Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Chamber Sues Group After Impersonation Fiasco
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday announced it would sue a group
of activists who tried last week to impersonate their organization.
After the Yes Men staged a fake press conference at the National Press Club to "reveal" the Chamber supported cap-and-trade legislation, the Chamber has decided to sue the group for misappropriating its logo and violating a host of related copyrights.
"The Chamber is a strong proponent of free speech and encourages public debate on issues of the day," said Steven Law, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a statement Monday. "However, the law is clear that you can't misappropriate others' intellectual property for personal financial gain."
The Yes Men began last week's hoax with a press release announcing the Chamber had made an "about face," and now supported pending climate change legislation in Congress. After a few reporters picked up on the release -- some of which accidentally reported it as true -- the activist group held a press conference to further make the case for why the Chamber now backed Democrats' climate change efforts.
But about 30 minutes into that press event, a Chamber spokesperson entered the room and ended the conference. The Chamber has since reiterated it does not, in fact, support climate change legislation, and the duped reporters have ultimately published their mea culpas.
On Monday, however, the Chamber of Commerce revealed it would also follow through with its original promise of legal action against the Yes Men. In their civil suit, filed in federal court on Monday, the Chamber argues the group is not comprised of "merry pranksters tweaking the establishment." Instead, explained the Chamber's legal adviser, the Yes Men "deliberately broke the law in order to further commercial interest in their books, movies, and other merchandise."
"Ironically and unfortunately, this lawsuit might even help in that regard, but these acts are nothing less than commercial identity theft masquerading as social activism and must be stopped," Law said in a statement.
37 Comments so far
Show AllThe US Chamber of Commerce would not know or understand social activism if it bit them in the butt. Their lawsuit is a case in point.
"The Chamber is a strong proponent of free speech and encourages public debate on issues of the day," Yea right. As always watch what they do not what they say, when you want to know how a person or organization really feels about something.
"However, the law is clear that you can't misappropriate others' intellectual property for personal financial gain."
Uhh? What personal gain did the Yes men get out of this? Is the chamber even capable of not distorting every issue they are involved with?
It appears we have reached the point in this country where corporations have free speech and can use it to flat out lie about things that costs people their lives, while real people are not even allowed to pull a hoax that hurts no one. I for one am getting really disgusted with our corporate "culture" in this country.
Re mahannah October 27th, 2009 8:08 am
"The US Chamber of Commerce would not know or understand social activism if it bit them in the butt."
But that's what happened. Social activism DID bite them in the butt, and their first instinct was toward revenge. Call it expiation through litigation.
"Intellectual property?" Hah! Give me a break! Since when is the Chamber of Commerce dealing with intellectuals and their property? The C of C takes upon itself assistance in overthrowing established governments and installing U.S. controlled dictators, along with the National Assn. Of Manufacturers.
Intellect has absolutely nothing to do with the Chamber of Commerce, whose sole purpose is to promote savage capitalism-i.e., the most work during the longest workday with the fewest people for the lowest possible pay, nothing more.
Three cheers for the Yes Men! May they continue their fine work!
Sue for what? Plunder infringement?
blindfold them and make them walk the planc - of course Planc might have some interesting input...
Go Yes Men. We need more people who expose groups like the C of C and the WTO for what they are...those who perpetrate disception and commit extortion for corporate financial gain.
It looks as if everyone feels identity theft is OK as long as its for something you favor.
This strikes me as quite a difference in tone from last year.
In rhetorical David versus Goliath battles some of us prefer to support the little guy, others prefer to support the bully. Given the choice I'll go with the Davids in this world every time. This is because when you support the Goliath bullies it only makes their future behavior bolder, more reckless, and more vicious.
I'm not sure that The Chamber of Commerce is doing themselves any favors with this lawsuit. I had already pretty much forgotten about the whole issue. But now with this lawsuit it has refreshed it in my mind and made me resolve to do my best not to purchase things from companies that are members of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Who knows maybe they'll sue me for not wanting to do business with them, because that's what bullies do, they like to intimidate people. Man do I hate bullies.
Identity theft???
Even the C of C isn't claiming that - only copyright infringement - which is highly arguable since the Yes Men's use of the logo for parody meet the requirements under Fair Use - 17 USC 107 et. seq.
A right winger is likewise free to use the logo of, say, Z Magazine or Code Pink for parody or criticism anytime they want.
Geez henry should Bill Clinton sue Saturday Night Live? I have seen those folk give a whole lot of press conferences pretending to be spokespersons for the Office of the President.
Why they even use the Presidential seal.
"However, the law is clear that you can't misappropriate others' intellectual property for personal financial gain."
There was no personal financial gain, the copyrighted material was uused for the purpose of non-commercial teaching and criticism, and in no way hurt the value of the logo. Therefore, it is fully allowed under Fair Use (17 USC 107). In particular, there is a large body of legal precedent protecting the use of copyrighted material in works of parody.
But unfortunately, defending Fair Use in court costs a lot of money, and the lavishly corporate funded, lawter-laden US Chamber of Commerce knows this, and this the corporaions have been very efective in cowing anyone from asserting their Fair Use rights.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". The very phrase was completely unknown prior to the capitalist triumphalist era of 1990-present. Next time someone uses the expression, ask them to show the deed or title to this "property" or what courthouse it is filed in.
"There is no such thing as "intellectual property". The very phrase was completely unknown prior to the capitalist triumphalist era of 1990-present. Next time someone uses the expression, ask them to show the deed or title to this "property" or what courthouse it is filed in."
Are you suggesting that, for example, radio stations didn't have to pay royalties to play music before then? Or was it just not called 'intellectual property'?
No.
Of course a person or technical person (corporation) holding a copyright or patent has certain rights for a limited time under copyright of patent law - although under corporate pressure that time keeps getting longer and longer).
But limited rights and "property" are two different things.
Like I wrote, the expresson "intellectual property" didn't exist before the corporate triumphalist 1990's. And there is major corporate political agenda behind this use of this word. The first is to get people thinking that all their ideas are their, their families, and any corporation's who buys them, are permanent "property", just like land, deeded in the courthouse, until the end of time - instead of the limited rights that any sane patent or copyright law confers. Their ultimate objective is to remove term limits and broaden the applicability of all patent and coptright law so little of no human knowlege remains for free use in the public domain - all the way down to laws of physics - just like they are doing with air and water. For example, as an engineer, I'll have to pay some corporation a royalty every time I use Newtons laws ("F=ma" will be patented, forever and traded and speculted on Wall Street).
No, this isn't that far fetched. And if we let the vast body of human knowlege and wisdom, and technologies become "property", it will be the end the advancement of human knowlege because the very "sholders of the giants" that a scientist stands on will be private property!
Thanks for explaining.
"For example, as an engineer, I'll have to pay some corporation a royalty every time I use Newtons laws ("F=ma" will be patented, forever and traded and speculted on Wall Street).
No, this isn't that far fetched. And if we let the vast body of human knowlege and wisdom, and technologies become "property", it will be the end the advancement of human knowlege because the very "sholders of the giants" that a scientist stands on will be private property!"
And I think this is already happening. Hasn't some biotech or pharmaceutical company patented cancer cell genes, so that anyone using them to work on treatment or a cure will have to pay a huge royalty?
Yea. There was a lot of controversy regarding developing the human genome between the government NIH and private genetcs companies - because the NIH genes would be public domain, but the private human genes would be pantented and require any medical researcher to pay big for licenses in order to develop all kinds of cures for diseases. Which do you think should be done?
And right now, the development of electric vehicles is being hindered, and being made very expensive by huge patent fights over lithium ion technologies.
The absurdity almost makes you want to cry, doesn't it? We're putting the possibility of saving ourselves from extinction so some corporation can make a bigger fucking profit.
[There is no such thing as "intellectual property".]
Patents - aka "intellectual property" - have been issued in the usa and other nations for over FIVE HUNDRED years!
If someone invents a new way of doing things, shouldn't they have some right to profit from cluing into that invention? If someone composes a brilliant poem or song, shouldn't they have the right to have their name on it and to profit when the poem/song is recited/sung?
You're quite right that defending things in court cost a lot of money, fortunately for the yes men, the Chamber (pots) case is so very weak it's likely to be tossed out on the first day.
"If someone invents a new way of doing things, shouldn't they have some right to profit from cluing into that invention? If someone composes a brilliant poem or song, shouldn't they have the right to have their name on it and to profit when the poem/song is recited/sung?"
Only in for limited time and conditions, in accordance with patent and copyright law. This is a very different concept than "property". For example, the expression of a physical law (F=ma, E=IR, E = h nu, F = G m1m2/r^2 etc.) or life forms, are, and should remain, NEVER patentable - yet we are seeing corporations successfully starting to do this. And patents and cpoyrights should never be in perpetuity, yet corporations are constantly getting government to extend the terms of patents and especially copyrights.
And, someone does not have an automatic inalenable "right" to any idea thay may come up with. Patent and coptright law was developed, first and foremost to serve the public interest. Ther are arguable cases in history where the pace of innovation actually increases when there are no patent laws at all.
If patents were always considered "property" why was term "intelectual property" only invented in the 1990's.
It is frightening that otherwise progressive people cannot see this. "Homo capitalisticus indeed!
Reead my response to zmann. too.
Ok, I see where you're coming from. I agree that no one has an automatic 'right' to any idea that they come up with, especially if the idea is something like a physical law.
But the idea of 'intellectual property' has existed for a while, usually called copyright law. That's where you write a song, play or poem and it is considered to be yours.
I've always thought 'intellectual property' was just a rebranding of what was once called copyright. As the way copyrights used to work (post a copy of what you wrote thru the mail and that's proof of ownership) was demolished in court when the post office told the judge that they'd deliver and postmark an empty package...
Of course in the 90s it became much easier to copy a movie/book/song and distribute it without paying the producer/writer/artist.
You are confusing patents with trademarks. Patents are for inventions and have nothing to do with the law suit against the Yes Men. What is alleged, I think, is an infringement of CoC's trademark, that is it's name, logo, letterhead, etc. It's b.s., since it was social advocacy and parody, but it's important to understand what is being alleged.
Josh
"Power coceded nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Frederick Douglass
But if you work for a company, any idea you come up with in their employ automatically is "owned" by the company becasue of course the worker is also "owned". Is this not true? Why would any engineer do any thining other than what is required knowing that his genius will be legally stolen from him to further enrich his corporate patron?
Only one solution revoke corporate personhood....
In Canada the corporation actually has to get you to sign away your rights of ownership if you work for them. It's why I don't work for any tech support company any longer.
You have heard of the term 'wage slave' haven't you? Of course the company thinks that the people who work for them are their property. The company demands that you prove you're not doing drugs, demands that you show support for the boss' political party (if they could find out how you actually voted they might fire you), they demand that the word 'union' never comes out of your mouth.
If only one could prove that the company thought and acted that way, you'd be able to prosecute them for violating that constitutional amendment that argues that one can't own a human being...
Patents which provide alternatives to fossil fuel technology have been bought up by the oil and motor corporations since decades and have vanished in their vaults to prevent competition. This happens within other technologies as well. Therefore I regard patenting laws as severely limiting to development and progress.
A patent has a life expectancy, after 20 years the technology is open for anyone to use. So any of those twenty year old patents are fair game for you to use and sell to save energy, if they work at all...
This shows either how deranged the CoC's profit-focused monomania is, or that they're poor bs-ers regarding the complaint that the the hoax was profit-driven.
It may be that the CoC is so deluded it is impossible to imagine a motive for any activity, other than profit.
Yeah, the Yes-men have a movie out (not nation-wide, I don't think,) but the argument that every prank they've ever done was in planning for the movie and the loads of money they thought it would one day generate is pretty f-ing ridiculous, and I hope the judge sees this.
It was my understanding that copyright laws were originally intended to prevent people from siphoning off income from the actual authors. It will be impossible for the CoC to demonstrate a loss of profit from this prank. If anything, the member businesses would benefit by having a more "green" reputation.
Unfortunately, litigation in this domain has been used to shut people up (I remember a couple of parody websites that also had to shut down because they used government logos) and the case should be used to clarify this abuse of the law.
Does anyone know what the CoC is asking for damages?
Great, the Yes Men can't buy fantastic publicity like this.
They can milk this for months, and use it as a stage to increase their critique of the Chamber of Scammerce
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
It would appear as if the PR flacks of the US Chamber of Commerce have, to borrow the expression from the U.K., lost the plot. I write this because this case has the potential to turn into, in a manner of speaking, the US version of the "McLibel" Case. It will give the Yes Men the sort of publicity that they could not even imagine to buy for years to come if the US Chamber follows through on their threats. Also, what is to stop another incarnation of the Yes Men from carrying on, posting YouTube videos from a foreign jurisdiction that does not honor US civil court judgments? One must note that this action by the US Chamber is indicative of a US corporate right wing that has begun to believe its' own tone deaf BS.
"these acts are nothing less than commercial identity theft masquerading as social activism"
No, they are social activism masquerading as comercial identities.
Sheeesh, how do you ever expect to fix a problem when you don't understand the situation?
Go Yes Men.
exactly! I believe they call it "reverse identity theft" - steal people's identities to make them be better!
Who's going to sue the Chamber for impersonating human beings?
TOUCHE!!! BRILLIANT!!
Fair use of copyrights for political satire.
It shows the Chamber can't take a joke and a frivolous law suit over frivolity does not help commerce.
Chamber of Commerce AND "intellectual property"?
That does not compute.
But this No More Mister Nice Guy response nicely undermines the business wingnuts self-serving boo-hooing about "frivolous lawsuits".
"Frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder, and it's no surprise that the fattest oxen are the ones who squeal loudest when "gored"-- even if it's just a paper cut.
And, just for lagniappe:
♬ The ghost of Belle Starr she hands down her wits
To Jezebel the nun she violently knits
A bald wig for Jack the Ripper who sits
At the head of the Chamber of Commerce
Mama's in the fact'ry
She ain't got no shoes
Daddy's in the alley
He's lookin' for food
I'm in the kitchen
With the tombstone blues ♬
-- Bob Dylan, "Tombstone Blues"
· Yr Obd't Servant
We need a hundred "Yes Men" groups.
I am going to look for the chamber of commerce in stores and avoid the store or tell them to quit the fascist group. I see no basis for lawsuit. The yes men were clearly recognizable as a satire to anyone with half a brain.
Are the chamber legal beagles going to admit they are both clueless and stupid? Perhaps they will admit they have been under a rock? Even FAUX NOOZ has probably covered the YES MEN.
THE HUMAN UNION---HU ARE YOU.
Membership---Everybody is already in it. Call your Chamber of Commerce to opt out.
Rejoin at any time.
Dues---Pay it forward with solidarity, common sense and good will.
Leadership---Apache nantan, talk it up, see what happens.
Tactics---Peaceful, Speaking Truth to Power, Resist, Occupy, Produce.
Goals---Fair pay, Fair play, Justice under the Law, Benefits to the Seventh Generation. No War.
One Planet, One People.
IF NOT NOW---WHEN?
CORP IS BORG.