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.
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.
Tons more complaints this time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure they can claim it (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.
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.
I want to watch the Olympics (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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.
Olympics who? (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, I haven't watched any of this years or the last olympics. Total waste of time. Home Shopping Channel is less boring.
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?
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.
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.
Re:It depends... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:There are three things to consider (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:IOC is not a U.S. organization (Score:4, Insightful)
IOC is barking up the wrong tree (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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:Sure they can claim it (Score:2, Insightful)
... and you KNOW that Uvex is getting exactly the kind of publicity from exactly the demographic they would love to market to, for free.
Now THAT'S good business sense
Re:IOC is barking up the wrong tree (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 worthwhile to a lawyer). I think Mrs. Vonn should go after them. It'd be a riot to see what happens if the IOC starts banning competitors if they refuse to sign away all of their publicity rights.
Re:ISO and IOC are similar in my view (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how it is with all human greatness: heros are admired because they overcome their weaknesses to do something amazing, not because they are without flaw. This is encouraging because all of us have weakness, but weakness does not prevent us from being heroic in our own way.
Re:Sure they can claim it (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:You're not far off the truth (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:Sure they can claim it (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:Not outside the realm... (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...
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.
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 in favor of big companies, and the concepts of copyright and intellectual property need to be whacked down.
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:3, Insightful)
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:You're not far off the truth (Score:1, Insightful)
"stiffing local taxpayers with the bills"
"...altar of the free market, you've got to admire their ruthlessly perfect exploitation of it"
As you yourself have evinced, it's not a "free-market". Or perhaps you're one of the many who're confused about what a "free-market" is actually supposed to be.
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!
Re:Sure they can claim it (Score:3, Insightful)
And they have the nerve to talk about the Olympic principles, and Olympic spirit.
The Olympic spirit is greed, right?
Re:Sure they can claim it (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 ones that don't screw the local community over (quite as much).