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
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.
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."
The IOC has claimed the term 'CANADA' as their exclusive intellectual property
Wherever You Go, There You Are
"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.
True, but the onus is on them to stop use of "their" IP. They'd have the bring the suit in the US to stop anyone from using the name here, and within the context of that suit they WOULD be subject to the laws of the US.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
What does ACTA have to say about that?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
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
therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.
Sheesh. Stop and think for a second. Do they do business in the US? Then they aren't immune. Just think of the ramifications if foreign companies that did business in the US actually were immune from lawsuits like you claim.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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..."
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.
What I want to know is, why hasn't any of the Olympian Gods smitten them yet? This is like McDonalds trying to claim trademark violations if there is anything with "Mc" in front of it. What are they going to do, sue all of Scotland?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I should point out that most people going to the Olympics, like most people who live in Greater Vancouver, use the excellent light rail system there.
Why the heck would you want to pay $50 to park a car when you can get there faster by light rail - including the ski hill - for less than $5?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
According to ACTA -- the organization which donates the most money to the reelection campaigns of ACTA-supporting politicians gets to declare ownership of anything they damn well please -- so it's hard to tell at the this point, but my money would be on the IOC.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are plenty of cases of organizations and even COUNTRIES being sued in the U.S. civil court system by individual plaintiffs. If the individuals win, the courts will attach any assets that are, or later enter, the U.S. There are even cases where the U.S. courts petition foreign banks to freeze assets held in foreign countries. And yes, sometimes it really works.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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.
we luge.
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).
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.
Whoa! Citation please!
Fair enough request. here you go.
One quote in particular stands out to me... "Participation in the Olympic Games is voluntary. Thus, nations and individuals who participate in the Olympic Games submit themselves to the rules and regulations established by the IOC, and to subsequent sanctions for violating these rules. The IOC alone cannot compel governmental compliance, however, the Olympic Charter exemplifies current international practice and has the effect of customary international law. Therefore, the authoritative force of the rules and regulations of the Olympic Charter are recognized by state and international law.
Interestingly, I can't find substantiation of my claim that they have an international trademark by treaty, as with the IRC. So I'll have to take my spankings on that point, though I consider the above somewhat more scary.
but it really is only theory unless the Supreme Court has tried to overturn part of a treaty, and was denied.
As I said, IANAL. However, the best I can find on this subject comes from De Geofroy vs Riggs, 1890, which says "The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government" - Which I take to mean that unless they blatantly violate the constitution, treaties win.
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.
Only accepting Visa or cash at all the venues.
It's not just venues, it's all official stores, too (including online ones).
This is actually driving me mad. I fucking live in this city, and my bank (HSBC) issues MasterCard, not Visa. And what about Interac, which is the standard for debit cards? No go, too.
But they "proudly accept Visa". Well, I'm "proudly" not paying them a single cent. Not that it matters any in the end, judging by droves of people with that merch around...
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.
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