Slashdot Mirror
Posting Photos of Olympics Could Land You In Court
hypnosec writes "With London's summer 2012 games due to take place in the very near future, you'd think that organizers would make more of an effort and persuade people to show more of an interest — yet it appears the complete opposite has happened, with strict guidelines banning athletes from posting photos of themselves on Twitter with products that aren't official Olympics sponsors, as well as prohibiting videos or photos to be taken from the athlete's village. Oh and just for good measure, fans could find themselves barred from sharing videos and photos on Facebook and YouTube of themselves delighting in said Olympics action."
I never started missing them until they started these ridiculous rules.
Now they're more difficult to find online and less valuable to me as a consumer, as their value is being decreased by the IOC.
Way to go, IOC.
I'm an American. In order to attend the Olympics, I have to be stripped naked and groped in order to get on the airplane. Anything I do during this procedure that is not ordered by the goon squad is likely to have me arrested, where I can be strip searched again in Jail.
When and if I get on a plane, anything of value in my luggage, such as ipods, cameras, and laptops are likely to be stolen by the baggage handlers, who are not searched and groped by the TSA, apparently.
When and if I land in London, I'm likely to be searched again, what for, who the hell knows, but apparently it's standard procedure. At this point, I discover I've been robbed, but there's no way to file a claim, and yelling about it is just likely to get me arrested.
And when I attend the games, I'm going to be sued for using my eyes and brain as a copyright infringement device, assuming I haven't shelled out for a new camera to replace the one that's stolen. And I would have to post the pictures to the internet, because I can't keep them in the flashcard of the camera, because that will be stolen on the return trip (or confiscated by customs).
Yeah, let me see... Nope, I don't think I will be attending the games, or even watching on TV. Because who knows, they might sue me for watching it on TV. It's going to happen sooner or later, who wants to be the first test case?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The UK were essentially forced to pass the legislation - else they couldn't get to host the Olympics. For anyone interested http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/22/contents is a good place to start looking.
This doesn’t surprise me based on how over-controlling the International Olympic Committee is. For instance, I used to work for a finance company that had the word “Olympic” in it. Their Lawyers threatened the company, so they had to change it to “Arcadia”. You can not use the word “Olympic” in anything due to their trademark on the word. I have even seen a couple business signs with the word “Olympic” painted over with another name. Before then, I was under the silly impression that the word “Olympic” wasn’t anyone’s property. They will come after you at night wearing togas and carrying torches.
TFA:
"In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."
A man was convicted of a minor offence for refusing to obey a police instruction to leave a green space on which an olympic practice pitch was to be built. He was then served a further order banning him from going anywhere near anything connected with the Olympics.
"The asbo, which will be either confirmed or overturned by magistrates at the start of May, prohibits Moore from going within 100 yards of any Olympic-related venue, "route" or the home of participants, officials or spectators, or approaching any road where the Olympic torch will pass that day."
That means a pretty large area. Since he lives in London and cannot possibly know where the homes of all these numerous people are, it seems to mean that he can be arrested for leaving his house.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/17/protester-receives-olympic-asbo
I thought you were talking about some movie, but then I found this on wikipedia:
"The terms of the Burning Man ticket require that participants wishing to use video-recording equipment (including, in practice, most digital cameras) sign over copyright in their images to Black Rock City, and forbid them from using their images for anything other than personal and private use. This has been criticized by many, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[87][88]
A Burning Man spokeswoman replied that the policies are not new, were written by a former head of the EFF, were used when suing to block pornographic videos and ultimately arose from participant concerns: "Weâ(TM)re proud that Black Rock City (a private event held on public land) is widely acknowledged as a bastion of creative freedom. [B]ut that protection [of participants' freedoms] does necessitate the acceptance of some general terms of engagement when it comes to cameras... EFF seems to think that anyone attending any event somehow has an absolute right to take photographs, and then to do whatever they want with those images without any effective restriction or manner of enforcement.
"While we believe that such rights do make sense for any of us taking pictures in purely public spaces, this is not true in the private space of Burning Man â" if it were it would mean that Burning Man couldnâ(TM)t protect participant privacy or prevent commercialization of imagery."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
This is just as bad as the orange dress incident at the World Cup. Women were being arrested for wearing orange mini-dresses because FIFA said they were ambush marketing for Bavaria. Never mind that some of them might be supporting the Dutch by wearing the national color of that country.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Can we all just agree it's 1999 again, and have a "do over"?
Except that year 2000 was still 20st century... you know, 21st century began on January 1, 2001.
"It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."
I don't know if I should be happy or feel sorry for all the religious "leaders" that failed to get raptured...namely, all of them...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It's in TFA:
"Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.
In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."
So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This, in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.
Except that year 2000 was still 20st century...
Oh no! It's the old "There was no year zero in the Western calendar" bugbear appearing to drag yet another discussion into the depths and devour it.
So far, my favorite comment on that topic is that the years 1 through 524 also didn't exist in our Western calendar. The numbering we use, usually called "A.D." (for Anno Domini" was devised in the year 525, and wasn't used before that time. Actually, it was hardly used by anyone except a few monks for several centuries after that.
My other favorite comment on the topic is that today is also the start of a century - the century that starts today and ends 19 April 2112. Every day is the start of a century. So arguing against a popular "start of century" year is basically silly.
Any group of people is free to settle on an arbitrary "epoch" as the start of their calendar, and many of us do just that. Thus, the unix crowd uses the start of 1970-01-01 UTC as the start of their time(1) date/time system, and nobody seems to chide them for missing the first 1969 years of the calendar. Astronomers also have their own favorite zero time, but use only years (with a decimal point and lots more digits to whatever precision they need at the moment).
But silliness can be fun, so go at it ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So far, my favorite comment on that topic is that the years 1 through 524 also didn't exist in our Western calendar. The numbering we use, usually called "A.D." (for Anno Domini" was devised in the year 525, and wasn't used before that time. Actually, it was hardly used by anyone except a few monks for several centuries after that.
What difference does it make if it wasn't used back then? It is used now.
If you're 5 months old, it's your first year on Earth. If you're 1 year and 3 months old, it's your second year on Earth. Year 2000 is the 2000th year. In order for us to say that two millennia have passed the year must end, thus the new millennium starts in 2001. There's no year 0, because it would mean the 0th year of Christ on Earth. Which means he did not exist, ergo BC.
My other favorite comment on the topic is that today is also the start of a century - the century that starts today and ends 19 April 2112. Every day is the start of a century. So arguing against a popular "start of century" year is basically silly.
We are talking about Gregorian calendar here. The year doesn't start at April 19. You are free to create whatever system you like, it wouldn't change the Gregorian calendar though. Therefore, it's a silly argument.
"It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."
I'm from The Netherlands and as some people here may know, my country wanted to host the World Cup 2018 or 2012 together with Belgium. There was some outrage that the FIFA demanded exclusion from taxes from the Dutch and Belgian government. I'm actually glad that "we" did not get the World Cup, although "we" probably would have been the sanest choice (never hosted a World Cup before, played two [now three] World Cup finals, etc.)
I find it not surprising that Russia and Qatar (of all places!) won the bid. Especially Qatar does not make sense. Hold a professional football tournament in the Middle East in the summer?! Even if they succeed to bring down the temperature on the pitch through airconditioning or whatever, the country does not have much of a football culture and it's a very tiny country to boot, much smaller than Belgium or The Netherlands. I hope the FIFA gets in all kinds of trouble over this.