Flock Misappropriates MythBusters (Public Report)Javascript is disabled. Enable javascript to view IPVM.<br>Contact us at info@ipvm.com for help.

Flock Misappropriates MythBusters<br>IT

IPVM Team<br>•Published Jun 15, 2026 18:37 PM

PUBLIC - This article does not require an IPVM subscription. Feel free to share.

MythBusters is one of the most recognized science brands in television history, built on the credibility of rigorous, independent testing. Flock used it to promote its legal talking points.

Executive Summary

Flock appropriated the MythBusters brand to endorse its legal positions without permission, reproducing the show's name, hosts' photos, logos, and format. A senior Flock staffer, formerly CIO of the DC Metro Police, defended it as parody. That defense does not hold up under trademark law for commercial uses. MythBusters host Jamie Hyneman told IPVM he was not aware of any permissions being granted and would not want to be associated with immigration enforcement. Flock deleted the post after IPVM's inquiry.

It is a small example of a larger pattern: a company that markets itself on legal accountability while applying that standard selectively to itself.

The Flock MythBusters Post

Flock's Strategic Relations manager David Clow published a LinkedIn post built around a graphic replicating the MythBusters brand: the show name, Discovery Channel logo, photos of hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, the warehouse-and-goggles format, and the "Myth: Busted" verdict structure, all applied to Flock's legal talking points. Flock's Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley is placed between Savage and Hyneman in the graphic, holding a Flock camera.

Clow is a former Chief Information Officer of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., one of the country's largest urban police forces.

IPVM asked Clow whether Flock had obtained permission to use MythBusters' intellectual property. He wrote:

"It's called a pop-culture metaphor, not marketing. The law heavily protects parody, satire, and fair use. No endorsement implied — just a sharp analogy for how easily those myths get busted by actual facts."

That defense does not hold up. Nor did Clow offer the simpler answer: that Flock had obtained a license. Given the controversies surrounding Flock, rights holders would likely view any such arrangement as an endorsement of a highly publicized and contested company, making a license far less obtainable in practice.

The IP Problem

"MYTHBUSTERS" is a registered trademark, Registration #3960627, owned by Discovery Communications, LLC. Warner Bros. Discovery, which now holds the IP, actively defended that mark as recently as 2023, opposing a third-party attempt to register it after the mark had lapsed. The brand remains in active commercial use through reruns and licensing.

IPVM contacted Warner Bros. Discovery about whether the post raised IP concerns; the company has not yet responded. Clow's defense invokes fair use, parody, and satire. Those doctrines exist in both copyright and trademark law, but they are a weaker defense under trademark, particularly for commercial uses. Courts give parody and fair use claims little weight when the use is promotional rather than commentary on the mark itself.

The more relevant protection here is trademark. A trademark parody defense requires that the use comment on or critique the original mark itself. Flock's post does not comment on MythBusters. It borrows MythBusters' credibility, format, and brand recognition to promote Flock's own legal claims. That is precisely the conduct trademark law is designed to prevent: unauthorized commercial use of a mark in a way that leads consumers to believe the mark's owner endorsed or sponsored the product being promoted. Someone encountering Clow's post could reasonably conclude that MythBusters or Discovery had partnered with Flock.

The CLO Problem

The post is sharpened by who appears in it. Dan Haley is Flock's Chief Legal Officer, a Harvard Law graduate who previously served as senior legal counsel at athenahealth, Sprinklr, and Guild. His image, name, and professional identity are the face of the campaign. He did not post it. He is not the one defending it. His own face appears in content that infringes on someone else's IP, and Flock's Strategic Relations manager is the one offering the legal rationale, using the wrong doctrine. IPVM contacted Haley directly for comment; he has not yet responded.

Flock markets itself to cities and police departments on the strength of its legal transparency and accountability frameworks. Its CLO is its public face on those claims. The same CLO's image now appears in a post built on someone else's IP, defended by a non-lawyer invoking copyright doctrine in response to a trademark question.

MythBusters Host Response

IPVM reached out to MythBusters hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, explaining the controversy surrounding Flock, including documented association with immigration enforcement, and...