: Hello is that the police? This is E-Flicker we've been hacked by Anonymous.....
Police: But aren't you Anonymous?
E-Flicker: Only when we want to make money from it, but not in this case
Police: So have you hacked yourself or not?
E-Flicker: While we are Anonymous we aren't technically Anonymous
Police: I think you'd better come down the station and hand yourself in
Please don't be too silly. All E-Flicker are doing is trademarking the symbol for use on merchandise, not accepting responsibility for the action of a load of skiddies. It's exactly the same as a clothing manufacturer in Thailand making fancydress shirts with the NaziI logo on, it does not make them responsible for the Nazi's actions. What E-Flicker are doing is making money out of the appetite of some numpties to identify themselves with the Anons, not becoming Anons.
"It's exactly the same as a clothing manufacturer in Thailand making fancydress shirts with the NaziI logo on, it does not make them responsible for the Nazi's actions."
A. No it's not. It would be if the clothing manufacturer onwed the trademark on the swastika and the phrase "Sieg Heil". They might then have some explaining to do re events carried out under their trademark.
B. Godwin's Law. You lose.
".....No it's not...." How is it not? E-Flicker are simply trademarking the logo to stop other companies in France making cash from the gormless sheeple that will buy Anon-branded gear. In the same manner, companies making Nazi uniforms for fancydress are just taking advantage of Princes with too much money and too little sense (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4170083.stm). The difference is you have an emotional tie to the Anon brand due to you being a member of the herd, whilst you have no sympathy for the Prince seeing as you are probably an anti-monarchist, anit-capitalist, anti-anything-the-herders-tell-me-to-hate.....
".....Godwin's Law. You lose." You're just demonstrating your short attention span seeing as it was one of your fellow bleaters that introduced Nuremberg into the thread. I suggest you need to go buy an Anon-branded T-shirt from E-Flicker so others can spot that you aren't worth wasting intellect on.
"B. Godwin's Law. You lose."
Go and read it; Godwin merely stated "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches". It is not a law, it is merely a supposed observation of probability (one that I've not seen investigated, and I'm not sure that I would like to be responsible for designing the research to investigate such catch all silliness) but, there again, as an online discussion grows longer the probability that anything may be said or compared grows. There is nothing particularly special, insightful or even scientific about Godwin's 'law', which is not a law at all. It is a banal, catch all quotable passage that has captured people's imaginations and even caused them to remark that the conversation must be over, Godwin's 'law' has been confirmed. Very weak and, even if it has been confirmed, so what? What fresh insight do we derive from this?
It is also fair to say that the owner of a symbol cannot be held responsible for something done by people adopting it as their symbol. Otherwise the Pringles logo would have to fall due to the use of their clothing by violent, right wing football thugs, ditto Ben Sherman 40 years ago; latterly, given their direct connection with the German war machine Hugo Boss would not be allowed to manufacture fashion goods today, since they were responsible for the notoriously fashionable, glamorous nature of German military clothing during the war, and there is a right wing group in modern Germany that wears garments with a logo (I can't recall the specifics and will carefully avoid naming the one that I think it is) that they also use as a symbol.
Much that was symbolic of German industrial, design and scientific prowess and associated with the events that culminated in a meeting on the Soltau-Lüneberg heath sometime in May 1945 still exists. Look at modern Audi design, particularly the Audi TT, Mercedes, IG Farben... ...the culture of a nation was embedded, poured, moulded into the events that overtook Germany, partly because a charismatic - you might say daemonic - leader browbeat the chancellor into giving in, even though he lacked the neccessary elected seats (by one), who bullied, browbeat and frightened his own people, shaping their will in the manner of steel being bashed on an anvil, frightening some, capitalising on the resentment in others (after WW I Lloyd-George was disgusted at the reparations being inflicted on the Germans, pointedly saying it would lead to another war, and he was correct, or this discussion would not be taking place now). It is unsurprising that the cultural symbols hijacked by these people survived, and came out on the other side.
By another way of illustration, remember this; the Swastika was taken from an older culture and reversed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4183467.stm Perhaps we are going to hold them to account for WWII, instead of the French who felt that German war reparations should be so vicious that their recession and currency crisis would cause the price of a loaf of bread to require a full barrow of notes in payment... ...or perhaps the Germans, who forced the French to sign a humiliating treaty in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, or the French before them who inflicted the same on them, and so on back in history, each regime marching under its own (monarchical) symbols.
Godwin? Godwin amuses but contributes no enlightenment.
Nice contribution. Still, it's no accident Godwin mentions Nazis instead of something else.
Much more likely to crop up than, say, anti-monarchism (though I think we got that too in this thread), and even socialist or capitalist slogans/comparisons.
Yes, it does amuse, but (to me at least) it also warns: don't descend into making extreme comparisons, even if the other posters are obviously mindless trolls who should be shown the error of their ways: nothing good can come of it.
"Still, it's no accident Godwin mentions Nazis instead of something else."
It is a fine example of the 'recency effect'. Otherwise he'd have been citing Roman barbarities, e.g. (...others include Turkish genocide of Armenians...). Forget the punishment of decimation, remember crucifixion punishments; hundreds of people crucified alongside roads and left to die and rot, the subsequent stench hanging around these necessary lines of communication for however long it takes for microbial organisms, carrion and scavengers to remove the trace. Think of the complete destruction of Carthage, the slaughter of of the city of Carthage's citizens, and enslavement of those who remained. Consider the Roman habit of putting Christians in the arena, to fight big cats with their bare hands. Lidice was nothing compared to Roman might and anger.
If you prefer to focus on anti Semitism, remember the burning of Jews in York and Winchester, that Jews were ironically allowed back in this country because of the very barbaric Cromwell.
OTOH, consider Stalin. Under his reign there were always some 11 million people in penal labour battalions, with a very high mortality rate, and that is merely the tip. The main reason why we do not focus on this example? Because during WWII our forerunners were taught that Stalin was our ally and, indeed, the myth continued all the way up to at least the 1980s, when students at the university where I studied told me of the virtuousness of Stalinism as opposed to western democracy.
No one is clean, right down to the Barbary ('Libyan') pirates who raided Europe (particularly the south west of England and Ireland) for white gold, aka slaves. Throughout Europe they made off with at least 1.5 million.
As to your last exhortation, I'm an ex soldier, I've seen active duty, I've been a lot closer to death as a civvy in a very dangerous job and I take most exhortations with a pinch of salt, especially when they are phrased as an instruction; I'm done with orders.
HTH.
Due to an earlier discussion:
E-Flicker CEO: Hey, how's our security?
E-Flicker IT boss: We're good. We're firewalled, we require users to use complex passwords that change regularly, and we're filtering our inbound email for viruses. Ummm... why do you ask?
E-Flicker CEO: I've got an idea for another T-shirt design that may cause some hard feelings. Don't worry about it for now, I'll keep you posted.
Next day (after IT boss reads Register article):
CEO: Hey, did you see all the free publicity we're getting?
IT boss: I quit.
(One person) Company registration:
EARLY FLICKER 520 522 020 R.C.S. PARIS Acronym : EFK
Trade name : OR EBENE;CATCH THE WORLD;PICK YOUR WORLD;E-FLICKER;EFLICKER;EARLY FLICKER;EARLY CHALLENGE
Head office 27 R JEAN GIRAUDOUX, 75116 PARIS
Activity (NAF code) 6201Z (Computer programming)
Legal form SOCIÉTÉ À RESPONSABILITÉ LIMITÉE À ASSOCIÉ UNIQUE
Key figures at 31/12/2011 Revenue : 33 528 € Result : 349 €
Registered on 03/03/2010
Trade mark registration:
No National : 12 3 897 980, 12 3 897 981 Dépôt du : 16 FÉVRIER 2012
Early Flicker, EURL, 27 rue Jean Giraudoux, 75116 PARIS.
Early Flicker, M. Apollinaire Auffret, 27 rue Jean Giraudoux, 75116 PARIS
".... Prior use should mean that they can't copyright it anyway...." Apparently that's not correct. Someone would have to come forward and claim ownership of the logo, and I don't think that's going to happen for very obvious legal reasons. It's just like smiley emoticons, used for years before being trademarked by the Smiley Company.
If E-Flicker are smart, they will sub out the distribution and use an online retailer like eBay to handle the LOIC attacks. Then the Anonyputzs can hit the E-Flicker website all they like and it won't stop the cash rolling in. The fun bit will be if they try to register the logo in the States.
"And then the anon setup hundreds of fake ebay accounts bidding millions of pounds for teeshirts which will never sell...." So you're advocating fraud? Be very careful, a DDOS attack is troublesome but hard to put a value on the result of the crime, but fraud is very easy to prove in court and can be tied to the individual fake accounts. And some Anonyputz that gets caught might finger you as the "genius" that gave him the idea.
"Here's an idea for you...." Why am I SOOOOO not surprised your "idea" adds nothing intellectual to the thread.
"....Now you can finger me in court...." Ew! I don't know what you and your Anonyputz chums get up to in private but I have desire to finger you anywhere! Besides, it will be the cops taking you to court if you mix with the Anons. Lay down with dogs, get fleas, etc.
A quick search for "anonymous t-shirt" on eBay shows other sellers flogging items with the Anon barnd on them that look suspiciously like the ones that were on the E-Flicker website. Looks like the Anons will have to start intimidating every small-time entrepreneur that sticks his head over the parapet!
Um, no...
To own a copyright you have to have created it or bought the rights, this gives you ownership over this content. A trademark is different. A trademark is just a "mark" under which your are trading your goods. You have to register the mark and what the goods are to protect you from others selling goods under the same mark.
Apple owns that mark for computers, but there is Apple, reality, Apple education products etc that are different companies. Apple took there name from Apple records (another mark) and ran into trouble when the started selling music and not just computers.
There is Infinity Realty, but they have no relation the car company etc.
You can trademark something that is in public domain, but you have to specify what goods you are selling under that Mark. This is how company's like Banks Use Ben Franklin's name, or Baby Einstein uses old Albert's name.
Some one could easily open a car dealership under the name Google or IBM.
Rob Dobs:"You can trademark something that is in public domain, but you have to specify what goods you are selling under that Mark. This is how [..] Baby Einstein uses old Albert's name."
Actually Baby Einstein *didn't* (and presumably weren't able to) do that. In fact, they pay a whole load of money for the privilege of giving their questionable learning aids a spurious association with Einstein's name. From the Wikipedia article:-
"The Baby Einstein Company pays a significant amount of money to Corbis, on behalf of the estate of renowned physicist Albert Einstein, for the use of the Einstein name, though the products have virtually nothing to do with Einstein or his work (however, Disney uses a disclaimer that Einstein is a trademark of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)."
...they didn't have any part in the name or symbols promotion into public consciousness. And yet they'd like to take out a trademark making themselves the sole beneficiaries of any business around these things and legally prevent anyone else from doing so. Wow - love those social ethics.
"You could look at in the reverse by saying their actions provide a public service by helping to mark out the sheeple that will buy Anon-branded gear, in which case I say let them take some of the numpties' money."
Taking your disregard for other people's tastes and political values at face value, your argument is still incorrect. The current situation is that there is no trademark. Anyone can stick the Anonymous logo on a t-shirt and no copyright or trademark holder is likely to come forward and stop them. You have been arguing for a situation in which one company has a monopoly on this and can shut down any competition. Thus reducing the ease with which people can purchase or self-produce such clothing.
Ergo, as someone who likes to feel superior to other people based on what they wear, you would be better off not supporting the trademark claim as it runs counter to your need to belittle others.
"....your argument is still incorrect...." Still no evidence of that presented.
"....The current situation is that there is no trademark...." Well, apart from the one on the UN logo used as part of the Anon logo, that is.
".....Anyone can stick the Anonymous logo on a t-shirt and no copyright or trademark holder is likely to come forward and stop them...." True. Why anyone would want to is another matter, but in this case the E-Flicker boyos have reaslised not only can they do it for profit, they can also legally block anyone else in France from producing items with said logo and selling them on (NOT producing for own use), and their plan will work because no Anon is actually going to make a legal challenge. Face it, this is what really gets you sheeple, the fact that the anonymity that the skiddies hide behind to avoid prosecution is now being used against them by others to make a nasty, capitalist profit. Which is also what makes it so deliciously funny to those of us that think the Anonyputzs are a waste of oxygen.
E-Flicker can't copyright the Anonymous logo or slogan because they're well known orphan works. They could use them on their t-shirts without paying royalties but there's always the chance the true copyright owner may come forward one day and sue for damages.
Also Matt, you're an odious prick.
"E-Flicker can't copyright the Anonymous logo or slogan because they're well known orphan works...." I'm not sure that applies under French copyright laws, otherwise it is unlikely to have gotten this far.
"....there's always the chance the true copyright owner may come forward one day and sue for damages...." Very unlikely as to do so would be to admit they were in the core of the Anonyputzs from the beginning, making them complicit with a number of Anon actions and therefore liable for prosecution. Of course, if the Anons were smart (I know, unlikely, but you never know), they would get one of their members already convicted and serving time to claim ownership.
"....Also Matt, you're an odious prick." LOL, you know you're scoring hits when they start crying!
Anonymous aren't a banned organisation Matt. Even if one comes forwards as the copyright owner of the anon logo it means nothing. Anonymous is not a coherent enough group to be guilty by association.
'....Also Matt, you're an odious prick." LOL, you know you're scoring hits when they start crying!'
Since you throw around the ad hominems every other sentence I did't see any point in holding back. Somebody might as well tell you how you appear to the rest of the world.
"Anonymous aren't a banned organisation Matt....." Maybe not, but the actions of their "members" most certainly have included criminal activity, and anyone owning up to having been in on the orgainsiation from an early stage would be of great interest to the police. If nothing else, they could be charged with inciting criminal behaviour even if they couldn't be linked with particular criminal acts.
".....Somebody might as well tell you how you appear to the rest of the world." LOL, is that the word amongst your tiny crowd of hip'n'trendy buddies? It is so very obviosu that the "99%" is really just a small group of unemployable and unlikley to get laid skiddies, so why on Earth do you think I would be at all bothered by what you and your close cricle of fellow fingerers might think? Do yourself a favour and go find something useful to do.
Indeed and, just as it is not possible to defame anonymous people, it is impossible to be in breach of copyright in respect of anonymous people. To claim their supposed rights they must step forward. Admittedly the bracelets that will be fastened onto their wrists will not be fashionable, but who GAF?
Maybe they are angel/anonymous investors operating in stealth mode of a sort? Even if they are not, the REAL Anonymous might step up and purse suede them to hand over the funds.
Interestingly, it could work out that the Marketing Anonymous inadvertently becomes a literal "store front" for the Hacking/Cracking Anonymous, and thus a proxy. The HC Anonymous might even gain enough control to deprive the opportunistic Marketing Anonymous from even DARING to think of calling it quits.
This could prove to be an interesting topic in Marketing/Econ/Business/Business Law in colleges/unis the world over.
@shooter: Every time you buy an item of clothing, you pay royalties to the designer, unless the designer was some no-name wage slave.
And if you try to take someone else's design and use it for your own commercial purposes, damn' right you'll pay royalties for it.
@Tom Maddox: you'd have a point if the mask were actually a replica of a portrait of Guy Fawkes. It isn't, it's a highly stylised design loosely based on him.
@Dave 126: film be damned, the mask design is part of the artwork for the original comic book.
@veti: @Dave 126: film be damned, the mask design is part of the artwork for the original comic book.
But you would assume that when WB acquired the rights to make the film then they almost certainly also acquired the explotation rights for associated merchandise ... thus all those anontards are probably lining WB's pockets.
@ veti:
I'm afraid you rather missed the point of BristolBachelor's comment and my own response. Currently, you do *not* pay a royalty each and every time an article of clothing with a licensed design is worn (unless you make a habit of wearing your clothes once and then throwing them away), although I'm sure that certain big content companies would love to see that change.
I was under the impression that Alan Moore had passed up on any royalties for the film version of V for Vendetta. His three-volume book about the sexual fantasies of Dorothy (Wizard of Oz), Alice (out of Wonderland) and Wendy (who knew Peter Pan) was delayed in its UK publication because of issues surrounding the copyright of Peter Pan arising from association with a charity.
Fuzzy drunk.
".....a honey pot....." Whether it is or not, expect the Web police to be watching all the Tor entry and exit points, monitoring the Anon chatrooms and tracing the usual suspects. The Anonyputzs will announce another pointless LOIC attack and the Web police will scoop up more of the Anon herders, who will grass on yet more of them. And if Anon don't do anything now after making such a fuss then they look even weaker.
What the Anonyputz "commanders" fail to realise is that this could have been good for them - the likely buyers of any Anon-branded merchandise was likely to be more sheeple, so they could have raised their profile, but instead they went straight to childish-tantrum-setting-ten and started shrieking about capitalist exploiters. LOL, what a bunch of losers!
A quick web search for "Early Flicker" indicates they are a t-shirt selling company via the French arm of a well known online auction site. So that puts Anon vs. eBay on the card for the next few days.
Anon-coward mask since they apparently have a tshirt with something similar on it.
Yes. Despite the apparent high production values of their videos, I am not inspired to rate them above the status of "bunch of dicks".
If I were trying to run a web-based business they'd be dicks I'd try and keep away from. However I'm not and their home movies just don't convince me that they're ooooh-scary Bond-villains.
This is simply profoundly hypocritical behavior on the part of Anonymous. Evidently only they are allowed to protect their IP. And the only permissible way to protect IP is vigilante-style. And anyone other than Anonymous, who attempts to protect their IP is also liable to vigilante-style "justice".
What a bunch of little shits.
"Evidently only they are allowed to protect their IP"
Actually you have it wrong. Anonymous are not trademarking their imagery (so far as I know), but wanting to prevent others from doing so. By analogy, there is a difference between kicking everyone else out of a park and stopping someone else from kicking everyone else out.
Their Logo is not the mask. It's a man in suit with no head sitting in front of a globe. The persons in the videos wear masks of the type you describe. I suppose they could green screen out their heads but that would look creepy.
They're anonymous, they are not logo. Expect them.
"It's a man in suit with no head sitting in front of a globe."
Exactly. And I'd really, really love to see the artist who originally created that image, sue the arse off these greedy, exploitative bastards for infringing HIS copyright. I will donate gladly to any fund that said artist wants to set up to fund the defence of his IP.
But what really amazes me is that it was the French, and not the Americans, that came up with the idea of trademarking the Anonymous logo... it's the sort of thing I wouldn't have put past the good old US of A!
Well, there seems to be at least two people sure that the Anonymous logo is the Guy Fawkes mask. That bit is just your Batman to the Bruce Wayne. The Anonymous logo isn't the mask, it's the headless suit with the ? for a head, over the UN crest, basically. They trademarked that, and the anonymous tagline, the 'We are legion' statement.
It's not the mask that has been registered, it's the logo of the headless ( question marked) man in front of the wreath/world and also the slogan that has been registered.
The registration papers name the buyer and give an address and if Anon are clever they will stalk their prey from a distance and wait....................
They don't forgive, they don't forget.................I wonder if any of them worked in marketing...
Battles have always been spectator sports. Fights and wagers were the big attractions. My contribution here is to show how we are drawn to watch combat. Some Herberts descending for public fisticuffs onto another bunch of Dubious Desmonds -- Don't we all enjoy it?
To be honest violence repulses me, but this arms-length battering is FUN!
There's this 'new' arena and perhaps we should look at ourselves.
Honestly, I think it's a trap for anonymous. Like previously said here, what better way to make them surface, than to steal their image?
Also, this is a straight appeal to arrogance, or vanity.
Anonymous has made a name for themselves, no doubt about it. What better way to hurt them than to take their name, and make anonymous become some french company?
Definitely. I think this is either a trap, or an attempt to ridicule Anonymous.
Anonymous are, for the most part, like a large group of kittens. They may have sharp pointy claws that can give you a bit of a scratch, but they are so easily distracted the annoyance won't last for long. At most this company can probably expect a day or two DDOS and then anonymous will have moved onto their next target.
No doubt Anon can and will pw0n the retailer in question, but they should consider the possibility of a bait-and-trap from either the French or more likely another government (USA for example) designed to draw out members of the Anon hierarchy, hoping that they will get involved in actions personally.
It just seems WAY too obvious and dumb to me to be a legitimate business move.
They seem to be a legit French IT services company (e flicker) , been around for a couple of years. Their site has imho a crap design for a bunch of webdesigners, but all their other websites in their portfolio all have a headoffice at the same address... To me it seems more like a buch of wanabee businessmen out to make a quick buck and who are about to get pwned...
It reminds me when one of our community managers came up with the idea of advertising on "one of the new social media sites like 4Chan".
Just one response: "Don't".
In any case, there are enough cash on delievery pizza parlours in Paris for this to get very interesting.... Does the 3651 prefix still work to make your number anonymous over here?
One of two things is going on here. Either E-Flicker is a honeypot designed to catch Anonymous (which I find unlikely but possible) or somebody in that organization needs to have their head examined. At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, picking a fight with Anonymous is a pretty stupid thing to do.
No, you don't understand. Because this companies managment is very smart and they know things. Because they've got lots of money and you don't. Because you are not a manager, so you wouldn't be able to understand.
It will turn out ok. Trust their managers on that. And if it doens't turn out ok, I'm sure the managers can not be blamed.
Whaahaaa, I hope they cut of their nuts and serve them on a platter. Best served cold I imagine.
They are a limited company with 15 000 euros capital, use one of the cheapest general public hosting services you can buy.... most of their capital will be in the T-shirt printing irons and the mug transfer ovens... If they get pwned by anonymous for a couple of weeks, they will liquidate.... and as their mobile peripherals site is closed due to lack of stock, I don't think that they will hold out long. Plus the will have to pay huge pizza bills :)
Hmm. The US government not too long ago seized the Mongols motorcycle club's IP -- including its trademarked logo, insignia and jacket patch designs. See
http://www.tedsoquiphoto.com/2011/06/feds-sieze-mongol-logo.html
Anonymous (g) because I don't want them killing me whatever name they use now
So the company was actually just copyrighting them to ensure they wouldn't get sued (if you got the copyright no one else could claim damaged against you in the territory). The CEO states that they did it to protect themselves not to commercially exploit the logo. Of course they should have then released the copyright/trademark to the public domain but anyways...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
