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?"
I would try to refute your claims using quotes from the article, BUT THERE ISN'T ONE
You really must preface that comment with IANAL... as it stands you are quite wrong. This essay describes in hefty detail mostly why http://www.scribd.com/doc/24956746/DJ-Ettinger-Legal-Status-of-the-IOC
Excerpt: "...they can seek relief as a plaintiff, or be named as a defendant in a sovereign nation's court of law..."
Biennial: Every two years
Biannual: Twice yearly
Although either word would still be incorrect, since each sporting event is still quadrennial.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
The article that was removed is available here.
The mention of Ms. Vonn's name is in the following sentence:
They just posted a good rundown of the Woman's field disguised as story about the rivalry between top skiers (and best friends!) Lindsey Vonn and Maria Reisch.
That's it. No claim of her endorsing anything, just a summary of an article on another website.
They can, if they make the olympians sign a contract. For the Beijing Olympics, Britain made their athletes sign a contract promising not to say anything political during the event.
Funny thing about "inalienable" rights - You can't sign them away.
For example, you can't sell yourself into slavery. Simple as that, you just can't do it. You can't waive your first amendment rights, either (though your employer has no obligation to keep employing you if they don't like what you have to say).
Now, whether or not you can sell your name itself... Ask the Artist Formerly Known as Prince about that one. Precedent exist on both sides of that fence, and not many people want to risk going up against something as big as the IOC when they may well lose.
BTW, IANAL. Just someone who loathes the power (and abuses thereof) of the IOC. They travel the world destroying businesses, lives, and communities, and that without resorting to various seemingly frivolous trademark issues.
I'll stand as a citation for the GP's statement that "most lawyers' letters are bluffs" where "letters" means initial letters of demand, and yes, IAAL. I'm not aware of whether any relevant data has been collected on the point, but any significant exposure to the practice of law will confirm the truth of the proposition.
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).
"Skeezy"? Uvex has been making gear for a very, very long time, and a lot of skiers will tell you their first pair of goggles probably came from there. Most of this stuff is not for the sake of looking good, it's made for safety, and they do it well.
The main source of the problem is that the IOC has gotten special privileges over the use of the name "Olympic" and all variants as well as the interlocked ring motif. In the US this transcends all IP laws by an act of Congress. I'm sure they've accomplished similar things in other countries. Traditional trademark law would have allowed a Greek owned "Olympic Pizza" shop to continue running in Atlanta but it was forced to change its name by the IOC. People with Celtic ring designs have been pressured by the IOC to stop their infringement despite historical precedent that predates the modern Olympics. It should still be fine to say that Vonn won a gold medal in some unspecified international competition. However, as soon as you invoke the magic O-words you pass outside the realm of rationality and into the IOC's autocratic la la land.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Point of order: Judges don't declare martial law. Ever. That's something that only a military officer (including the CINC) can do (hence "martial"), so unless the judge also happens to be an acting general, they have no ability or incentive to make that declaration, nor would they have any power to rescind the order.
The appropriate charge would be capital contempt of court, with expedited sentencing and a fast tracked execution. Firing squad is a little hard to justify in the US, but maybe if the bailiff shouted "he's coming right for us!" before shooting they could get around the details.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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?
And not just sports gear. In the years that I spent working for two different laser companies, all of the goggles we had were made by Uvex. They're a *huge* name in industrial safety eyewear.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Again, I'm not suggesting that this is right -- or even sane. But, the way that things are, it seems that the IOC is within its specially crafted legal rights to ask UVEX to not refer to the Athlete formerly known as Lindsay Kildow.