I did write one about the Guy Fawkes mask selling faster in the U.S. than in the U.K. and being mentioned seven times more often as the "Anonymous" mask than as "Guy Fawkes" mask, which makes for convincing evidence that Guy's new relevance is in U.S. digital politics, not traditional British bonfire nights.
Even more ironic would be the revelation that some members of Anonymous use Visa, Mastercard or PayPal for their personal finances, despite highly publicized attacks by Anonymous against those companies for refusing to take donations to WikiLeaks to help pay for the legal defense of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
It's possible some of the Anonymi and 4Chan trolls even enrich others on the list of companies it has attacked verbally and online by choosing to use Playstation3 consoles, playing Sony video games, ride public transit in San Francisco, live under the protection of the U.S. military, pay taxes that pay salaries of the FBI agents who investigate Anonymous hackers and even live in the same country as the U.S. Senate that was hacked by the particularly obnoxious Anonymous spinoff LulzSec earlier this summer.
Yes, it's funny that a primary symbol of a group opposed to the manipulation and exploitation of individuals would be owned by one of the companies most effective at using those strategies.
It's also ironic buying or using the symbol would enrich that company.
Copyrighted versions of a single image are not the only representation of that image, however.
There are dozens of other Guy Fawkes masks sold by British companies. Only one version of the 17th century anarchist's face is copyrighted by Time Warner, and that one only because of a movie that had nothing to do with Guy Fawkes, though its hero was also a doomed dissident.
Even copyrighted images only represent ideas, not encapsulate them.