French “Three-Strikes” Agency Logo Violates Copyright

Agency to be charged with overseeing the country’s controversial plan for disconnecting illegal file-sharers from the Internet unveils new logo using typeface without permisssion of the copyright holder.

In a delcious bit of irony, the French govt agency tasked with enforcing a controversial “three-strikes” law that will allow authorities to disconnect illegal file-sharers from the Internet unveiled its official new logo to the public only to discover that it was used without permission of the copyright tholder.

That’s right, the Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des Oeuvres et la Protection des droits sur Internet (HADOPI) is itself guilty of copyright infringement.

The logo uses a “Bonjour” typeface that was created by by graphic designer Jean-Francois Porchez whom sold it for exclusive use by France Telecom.

The design agency that created the logo for HADOPI admits it was it mistake and that the design had since been “tweaked,” bu Porchez says that legal action is still an option.

“My lawyer will contact the culture ministry and France Telecom in the hope of finding a solution,” he told the Telegraph.

The affair is just another example of the repeated instances of copyright infringemnt by the French govt, and certainyly illustartes why the public is so concerned about “three-strikes” sanctions. If the govt, with all of its legal respoucres, can make a mistake not once, but no less than 4 times and counting over the past year alone, then what hope does the average Joe (or Jacque in this case) have?

For if you recall, first it was accusations by US indie band MGMT last February that the UMP was using its popular song Kids at the party’s national congress and in two online videos and political advertisements without permission.

Then France’s presidential audio services, the Service audiovisual de la présidence de la République, was exposed making some 400 unauthorized copies of the documentary A visage découvert : Nicolas Sarkozy.

The DVD’s producer, Galaxie Press, had apparently only shipped 50 copies to the govt agency, well short of what was needed, so it decided to make additional copies on its own, even going so far as to replace the Galaxie Press logo with its own.

Fasat forward to last month when it was accused by the Canadian Musicor Quebecois record label for using a song in a lipdup video without permission.

So far implementation of “three-strikes” plan has been delayed until April. Lets hope it becomes delayed permanently.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]

Tags hadopi
Jared Moya

I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates.


Well, its obvious big players can say "fuck copyright". After all, who the fuck wanted copyright eh? Lets break it and give a fuck about the authors. Copyright infringement is a double edge sword. While we obviously see the "big" players breaking copyright (in this case the french gov), what about individuals?. From my point of view, copyright infringement should be encouraged for profesionals, big enterprices and people who can afford it. While those who cant afford it (as is my case), can get music albums for free. Otherwise, copyright infringement will turn into a tool for prosecuting the individuals. A political prosecution tool.And this is possibly what the music industry wants to do finally, just another social control tool. It will be VERY hard to achieve, that copyright laws can protect the little (the individuals), and force the big ones to respect this law when it comes to single individuals. And in the inverted example, when organized individuals violate copyright to break down the big projects/copyright holders, it will, aswell, be very hard to realize this is happening and hard to encourage a non destructive conduct by these organized individuals. Its hard to protect individuals, from other organized individuals. Its easy, in this modern world of spy nanotechnology and "big brother"-like control, to organize individuals to break other individuals. Can in any case copyright laws protect my thoughts? my small creatinons? from being stolen by big companies and used in their products? if we know they can spy every inch of our privacy? even our thoughts? its disgusting and im sure copyright laws cant protect us from this.


This is more proof that copyright simply doesn't work, and that in its current form only makes day to day business much less efficient. As it stands copyright simply adds to bureaucracies, and in many cases fails to do its initial task of creating value out of intellectual property. A new approach needs to be taken on intellectual property, one that allows the free flow of information while compensating the artists. Until that happens the farce will continue.