Hacker News Reader

Comment by samch | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think it’s allowed without permission per: https://www.usa.gov/government-copyright

Specifically, “Endorsement, trademarks, and agency logos You cannot use government materials in a way that implies endorsement by a government agency, official, or employee. For example, using a photo in your advertisement of a government official wearing or using your product is not permitted. You also cannot use federal government trademarks or federal government agency logos without permission. For example, in general, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page to suggest endorsement or sponsorship by the agency.”

NOAA does have a licensing program, but I somehow doubt that this app was part of that program. Assuming that’s true, then this is likely a case of poor enforcement.

View on HN

Is that the law, or is that more the government saying, through its publicists, how it would like its image to be used?

Seems crazy that, say, an outdoor clothes retailer couldn't share a photo of a group trek where the park ranger was wearing its gear. Or that SpaceX couldn't publish a photo of NASA astronauts flying in its spacecraft - even with NASA's permission.

A while back, I tried to create a T-shirt using a version of the NASA logo, and it got shot down by NASA because it violated their restrictive licensing terms:

https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/nasa-vsvn.html

I was baffled, because I assumed that any government-created content was public domain by default. But agency marks are a big exception to that.

This post goes into detail about the law about government agencies' logos and "fair use" arguments.

It is the law. You can use those photos (including competitors photos) for any use other than marketing. Other uses, for a company, don't really exist. It is often explicitly upfront in the media pages of most government agencies.

SpaceX can use the photos as such for factual reporting, which usually ends up being marketing for them indirectly. That is allowed. If SpaceX were to market themselves actively as having government ties, that would not be allowed.

In a similar vein, I notice most startups using government logos in their marketing. That is also not allowed - even if the agency is using your software. You are not allowed to display those logos, except for "factual marketing" - say, a white paper on the government agency using your software. Even mentioning something on the lines of "DOD improved its purchasing efficiency by 10x (heh!)" is forbidden explicitly.

I'm not sure about most of the agencies themselves, but the FDA is very strict about enforcing this rule and has often fined Big Pharma for this infraction many times.

Those scenarios aren’t the same: those photos are a literal state of fact, not an endorsement. SpaceX can say they fly NASA missions because that’s a provable fact that they were awarded a contract to do so and anyone who wants to search the public procurement records could verify that. Where they (and NASA employees) would get into trouble would be saying that NASA thinks they’re the best, or that you should give them your business, too. It’s the idea that the reputation of a public agency is being committed to boost a private business that causes the legal concerns.

That seems like a very reasonable law, but it's not consistent with what was linked above and what other commentators are saying really is "the law".

> You cannot use government materials in a way that implies endorsement by a government agency, official, or employee. For example, using a photo in your advertisement of a government official wearing or using your product is not permitted.

No exemption made for photos where the government official really did use your cowboy hat or starship! No exception for situations where the government really did endorse you as a service provider of rugged outdoor clothing, or manned space missions.

After all, if the situation was just "you aren't allowed to fraudulently claim the government used or endorsed your product, when they did no such thing" it would barely need mentioning.

I think this is more confusion around language for something which isn’t quite that simple. The page that quote is from is a summary, not the actual statute, and each agency will have different policies, as well as terms written into contracts for actual procurements. In general, I’ve found literal statements of fact to be uncontroversial (e.g. if you say X.gov uses Y, and anyone who looks at sam.gov can confirm the same), but it gets increasingly more likely to raise challenges the more it looks like a recommendation, especially if it includes superlatives about the product or service.

Anyway, if this is remotely relevant, get a lawyer and ask the agency in question since they’ll likely have some nuances.

Your first example might be a little harsh, but there is a real risk if you let these things go uncontrolled e.g. the potential for fraud is enormous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com