Slashdot Mirror
IOC Claims Olympian Lindsey Vonn's Name As Intellectual Property
gehrehmee writes "As usual, the International Olympic Committee is coming down on hard on people mentioning things related to the Olympics without permission. This time it's UVEX sporting supplies, which sponsors Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn. Without explaination, their front page was today updated to include a tongue-in-cheek poem about UVEX's interaction with the IOC. Can the IOC really claim an Olypmian's name as their own intellectual property?"
Of course they can claim her name as their I.P. They can also claim to be from the planet Xenu, or they can claim to be 2,000-year-old leprechauns. Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property until a court has made the decision.
For a great example of other lawyers claiming untrue things, look at BoingBoing's laugh at Demi Moore's lawyers' expense. They claimed that BoingBoing was slandering Demi Moore by saying her image was photoshopped, when clearly it was not photoshopped as attested to by the sworn testimony of the photographers.
So the IOC can claim that Lindsey Vonn is made out of ice cream, milkweed pods, and sandpaper, if they want. Won't make it true. If UVEX wasn't getting such a good laugh out of this stupidity, I hope they'd have the integrity to restore Lindsey's name to their web site.
John
and the answer to your question is: NO.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
But there is right-of-publicity, and commercial use has different rules than editorial use; Olympians -- excuse me: "atheletes who compete in the biannual international sporting events held around the world -- may sign an agreement that restricts them from allowing companies to use their names commercially without their own agreement with the IOC.
While the person that rightfully owns their name can allow others to use their name for financial gain, they cannot give ownership of their name away. If they did manage to do this, hopefully IOC sues them into oblivion because she took 'their' name when she was born.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
If her sponsors are paying for her lessons, her training, and her equipment - they have more rights to her name than any olympic body. She wouldn't be at the olympics without her sponsor. The IOC did not pay Lindsey Vonn anything - if she won a medal and it was decided that medalists receive a cash prize (as the US olympic comitee has done in the past) then that was her earning, and it could have gone to anyone just as much as it was her, so its not considered payment.
If I were Uvex, I would counter-sue, claiming that they have more right to the name.
Just add this to the MASSIVE list of failures at this Winter Olympics, namely: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35464927/ns/world_news-vancouver_winter_olympics/
"To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.
New Economic Perspectives
The IOC has claimed the term 'CANADA' as their exclusive intellectual property
Wherever You Go, There You Are
And vancouver rocks,
Lots of rocks, sure, but too bad about that snow.
And we're gonna win the gold in both mens and womens hockey, cuz we all know that the winter olympix are just aa huge hockey tournament with a bunch of other sports going on...
You seem obsessed with sports, ie 'physical activity' and claiming that someone else's physical activity makes you somehow better. Are you sure you're on the right site?
Qxe4
"I think you got an offtopic, troll, flamebait, and over-rated all in one go."
4 in one just like your mom last night
.
It depends upon the contract that the Olympian signed in order to compete in the Olympics. My opinion is that the Olympians have to sign away everything but their first-born in order to be allowed to compete in the Olympics.
I no longer view the Olympics as an idealistic sporting event. I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.
I really want to watch the Olympics. I'm not much of a sports person, playing or watching, but I can't deny that it's inspiring to watch people who have spent their lives dedicated to one goal competing with each other and showing what they and the human race are capable of. I really really want to honor their efforts and cheer on every single person that has made it so far.
Unfortunately the organizers of this competition are the world's worst abusers of IP law and international politics, and flat out get away with open bribery. It's the best of the best sponsored by the worst of the worst. I'm sorry, I hate doing it, but I have to boycott the Olympics. If the IOC ever cleans up their act or another organization can organize a world competition that attracts the best athletes I'll watch. Until then, I won't.
...of possibility. VANOC, the Sponsors, and the IOC have done a number of things that could be considered downright criminal.
- Closing two of the main viaducts in and out of downtown.
- No stopping zones on large stretches of major roads.
- Only accepting Visa or cash at all the venues.
- Only allowing games related traffic on the road between Vancouver and Whistler during most hours of the day.
I tried to create a rumour that Bell, another major Olympic sponsor, was forcing the shutdown of all non-Bell cell sites around the venues, but I don't think people understood the implications of that if it were to happen.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
It's too bad there isn't a "-1 Canadian" mod.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Seriously, I haven't watched any of this years or the last olympics. Total waste of time. Home Shopping Channel is less boring.
all that matters is CANADA WON ANOTHER GOLD today!
And we're gonna win the gold in both mens and womens hockey, cuz we all know that the winter olympix are just aa huge hockey tournament with a bunch of other sports going on...
Shut up you iceholes!
Once respected now just trashed. ISO was destroyed in my eyes by the whole Microsoft debacle. (some would say long before that, but I knew nothing of ISO's procedures or problems before Microsoft's involvement.) The IOC's pure greed and nonsense over the past few years had convinced me that the Olympics just ain't cool any more.
...but they sure make lousy poetry.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
In the past, the IOC's have been a bunch of Narcissistic, money grubbing vampires that make the RIAA look like Sunday-School teachers; It's not out of character for them to not only claim a competitor's name, but their first-born child. a Strategy of sue everybody and let the courts figure it out isn't foreign to them either.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
may be you will have a chance in your next life.
New Economic Perspectives
1. They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.
2. The name is not trademarked, as there are many people with that name, and many of them ski.
3. Lawyers hate America, so they can claim anything, and also be WRONG. For example, the activist US Supreme Court claims that Corporations are People and have the same rights as Citizens, which no sane citizen agrees with.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I believe you meant to say +1 Canadian.
Because, let's be fair, Canada has three gold medals, neener neener, and there's nothing you can do about that mark of excellence.
Eh?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The "parent" is dead wrong. The IOC does business in the US and has assets here.
I propose we inaugurate a new set of weekly, monthly and yearly Streisand awards. For this, I'd like to Nominate for all three categories this most boneheaded request of the IOC.
In the meantime, lets help UVEX by directly linking their name (like I have here) with Vonn's name.
They can't stop the mob!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Did anyone here even watch her downhill skiing victory? If her sob performance at the end is any indicator, the next two months will see this woman occupying all TV air time with her incessant crying. Shit, I was embarrassed just to be watching her. Even Michael Phelps was more pleasant to watch speak by comparison.
So, is anyone ACTUALLY mentioning Lindsey Vonn -- and not ridiculing her?
(Internet tough guy logging off...)
Two gold medals. The women's downhill medal was won by Lindsey Vonn who competed for the IOC. At least the IOC say so and they're the experts.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Blame Canada.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
If the name is the IOC's IP, even if only temporarily, then their gripe is with Ms rhymes with Bonn. She presumably signed a contract with Uvex and also presumably with the IOC. If the IOC can enforce anything it would be against her not the company. The IOC's rights do not negate an existing contract which allows Uvex to use her image.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
We've got rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and ...
Waterrrrrrrr. In Canada, Canada ...
I like toast.
No frakin' way. Unleash the lawyer dogs. Only when used as stated above "Olympian Lindsay Vonn". They can NOT own facts. So stating the "Lindsay Vonn, Gold Metal Winner" can not be OWNED... it is a fact known to the world. Screw the IOC.
The greek games were always about rich people throwing money around for publicity.
Look up the history of the classical greek funeral games, which where the spiritual precursor to our Olympics.
You haven't seen the news today. They time delay it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I assume that UVEX is doing this in order to get more publicity then they would just get from Vonn's name alone. The very act of outing the IOC's request and pasting onto Slashdot has to be greater marketing then simply having her name on their opening page and hoping Google picks up the page change before the Olympic's are over.
But anyhow. Here is some real information about whether your marketing is (probably) infringing or not: http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/about-vanoc/the-vancouver-2010-brand/protecting-the-brand/business-community/business-community_88980js.html
Scroll down to "How does a business promote a non-2010 Winter Games sport sponsorship?" and you will see how to say what you want without tipping off on their infringement scale.
Still... you probably want to leave as is... now that Slashdot is advertising for you.
But to answer the poster: "No, the IOC does not hold rights to claim infringement on Lindsey Vonn's name."
I expect UVEX would know this. But in reality, their current setup is better marketing for them.
Forget right of publicity - since when can the IOC claim copyright on a fact? "Lindsey Vonn won Gold at the Vancouver Olympics" - how can this possibly infringe any copyright or even contract? I would assume that the same way you can't get someone to sign up as a slave, you can't get someone to sign over the rights to have facts distributed about them....
Is the IOC lawyer on crack? Wait, don't answer that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
VANOC trademarked the line, "With Glowing Hearts", which comes directly out of Canada's national anthem.
Today's Olympics are all about whoring themselves out to corporate sponsors, being absolute dicks to anyone who isn't one, and stiffing local taxpayers with the bills for years if not decades on end. If you're the type who worships at the altar of the free market, you've got to admire their ruthlessly perfect exploitation of it.
Some athletes compete in both summer and winter games, so biennial would be ok. (not that the parent used biEnnial.)
http://ask.yahoo.com/20060222.html for examples
who's the gay guy who modded this excellent post?
This is compounded by the fact that I called Vonn a Canadian when she's in fact from that funny country south of Canada. Which puts the United States on gold medal parity with Germany until the IOC has filed the paperwork to gain exclusive ownership of Madgalena Neuner.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yes, they are nearly keeping pace with Norway. Whoo.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
we luge.
don't worry, in the end the US will have more golds - thanks to our ace snowboarding skilz
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well, Norway does have cool pants.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Those whacky IOC ppl coming down all over those "hard on"s - how sexy!!
Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
The Olympic ideal is that if you're 0.02 seconds slower than someone else you're worthless. When's the last time you recalled the name of someone who came 5th at a non-current Olympic event. Stuff that for a joke. That ain't something I'm teaching my kid.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So, assuming that the IOC can require competitors to - temporarily - sign over their names as IP, what happens if the athlete already has a contract with a third party?
linquendum tondere
May it please the court: it is i
Yes olympic athlete + geek is a possible combination...
I can infact (or at least as far as Australian Olympians are concerned) confirm that you sign MANY papers that sign away the right to your name, image, performance (still dont know how they use that) and other things away to the national olympic body which in turn signs their right to the IOC.
So they will have jurisdiction via the national olympic committee, and even if the company gives the IOC the bird, they can get back at the company by putting pressure on the athlete.
Also it is VERY slack on her part. You are given multiple opportunities to inform the relevant bodies about any sponsorship agreements you have (so those guys WONT get hassled). And if she didnt inform them of it, then either she will get into shit (if company gets their lawyers) or the company will.
If the company is using it without her knowledge, then good on the IOC. Because that means the athlete is being taken advantage of by the company. If the company wants to be associated with the athlete, they should pay!
Most olympians have to work part time (with large amounts of unpaid holidays), and their sporting pursuit costs them MAJOR money to do. So they NEED every dollar they can get (yes some olympians are cashed up but they are a minority).
If you go to IOC FaceBook site and post anything concerning this story, the post is immediately removed. EVERYONE should go there and Post Go Olympians! Boo IOC! and see if they can delete posts as fast as we can write them.
So I guess if you see less stuff about the Olympics, and it's mentioned in fewer places, it'll become less popular. What's the point of that?
>=1
i'll like to see the IOC send a letter to Reebok and Gatorade claiming that Sidney Crosby as their own intellectual property. Wonder how well that would go over?
I think the Olympics have already been stolen, so it's time for the thieves making such outrageous ownership claims to walk. A new Olympics charter needs to be formulated which returns the competition to it's original purpose: to provide a non commercial venue for international sporting competition. Really, it wouldn't take much. The athletes and the spirit and the competition are all there. So this can be a very small coup. Just eliminate the current crop of fat bankers and lawyers who's only interest in the event is making money. Fire their asses, and if they won't leave, just do it without them.
... protected directly by international treaty. Not only can they enforce that claim, but the Supreme Court itself can't say boo to the contrary.
Whoa! Citation please!
(Links to theory would be nice, but it really is only theory unless the Supreme Court has tried to overturn part of a treaty, and was denied.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
http://espn.go.com/action/news/story?id=4921916 "....Rule 41 in the International Olympic Committee's charter, the so-called "Blackout Rule," which bans competitors, coaches, trainers and officials participating in the Olympics from using their name or image for advertising during the Games. Only those whose sponsors pony up a substantial sum to be an official Olympic sponsor receive an exemption from the IOC's executive board."
TPJ - Founder, The Amazon Basin
I live in Vancouver. I could not agree with you more.
McDonald's started running an ad before the games. I think it speaks for itself. It shows a big box of golden french fries. Beside them the words "Why Wait? Go For Gold."
Last weekend, along with my wife and son, I visited one of the "free" events for Chinese New Year. We wanted to see a Chinese dragon, dancing, and so forth. At the entrance, volunteers searched my bag and poured out my bottle of water. This was for the benefit of Coca-Cola Corp., which was selling bottled tap water (Dasani is tap water) for $3.50. I was literally (I don't mean figuratively) spitting mad. You don't go somewhere with a little kid unless you have food and water.
Keep in mind that this is not a private party: it is funded by billions of public money and staffed with thousands of volunteers. We have shut down major streets, suspended colleges and universities for two weeks, and passed specific laws for the benefit of the Olympics. Or rather for the benefit of its sponsors.
But of course this is a "green" Olympics. As the Coke booth banner read, "Refresh. Recycle. Repeat." - and you can't recycle if you're already reusing! A sign on the booth said a green light would go on when the booth was running solely on solar power. A spokeswoman had gathered a crowd of children, who were competing in a Jeopardy-style contest to guess just how Green Coca-Cola is.
So yeah, that's what the Olympics does. It speaks of sport and healthy living, then promotes poison to kids. It exploits athletes who give decades of their lives and sign recording-industry-style contracts for the hope of a few minutes of fame. It exists outside the law (truly: a Canadian court ruled the Olympics violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but did nothing because the IOC is outside Canadian jurisdiction). It goes from city to city, arranging with politicians and business leaders to transfer public money into private pockets.
I hope nobody points out that not-olympic-sponsor Nike mentions not just olympic athletes, but the Olympics themselves on one of their web pages:
Nike Training - Winter Olympics
(Strange, as far as I can tell, the Vancouver Olympic Committee has contracted with Nike to provide material for the games. So VOC is paying Nike, not Nike paying any OC.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Lindsey Vonn raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. She hasn't denied it!
Here's a fun one... I work for a web shop, one of our clients is a spa. They have a masseuse on staff who is presently in Vancouver working for Team USA. They indicated as much on their website last week. All they said was "our masseuse, Jane Doe, is in Vancouver working with team USA..."
Today they get a cease-and-desist phone call from IOC lawyers... WTF?? What's the point? How are they profiting from this kind of stupidity?
The Olympics killed my favorite card game/RPG franchise (well, its not 100% dead but its MUCH less popular now than it was). Legend of the Five Rings was threatened due to the fact the Olympics apparently own any symbol of "multiple interlocking rings", which they had on the backs of all their cards. As any card player could tell you, forcing all players to play their expensive cards with new backs is a good way to kill your game. Of course their five rings represented the 5 elements of the ancient Japanese world...and the game had absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics or even Greek history...
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
If the IOC claimed Lindsay Vonn as a tradmark, the cannot use a DMCA takedown to remove content. The C in DMCA is for Copyright. For trademark, you might get a "cease and desist" letter, but not a takedown notice.
-- $G
You are ridiculous, and have worked so hard to corrupt the very spirit of the once-wonderful games that you oversee (as if so many other decisions, like holding the games in China, did not do this well enough). So, take this, and you will NOT receive any royalties:
IOC IOC
Olympic Games! Olympic Games! Olympic Games! Olympic Games! Olympic Games!
IOC IOC!!!!
Olympic Games! Olympic Games! Olympic Games!
You suck. Aside from hockey, the families of the athletes, and old people watching figure skating for the music, no one gives a damn about the Winter Olympics(tm) anyway. You can't carry the World Cup's jock (that's an athletic supporter device, slashdotters). By holding your games (yes games, not sports, mostly) the same year as the World Cup, you have the second most important international athletic tournament of the year, meaning you probably shouldn't even bother. Way to go IOC!
No disrespect to Vancouver, an interesting and wonderfully eclectic city, or any other previous or future hosts. I'm sorry for the mockery you endure and the outrageous sums of money you spend in hopes of experiencing something in the same class as the real olympics. Your children will remember it far into the future, when they are living in the shoddy public housing that was built to house foreigners for two weeks instead of providing for good educations that might prevent them from needing such a thing.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I'm stuck in Vancouver right now and I've seen the mayhem and damage firsthand that those greedy fat fucks at the IOC can do. If your city ever gets a chance to to bid on having the olympics, don't. It would be much cheaper to actually pay another state or country to hold them.
I work for a prepress company whose major client is known for putting athletes on orange-colored cereal boxes. Lindsey Vonn is almost certain to appear on one of these boxes as well several other American medalists. Basically our understanding of the rule is that the athletes are free to sign agreements independent of their status as Olympic athletes but they cannot, under any circumstances, appear in marketing deals as an Olympic athlete without the IOC being party to the agreement.
Orange-colored cereal box distributor has been doing this for years without incident.
I imagine UVEX has rolled over without a fight to make sure the IOC doesn't attempt to involve Ms. Vonn in this issue. I think UVEX would easily win a court challenge, but what would it do to UVEX's ability to sponsor Olympic athletes if they are on the IOC shit list? And it could have implications for the athletes being sponsored as well. The IOC doesn't have to be right to win, unfortunately.
Who Dat?
"4 in one just like your mom last night"
OK, I can figure 3. Where'd #4 go, in her ear?
... and all the silly, heinous, disgusting, awkward, hateful, tragic and horrifying ways that it finds its way to distort human interaction.
The simple fact this story is even out makes me want to boycott anything "Olympic" and especially Olympic with Lindsey Vonn.
So take that IOC Intellectual Propertards..
To hell with your fucking corporate nonsense you greedy fucking pricks
I don't care how powerful the IOC is, I draw the line when the IOC claims to own her period. Stop the trafficking of women's bodily functions now!
..no reason not to have copyright on it..
since when can the IOC claim copyright on a fact?
If I recall correctly the IOC pursues most of its more ridiculous legal actions based upon trademark laws, not copyright. Trademark simply involves the use of words, and whether they are used to describe a fact doesn't always matter in therms of trademark. If somebody publicises the phrase "Lindsey Vonn won Gold at the Vancouver Olympics" the IOC can, if they feel like being especially nasty pricks, send you a C&D for using the word "Olympics" without their permission, even if it is simply part of a factual statement--and it is possible that the use of an athlete's name could be regulated under trademark law as well. However, you aren't supposed to be able to trademark generic words or the names of people or places unless you are the person or entity with that name or own that property/location (or you've granted/sold rights to someone else to handle the use of said trademark). For example you cannot trademark the use of "Martha Stewart" unless that happens to be your name (and the most famous person of that name does in fact assert trademark rights to her name).
Trademark holders don't normally pursue legal action against the casual use of their trademarks under a certain number of circumstances (news reports, most product reviews and so on) when there is no case to be made that the person who used the trademark for the purposes of trade (ie. to promote or identify their business). However, because UVEX is the sponsor of Lindsey Vonn, and is not in the business of news reporting but rather selling the type of gear that she uses, the IOC in their "wisdom" probably concluded that the mention of Vonn's win on their front page constituted the use of her name to promote their products in association with the Olympics in which she competed. That would be considered the use of an Olympic-associated name, or "mark", for the purposes of "trade"...trademark...and IOC I guess knows or believes they have those rights at least for anything related to the Olympic Games (r) (tm).
Even more outrageously, becasue Olympic organisers are typically heavily subsidised by governments of various levels they are considered what in Canada are termed "public authorities" which gives them in some respects legal status equal to the UN, government departments (including the offices of the Prime Minister, RH Governor General and HRH Queen of Canada) and law enforcement agencies. Yes, it literally means that the use of any symbol, word, phrase or name associated with the Olympic games is legally equivalent to a Royal Warrant and the legal consequences of unauthorised use is similar). As such they merely have to declare public use and they can pursue all use of trademarked words RETROACTIVELY, for ANY purpose if they really want to! As a public authority they can even go after certain cases of "ambush marketing" which is what they might say UVEX is doing--that is when a business infers official association with a public authority it does not actually have without explicitly using a trademark (for example souvenir carts selling t-shirts and other kitch with the Canadian flag or "Vancouver, BC" and a generic illustration of a hockey player or skier in Downtown Vancouver). There is historical precedent in law where small businesses who were sponsors of ATHLETES (which is NOT considered affiliation with the actual olympics) "abused" that sponsorship to the point some might think they were sponsors of the GAMES. That precedent gave the IOC an inch and now they have stretched it to a mile and the mere mention of the olympics or any of the events is grounds to threaten legal action. As a public authority they've even been able to shut down charity campaigns and non-profit events!
Actual, normal human beings (as opposed to IP lawyers) would probably see this as asinine...is that not one of the purposes of sponsorship--promotion affiliated with an athlete's activities of any kind in exchange for funding, equipment, etc? Isn't the insistence
back 1.5 years ago i made a comment saying if things went at that rate (then and now), in 10 years' time we wouldnt be able to even use common daily words among ourselves because some bastard would own their copyright. you people went out to make a running gag on me, claiming intellectual property on stuff in my post.
however check it out. just this week, a bastard (or a number of bastards) were able to go as far to claim someone's name as intellectual property. from there to here, since then until now. it wont even take 10 years it seems.
my point is that, if you allow some mechanism that can be abused, exploited, it WILL be abused, exploited. tangible assets as property is one thing, but once you allow 'owning' intellectual thoughts, concepts, that ends up in hampering mankind's progress because it will eventually prevent free exchange, use and progress of ideas, even very concept of 'thought' itself.
Read radical news here
Most people fold.
most people fold. and most people HAVE to fold because they cant risk relying on streisand effect, their or his/her jurisdiction, chances and so on. these are risks too high for individuals to take. however they are minor risks for big companies. once an individual takes the risk and loses, leave aside his/her life, but also his/her children's, dependants' lives will be over due to paranormal amounts of 'damages' s/he will have to pay.
NOONE can take that risk.
thats why the system is broken, and always works in favor of big companies, and the concepts of copyright and intellectual property need to be whacked down.
Read radical news here
does she, or does she not use their products ?
isnt this a fact ? it is evident that she uses their products, not because they sponsored her, but their products are good. it is a FACT. you cant copyright facts.
Read radical news here
...and as such "they win" in terms of precedence regarding trademark (note that this is probably NOT a copytight case--it is strictly TRADEMARK I'm talking about and there are significant legal differences between those forms of IP).
In Canadian legal parlance a "public authority" is a body with some official governing status. This includes governments ranging from local to national and international bodies like the UN.
As such, the use of Olympic marks is given the same protection afforded to such marks as Royal Warrants, names and logos of government departments, logos depicting police badges and so on. The rights of public authorities supercede ALL OTHER RIGHTS and do so retroactively, rendering any trademark rights afforded by sponsorship agreements with third parties void. They can assert their rights over the use of Olympic-affiliated emblems, words, names and phrases in Canada the same way the RCMP can exercise its authority over the use of the iconic red serge uniform and the Queen can allow the use of the phrase "By appointment to the Queen..." phrase on a bottle of HP.
The IOC, COA and/or VANOC, as public authorities, may not even have to make any public assertion regarding an athletes' name as a trademark, nor would they have to establish an agreement regarding the use of an athlete's name. A case could be made (unreasonable or not) for "ambush marketing" where a registered trademark isn't explicitly used but a name, word, phrase or symbol that could even be INFERRED to be associated with the games IS used to imply some official connection. This is what UVEX was accused of--they did not commit any money, time or other resources to the olympic games themselves--they are strictly sponsors of Ms. Vonn. Yes, it does look to be an unreasonable case as most intelligent people wouldn't make the logical leap that they were "THE official supplier of product x" based on their simple announcement, but litigation isn't about being reasonable.
Incidentally this isn't a politically partisan issue and isn't associated with Canada or these games in particular. This is strictly the path taken by the IOC in actions taken in the lead-up to the 1984 summer games in LA. Starting in that year, the IOC mandated as a requirement that host nations and local governments give olympic organisers just the kind of status equivalent to that bestowed upon "public authorities" in Canada. Prior to 1984 the Olympics actively distanced itself from corporate affiliation, but starting in the '70s the games started growing in scale and opulence to a point that governmental and other non-corporate sponsorship could not sustain them. By 1976 the situation became intolerable--the Montreal games were plagued with corruption, poorly constructed facilities that were still under construction right through the actual games themselves and massive budget overruns and debts (the 1976 olympics finally reached break-even status in 2006, and the roof of the stadium was never completed as designed!). On top of that, private businesses were using the work Olympic and affiliated marks rampantly to profit from those games while offical organisers swam in red ink.
In 1980 the free world boycotted the '80 summer games, and the winter games were still small enough to lack profile, but in 1984 the IOC was determined to make the games financially viable and asserted serious control over its brand for the first time--selling the rights to to be official sponsors to bidders for massive amounts of money to meet their goal. In order to make official sponsorship worth such a high value required very draconian enforcement of its rights to prevent free, unofficial use from devaluing the brand. As such, so long as any olympics remains a massive, spectacular hype machine that saturates the world's media you are going to have this sort of activity. It closely parallels the way media cartels and closed software companies build or maintain illegitimate or obsolete business models atop flawed IP law.
Wow, I've actually heard that song...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
How many other people are called Lindsay Vonn? Is the IOC saying they need permission to ue their own names
Err, isn't the decision on who can use her name or not up to Lindsey Vonn herself? Or do participants in the Olympic games sign a paper in which they transfer their rights and assets and their children to the Olympic comittee?
no, I don't have a sig
The Olympics is a corrupt global business. It's run by guys like Mitt Romney, who was Olympics CEO for the notably corrupt 2002 Winter games in Salt Lake City. These people will do and say anything, no matter how obviously wrong, or contradicting what they said yesterday, to get and keep control over the money flow. And it works. For them. Winners!
--
make install -not war
You seem to have no idea what "free market" means.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
You can claim whatever you want if you have good lawyers and enough money. Everything is a go in that case!
I'm the Secretary of State, brought to you by Carl's Jr.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Not even the IOC has lawyers that foolish. This has got to be guerilla marketing by/for UVEX. Good try though, I'm sure got lots of /.ers to visit their site.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
So, I periodically get into debates around here about the validity of "intellectual property". I take the position that while the current implementation in the US is deeply flawed, the concept is no less vaild than tangible property.
I'll even stand up for the validity of the term, when used appropriately.
Yet this summary (and non-article) is a perfect example of how to abuse the term "intellectual property" for FUD-based purposes. Without more details (i.e. what exactly was said between the IOC and Uvex) we can't know whether this particular fault is with the lawyers or the submitter, but in a formal context such as pointing to a specific incident and claiming infringement, it is inappropriate to use a vague term like intellectual property.
The point is, there are many types of IP. The things they cover, and the rights the reserve, are wildly different. Anyone in this thread claiming to have an intelligent opinion on the merits of the IOC's position had better know more about this situation than what's in TFS and the links it includes.
If we're to speculate, the most reasonable assumption is that the IOC is claiming trademark rights. If they say "we have the right to Vonn's name as a trademark for the duration of the games", then they might be right - depends on the existance and content of documents we wouldn't have seen. Similarly, commercial use of an individual's likeness is a right that person controls, and could be signed over to the IOC during the games.
Now, holding a trademark doesn't confer as much exclusivity as companies like to claim. Depending on what was said or depicted, in what context, they may or may not have any claim. However, just the fact that the content was apparently hosted on Uvex's commercial website may have created enough of a legal grey area that they didn't want to fight it in court. (Or, they may have just wanted to avoid a public fight with the OIC.)
The IOC could do much worse than sue.
The IOC could just declare that anyone wearing the UVEX logo would be banned from all Olympic venues. It may not hold up in court but by the time the case was heard the games would be over and UVEX would have lost a ton of free(ish) advertising.
As such I doubt UVEX wants to outright defy the IOC.
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
Undoing errant mod
see above
I'm glad Chicago didn't get the summer games.
Also, does anyone else see the parallels here between the IOC and the NCAA as far as exploiting amateur athletes?
Thanks for the in-depth explanation. I just lost a bit more faith in humanity.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"that is because we geeks are not very secure around “normal” people. We are not the cool guys in school. But there really is no reason for this. It’s only a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social conditioning"
Don't wegeekme, many of us have normal lifes and were the cool guys at school.
The stereotype is frankly getting tired.
"She has legs strong enough to use men as skis as well."
That's probably how The Athlete Whose Name Rhymes With Bonn visualizes the course. The forces on her thighs from the ruts in a turn are like carrying a piano in a crouch during an earthquake, so grinding ex-boyfriends under the balls of her feet keeps her in a tuck. (I attack bumps like I'm astride a pair of porpoises, driving them back under the snow each time they crest, but I'm a dainty slowpoke.)
TAWNRWB's line was BAD in several spots, probably because her bruised right shin was killing her, and she was still 0.6 seconds ahead of teammate Julia Mancuso. A sensational performance.
NBC commentator: "Julia Mancuso likes it rough and bumpy."
=S
Well, I don't begrudge them the trademark itself. The Red Cross does good work.
What I really question is their choice to enforce it in some ways. I mean, is it REALLY necessary for them to force games to make their health power ups into little green crosses in a box, rather than red ones? I just don't see how that harms them, nor why they should use it that way. I will give them credit, though, in that they didn't require much of a fix (changing health power up colors might be annoying, but it's not hard).
So I don't have a problem with trademarks per se, just with some of the ridiculous ways they've gotten used (at least some of the worst ideas have failed, like the attempt to use trademarks to protect devices from circumvention [Sony v. Accolade])
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=11367
kicked out for that poem by uvex