Message on their website: Hello one and all. I am the manager of the company Early Flicker. On the filing of logos and my company by Anonymous credo that the media briefing recently, here is my full response to the questions you may be asking: Errors in some communication about this move were made, and it seems important to provide the necessary clarifications on what you see, I think wrongly, as a disgrace. Early Flicker The company is a small company that offers people to customize various objects in the image of countries, characters or ideas they advocate. Profits are minimal, we only sell 2 or 3 items per day but the idea was friendly, playful and excited me. Often when a client from a site like this one a control model (and c ' is the case at all sites of this type, a large majority also offer logos and creed Anonymous), the vendor must verify that these images are free for use, the risk of legal difficulties. So I regularly checked for any filing of these models until several months ago (February 2012), when I had the idea to place them myself. These were then guaranteed to be usable in a free and legal ... for all! Since the tabling NO BAN has been established for their use, and not one cent has been claimed through copyright. I recall that when submitting a logo, exclusivity does not return to the depositary by its own actions, namely the prohibition to sell to others. But in many months this has never been done (I did not wait two days to choose this course of action), and never will. Yet on the Internet, the target would have been many! The idea itself of getting rich by opposing a copyright (an icon that I am not the author) to people who identify with certain principles that I fully understand because of my profession, and which I believe , I never came to mind. Evidence, I thought gained about my action, I was not pushed to justify it, which I guess explains the anger and indignation of some of of you today. It seems that the information was relayed only a few days ago, my action was so far gone unnoticed, for the simple reason that I have not sought to assert anything, or "make a buzz." The deposit was made in the absolute discretion in February and had then made no waves. I'm still within the scope of amazement at the madness that FOLLOWS today, but at least has the merit of demonstrating our responsiveness to threats against our freedom of expression. Maybe a little less naive on my part would have avoided this situation, but I confess to not seeing things as they are presented to date. The deposit is not expensive, and ensures a perfect freedom of action, the questions asked by the media on "the objective of such an act" have not asked me. Let's be clear, it is absolutely no question of creating a "brand name" Anonymous. I do not produce the series, but for unity and to demand, I have never sold wholesale t-shirts bearing the image of the movement, I do makes a label or symbol of recognition of my products. I'm just asking an image on an object, the client's choice, as do hundreds of other sites like mine. It is indeed important that everyone is aware (myself included) as logos and creeds Anonymous, non- just not mine, but belong to no one, it is perhaps not so unacceptable that they are protected by someone who will not seek to benefit, and that sometimes it can be wise to use enemy weapons to defend themselves (why not to copyright). Some say it's the whole principle of Creative Commons, however, given the problems raised by the current case, one can legitimately ask whether this is sufficient protection. But all this can of course be discussed, opinions may differ, of course, on this point, I can easily understand, and I understand all the better after hearing the opinion of many, which I did not expect really. This deposit would, however, been done by someone more malicious that would have prohibited the reproduction and distribution, what we are all agreed to deny. This danger still exists in all other states. I recognize of course that the original idea did not go so far ... it was just to make sure that nothing would prevent the dissemination of these logos, by myself or another. But before the attacks of which I am the target I think it's also good to expose my own principles. I confirm publicly vouch for their free use and legal in France by all who recognize in the ideals of Anonymous, and this as long as I will be allowed by supporters of the movement. Again, so far I've never been away from this path, it is easy to check. Moreover, without the buzz created by news sites, not by my company, nothing has changed regarding the use of these logos and creed, and the deposit might even remain silent for months or even years ... I hope my message has succeeded, he would doubtless have been wiser to get the agreement in advance of any authority, but by definition Anonymous has no authority one contact . I do not pose as staunch defender of the ideals of Anonymous, but as someone (like many others) who want to help free those who recognize themselves to enact and defend their ideas, just finally someone who decides that a t-shirt bearing the image of a historical figure. This is all done to the original mission of my website and in no way precludes, on the contrary, the Anonymous movement. To conclude, it is certainly not pleasant to me to see my website and my mailboxes stormed, but believe that given the relative importance of a company like mine, objectives dishonest that I see are decked out much more painful than the bankruptcy of my business. I currently trading with a supporting committees of France Anonymous, at their request, I will do what they please in the interest of the movement. Site activities will resume once the dispute resolved. Yours. M. Auffret. "