IOC Claims Olympian Lindsey Vonn's Name As Intellectual Property 399
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?"
Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [boingboing.net] 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They can't in good faith make that claim. I hope whomever it is has a lawyer who will rip their head off and shit in their neck.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but you just gave me this image of the judge telling the IOC lawyers, "I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the U.S. DMCA provides no recourse to the victims. The IOC lawyers can just say, "Ooops sorry," and not even mean it. This law is skewed in favor of abuse.
There was a similar event ~3 weeks ago when the NFL tried to claim copyright over the "Who Dat?" logo. The NFL caused thousands (possibly millions) of dollars in damage to local businesses and all the NFL had to do was say, "Ooops... we were wrong." The victims have no recourse.
I think if I ever get one of these notices, I'll just ignore it. Fuck the megacorps.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Funny)
I think I would just start using the phrases they claim to "own" much more often. Maybe even in court, if it makes it that far, ending everything with one of their phrases.
Judge: "This claim is not only frivolous, it is devious, unethical, unprincipled, and I even dare say sociopathic!!"
IP Lawyer: "Your honor, I object!!"
Judge: "On what grounds?"
IP Lawyer: "On the grounds that we claim ownership of "devious", "unethical", "unprincipled" and "sociopathic". And not just the words under copyright, but we also claim patents as business processes, and the practice of being "devious", "unethical", "unprincipled" and/or "sociopathic" under trade secret protection."
Judge: "sigh....I really didn't want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice...I hereby declare martial law!! Bailiff, shoot that piece of shit in the face!!"
Bailiff: "Gladly."
Bailiff's Gun: BLAM!!!
IP Lawyer: THUD!!
Judge: "Martial law rescinded. Call in the janitor. Next case..."
...and they all lived happily ever after. The End
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, does this mean that you found the rest of the scenario to be realistic?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If he had mentioned that the IP Lawyer was wearing a red shirt, nobody on this site would have thought twice about his unrealistic demise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hope whomever it is has a lawyer who will rip their head off and shit in their neck.
Isn't that how they get more lawyers, though? That would seem to be counterproductive.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't civilised nations just stop hosting the Olympics completely, and people stop watching it? If we really need a high profile sporting event like that, maybe we should set up a new one, but this time with a sensible organisation behind it.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Insightful)
Pournelle's Iron Law
The IOC no longer promotes sport - it promotes its own interests using sport as a tool
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they have the nerve to talk about the Olympic principles, and Olympic spirit.
The Olympic spirit is greed, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Among the other things IOC can correctly claim is rights to part of the Canadian national anthem (it's copyrighted as part of some slogan or another), and (name of 3rd largest Canadian City) + (year).
And no, I'm not kidding [www.cbc.ca]. And while they assure us that we can still sing our national anthem and use the year, we now do so at their whim.
And I've already stopped watching it - and to those of who wanting to "support our athletes", I'd suggest doing so at the other year-round competitive events. You know, the
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Informative)
The article that was removed is available here [74.125.95.132].
The mention of Ms. Vonn's name is in the following sentence:
They just posted a good rundown of the Woman's field [universalsports.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>> Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property *unless it's enforced by technical means, thus causing it to fall under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause*
Fixed that for you.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Funny)
Dangerous indeed.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, and the only way to challenge their claim is that you need lawyers. Good, expensive lawyers able to counter the army of lawyers the IOC undoubtedly has on retainer. Also, you need time...5-10 years for the courts to come to a final, uncontestable decision.
Nearly all individuals don't have the money or lifespan to do this. That's why big institutions hold all the cards when you deal with them. Only if the institution does something truly egregious do you have a chance of getting compensation.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Interesting)
False. All you need to do is say "So sue me or FOAD." Then they have to:
Most lawyers letters are bluffs.
Most people fold.
It costs nothing to call their bluff and see if they take the next step, which is ... a demand letter giving you x number of days or else they'll sue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that they won't just weigh what they can get from you in court. They will weigh how much terror they can strike into every future recipient of a nastygram from them if they bankrupt you. They will not want to develop a reputation for backing down.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As I said
False (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've taken it in the past, and will continue to do so, when I am in the right.
The last time I decided to use a lawyer "for the convenience", I ended up having to fire him, then I drafted my own motions, served them on the government and the other parties involved, argued them, won, the government lawyers realized that the government had acted illegally and backed out, filed more motions against the other parties that were left, argued THEM, opposed all their motions and claims,
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AAL? Excuse me, are you defending a gratitious lawsuit based upon... what seems to be a lost cause, but whatever? Are you trying to be serious right now? I'm just a stupid scandinavian, but in our neck of the woods the civil court would certainly fine you, and possibly disbar you for wasting their time. Bullshit is never an excuse.
No, my comments were based on "exposure to the practice of law", by which I meant real-world experience, and not the principles and rules of professional conduct and ethics, of which you may take it that I am aware.
You should disabuse yourself of the notion that the law is exempt from the usual and ordinary disjunction that exists between theory and practice; it will not assist you if you do someday find yourself involved in a legal dispute.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Barratry requires a pattern of filing multiple lawsuits with the intent to harrass.
First, the threats are not barratry, since nothing is filed, so they can make threats until the sky turns green. Save them up for your day in court - the more ridiculous ones (and if they're "that type", there will be some pretty ridiculous claims) will be useful.
Second, multiple lawsuits in and of themselves are not barratry. You have to show the intent behind them - and they can argue that they were pursuing what the
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They're not claiming her name as their IP, through copyright or anything else. They've told this skeezy gear company that they can't start using an olympiad's name to sell their crappy products just because that olympiad happens to use their products.
Re: (Score:2)
They've told this skeezy gear company that they can't start using an olympiad's name to sell their crappy products just because that olympiad happens to use their products.
Which is another way of claiming their right to restrict the use of her name. Yes, it's technically different than claiming her name as I.P., but I was answering the question as posed in TFS.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiad [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympian [wikipedia.org]
Yes, this time every 2 years is very stressful for me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Informative)
then (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder when Adobe will pull a Google and protect their name by claiming Photoshop is not a verb (and therefore not an everyday term that might fall outside of copyright law). Or perhaps they'll just enjoy the fact (monetarily speaking) that people aren't saying, "Yah. That chick is gimped. You can see the floating pixels..."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting for Quentin Tarantino to come out with "Pulpier Fiction Vol. II", where he'll have some other pervert unchain a sexual deviant who he keeps bound and locked in a storage trunk, and we all discover that the deviant runs a 1-hour-photo place named Photo-Shop.
Then GIMP won't seem so bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Why restore it now, a good slashdotting worth of free advertisement is probably more than they hoped for... or maybe expected. Either way, I'm sure they are happy with their site count today.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:5, Funny)
Except possibly for the fact that the intersection of "People who purchase women's sporting gear" and "Slashdot readers" is going to be pretty close to a null set.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem here is not the crazy guys (in this case at the IOC).
The problem is us as a population, buying into their bullshit, despite it only hurting us, and only being for their advantage.
There are different ways to deal with bullshit: ;)
1. Blindly believe it, because the other one is so dominant, and you are so weak. The choice of the coward. But the default choice of about 70% of the population for 70% of all events.
2. Accepting it as a valid view, but engaging in an argumentation to refute it, because you have a own sense of reality, but are not secure in it. A lost case, since the other side is not employing logic, but delusion. You will be dragged down into their game, play there rules, and inevitably lose. The choice of an additional 25% of the population / for 25% of all events.
3. Ignoring or laughing at it, because you have a secure sense or reality, and know that it is bullshit. This is done by only maybe 5% of the population / 5 % of the time. Tops. Because that only is the case for those who are either leaders (not necessarily with followers)... or delusional cowards... or both.
Seems that the amount of people who understand the rules of bitspace, as opposed to meatspace, and who are also leaders, is way too small to change anything. :/
And from my experience, 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.
I say, let’s change that. Today. From now on. :)
If anyone of you has children: Also teach them to be leaders. To be secure in their reality. And in the process: Teach it to yourselves.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They can, if they make the olympians sign a contract.
[citation needed]
For the Beijing Olympics, Britain made their athletes sign a contract promising not to say anything political during the event.
Please explain to me how a contract between the IOC and an athlete can be legally binding on an unrelated third party.
Then after you do that, I will sign a contract with my neighbor stating that you owe me $1,000,000. Please send it to me via paypal.
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fair enough request. here you go [pace.edu].
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 inte
Probably not. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In a related story, UVEX needs to hire a new staff poet; the scansion on that is *miserable*.
Re:Probably not. (Score:4, Informative)
Biennial: Every two years
Biannual: Twice yearly
Although either word would still be incorrect, since each sporting event is still quadrennial.
You can copyright facts now? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:You can copyright facts now? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Nope. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It belongs to Uvex more than it does IOC (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What does ACTA have to say about that?
Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (Score:4, Informative)
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 [scribd.com]
Excerpt: "...they can seek relief as a plaintiff, or be named as a defendant in a sovereign nation's court of law..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Tons more complaints this time (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
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.
Re:It depends... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I see them as an exercise in creative pharmacology, shaping your body with hormones while trying to stay one step ahead of innovations in screening. Remember it's only wrong if you get caught, right?
Re:It depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It depends... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.
Viscous? Yes, those marketing sleazebags certainly are an oily bunch. :)
I've been flipping over to NBC every once in a while to see what they're showing. Most of the time I hit either a commercial or reporters sitting at a desk talking about events. My best guess is that their contract has limitations on the amount of actual event time they can show -- either a fixed cap or some kind of dollars per minute arrangement
Re:It depends... (Score:4, Funny)
Extremely viscous.
Not much chance of you slipping through the cracks at all.
Re:It depends... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm guessing you meant "vicious." Unless you're claiming that the Olympics have a high internal friction which resists deformation through shear or extensional stresses.
View from Vancouver of Olympic hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the entrance, volunteers searched my bag and poured out my bottle of water. This was for the benefit of Coca-Cola Corp.
While I mostly agree with what you say (speaking from Richmond here), so far as I can tell, the restriction on liquids isn't really for the benefit of Coke, but rather part of the recent security craze. They seem to forbid all sorts of liquids on entrance to any organized large gathering of people, whether or not Coke sells anything there.
Still, Coke and McDonalds do make me sick in many other ways. During the torch ceremony here in Richmond, over half of the time was wasted on their endorsements (performer
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the entrance, volunteers searched my bag and poured out my bottle of water. This was for the benefit of Coca-Cola Corp.
While I mostly agree with what you say (speaking from Richmond here), so far as I can tell, the restriction on liquids isn't really for the benefit of Coke, but rather part of the recent security craze. They seem to forbid all sorts of liquids on entrance to any organized large gathering of people, whether or not Coke sells anything there.
Plenty of events banned bringing your own bottles long before 9/11. Back then the reason was that people might throw empty bottles around and that would be dangerous. But always at those events there's somebody selling drinks at highly inflated prices.
Not outside the realm... (Score:2, Interesting)
...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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only accepting Visa or cash at all the venues.
It's not just venues, it's all official stores, too (including online ones [vancouver2010.com]).
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...
ISO and IOC are similar in my view (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how it is with all human great
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They may make great ski gear... (Score:3, Funny)
...but they sure make lousy poetry.
They'll claim anything (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Streisand Award (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] by directly linking their name (like I have here) with Vonn's [lindseyvonn.com] name.
They can't stop the mob!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter who wins... (Score:5, Funny)
As an olympian AND slashdot reader... (Score:5, Informative)
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).
stupid (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Can't stand them (Score:3, Informative)
Works how unworkable Intellectual Property is (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Romney's Olympus (Score:3, Insightful)
The Olympics is a corrupt global business. It's run by guys like Mitt Romney, who was Olympics CEO for the notably corrupt [google.com] 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!
In a related story... (Score:4, Funny)
The IOC has claimed the term 'CANADA' as their exclusive intellectual property
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a loose claim though, everyone is still allowed to use it, the just have to say it slowly, and write it out like this : C-A-A-N-A-D-A-A
You're not far off the truth (Score:5, Informative)
VANOC trademarked the line, "With Glowing Hearts", which comes directly out of Canada's national anthem [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've not seen yet a serious libertarian candidate (yes, I realize this is almost an oxymoron) who didn't support the status quo in IP law. Maybe a few vague and totally unsubstantiated promises for "reform", but that's it.
As this is the case, yeah, I'd say one of the main tenets of any seriously proposed "free" market is draconian intellectual property law.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"I think you got an offtopic, troll, flamebait, and over-rated all in one go."
4 in one just like your mom last night
Too bad she was married (Score:2)
may be you will have a chance in your next life.
Re: (Score:2)
And the answer to your "first post" is: NO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Owning her name would be tantamount to owning her period. She's not a slave, and regardless of the terms of the contract she signed, I seriously doubt they're enforceable. Giving someone exclusive rights to use your image for publicity is also crap; that would put every photo of her out there in jeopardy. This is an example of draconian contract terms and aspiring to own everything under the sun up until the time someone actually challenges it (and with the necessary money and public visibility to make it w
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Olympic organisers are "public authourities" (Score:3, Informative)
...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