The Bureacracy That Goes Into Censoring The Internet In China

Copyright Out Of Control: Does Saying '2012 Olympic Games' Violate All Sorts Of Copyright Laws?

from the have-fun-with-it dept

Fri, Oct 12th 2007 7:59am — Mike Masnick

It's been nearly two years since we wrote about the effort by the folks who run the Olympics to have British law changed to provide special copyright protection for the word "Olympics" and even "2012" (as that's when the Olympics will be held in London). This was hardly the first (nor last) time that the Olympics had gone overboard in trying to protect its brand. Years ago, they started threatening anyone who used the word, and more recently sought similar legal changes in Canada for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (that's gonna cost me...). Over in the UK, playwright and president of the Writer's Guild, David Edgar is talking about how ridiculous all this is, specifically pointing to the Olympic committee's concern over a new novel called "Olympic Mind Games." Eventually (perhaps realizing the ridicule it would generate), it decided not to sue the author, but based on the law, it probably could have. As Edgar writes:

By declaring images, titles and now words to be ownable brands, these various organisations and individuals are contributing to an increased commodification and thus privatisation of materials previously agreed to be in the public domain. For scientists, this constrains the use of public and published knowledge, up to and including the human genome. For artists, it implies that the only thing you can do with subject matter is to sell it.

Edgar goes on to point to other similarly ridiculous attempts to misuse copyright or trademark law to prevent certain actions. The key problem here (once again) is that too many people now believe that the purpose of intellectual property laws is "protection" of the creator/owner. That's simply not true. The purpose of copyright law is to create the incentives to create the content in question. The purpose of trademark law, is really about consumer protection -- and making sure that someone doesn't buy something under the false impression that it was made and/or endorsed by someone else. Obviously, both of these require some amount of protection to make those things possible -- but in every instance, it should be viewed under the light of the original purpose of both laws. If the control is not related to the original incentive to create, or in preventing consumer confusion -- then the exercises in control should not be allowed under those laws.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: control, copyright, incentive, olympics, protection

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Olympic Games non watcher, 12 Oct 2007 @ 8:28am

I've boycotted every Olympics since they switched from Every four years to every other year winter/summer.
The games are over commercialized and I refuse to watch them until the come to their senses.
The athletes should be unpaid amateurs.
The games should be copyright and restriction free.
Let anyone blog about the games.
How will they make money? Ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs, lodging, parking ... how did they make money back in the day?
Maybe the olympics need to make LESS money and be more about the actual sports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like Mike, 12 Oct 2007 @ 8:57am

You are violating my copyright
This message is to inform you I am copyrighting the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, & 9. Any use of these numbers in any combination constitutes a violation of my copyright. If you want to refer to numbers you must spell them out.

I am filing suit against, well, everyone for misuse of my copyright. See you in court!

Next up, my copyright of the following symbols !@#$%^&*()_+";:./?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Blatt, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:10am

We have something like this in America, but it's not as extreme as "2012". It's "Superbowl".

Remind me to copyright 2020 and all even numbers north of that. I figure I'll need something to retire on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I like Mike, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  You're so sued!!! You used the numbers 0,1 & 2 without my permission. Make your check payable to Iownallnumbers-muhahahaha!.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I like Mike, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  You're so sued!!! You used the numbers 0,1 & 2 without my permission. Make your check payable to Iownallnumbers-muhahahaha!.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tribster, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:13am

Post 1.
You may do so but i must Warn you in doing so you have Violated my Patent on Said Letters numbers and if you do not Decist Immediately i will be forced to use legal Means which may include(But not Exclusive to)Contacting you provider and Suing you(and Michael Arrington For good Measure).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bored now, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:15am

trademark not copyright
which you'd have known, if you'd bothered to re-read the article you linked to.

Still, it wouldn't do to let the facts get in the way of the message, as the environmentalists like to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re: trademark not copyright
  Mike didn't say they were. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and reread what he wrote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:22am

Incentive is the reason for copyright...
...except in every other portion of the world where it is considered more like an absolute property right inherent the created work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not funny, 12 Oct 2007 @ 9:40am

Patents, Trademarks, and other thievery
"This message is to inform you I am copyrighting the numbers 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, & 9. Any use of these numbers in any combination constitutes a violation of my copyright. If you want to refer to numbers you must spell them out."

You're too late...a search of the US patent DB shows that the use of numbers is already patented in multiple instances, as is the generic use of "regular expressions" and other mathematical concepts that may be used to "do something that sounds technical" currently undefined by the actual patent. All one has to do to acheive this is to word the patent is such manner that the examiner doesn't recogize the obviousness. This isn't difficult considering our remedially trained workforce. In short order the color "green" (patented as use of all spectral emination of 495–570 nm in anything to be created in the future) can be your own corporate property for perpetuity!

I'm not even certain the alphabet can be used at will anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 12 Oct 2007 @ 10:46am

Is this copyright or trademark?
All the articles I've read about this fiasco use the word "copyright," but that doesn't really make any sense. You certainly could not copyright a word in the US. But maybe the UK is different.

Is there anyone out there familiar with British copyright laws to explain how this is possible?! Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 12 Oct 2007 @ 10:50am

Ok, I'll be sure not to say a damn word about it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:02am

2012 Olympics will suck as well
the olympics are no fun with out a cold war...now if BinLaden can get a few teams together, not to bomb the 2012 olympics but to compete in them, it will finally be worth watching again...

now what's interesting is some guy named David Chmaberlain in London has the domain 2012sucks.com...what's going to happen to him. Shot in a tube station?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WarOtter (profile), 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:05am

My Solemn Olympic Oath
Yeah the Olympic 2012 committee has my promise that I'll not use the name Olympic in any Olympic reference that could Olympic the Olympic Olympic. Olympically, Olympic can Olympic Olympic the OlympicOlympicOlympic in 2012 Olympics Olympic Olympicced Olympic and can Olympic Olympic in Olympic and Olympic a giant Olympic in a large bowl of fruit salad.

..
..
...
Olympic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: My Solemn Olympic Oath
  i lold
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
captain flummox, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:26am

"too many people now believe that the purpose of intellectual property laws is "protection" of the creator/owner. That's simply not true. The purpose of copyright law is to create the incentives to create the content in question.."

Help me grasp this, please. If a creator/owner's incentive is monetization of their work, then wouldn't a copyright law accomplish that by protecting the intellectual property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 12 Oct 2007 @ 12:48pm
  
  Re:
  
  Help me grasp this, please. If a creator/owner's incentive is monetization of their work, then wouldn't a copyright law accomplish that by protecting the intellectual property?
  
  It may be a fine line, but it's important. Copyright isn't about *protecting* the rights of the creator. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be for a limited time and it wouldn't be so limited. It's about creating an initial and temporary monopoly solely for the sake of adding incentives for creation.
  
  The problem when you think about it as protecting the rights of creators, then you want to keep extending it and not make it temporary or limited. After all, if it's a "right" that needs protecting, there's no reason to only partly protect it or do so for a limited time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mystified Mind, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:29am

easy solution
I've said it before about pro sports leagues who sue everybody who prints or speaks their trademarked/copyrighted ultimate events and I'll repeat it now about I.O.C. - BOYCOTT the idiots. Don't attend their regular season events. Don't even watch them on TV, especially if you are part of the Neilson (?) ratings system. Don't buy their over-priced logo-wear. Don't buy their software game simulators. Don't play in fantasy leagues based on their players (and get a life while you're at it.) Two years of serious boycotting will leave them begging you to buy their game tickets and by then the prices are likely to be a bit more reasonable.

If I owned a TV station or radio station I would give the numb skulls almost no coverage - "Oh, by the way, there is a big sports event this weekend, but it will probably be a major disappointment and if I identify the organization for you I will be sued by the big babies, so 'nuf said about that and let's move on to local amateur sports ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mystified Mind, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:41am

difficult problem
Now, how do we get rid of the jerks who make comments like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th posters above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: difficult problem
  STFU
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 11:54am

15th!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the judge, 12 Oct 2007 @ 12:29pm

verdict
Mike only kept us talking for about 4 hours this time. Was it his post or the initial flurry of inane comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 12 Oct 2007 @ 12:35pm

Irrelevant games
Much like the Nobel Peace Prize committee, the folks who run the Olympics are making that event irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 12 Oct 2007 @ 1:29pm

This just in...
The 2012 Olympic(tm)(c)(Patent Pending) Committee has just announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Cunard-White Star Lines for "gross and negligent intellectual property infringement, abduction and subversion".

An Olympic Committee spokesperson in an interview said, "How dare they! There it is! In letters 5 feet tall on the side of that rusting hulk at the bottom of the ocean. The word "Olympic" is ours and ours alone and the Cunard-White Star Line needs to have our word removed from thier nasty old crumpled shipwreck. Do you know how many submariners read that word everyday without compensating us for the pleasure?"

A Cunard official, when contacted for a comment, laughed and then called the Olympic Committee "a bunch of titanic idiots".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Oct 2007 @ 1:46pm

The way to beat them (and everyone else) at their
Step 1 - Start a company - I am going to start a company called Copyright. In fact I will incorporate it in the United States, England, South Africa, Germany, Japan and Australia
Step 2 - Trademark it in those countries - so that I get trademark protection
Step 3 - Law$uit$ - Sue anyone that uses the name of my company
Step 4 - Profit!!!

---
Ok I'm off to the post office with my filled out forms!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some One, 13 Oct 2007 @ 12:12pm

still every 4 years
Its still every 4 years. Summer happens every 4 years, and winter happens every 4 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pv, 13 Oct 2007 @ 5:47pm

If I were to make a T-shirt with the slogan 'Stuff the Olympics' (or something ruder) for those like me who loathe the fascistic orgy of selfish, pointless glory hunting and pharmacuticals that the modern event is, and _deeply_ resent being obliged to pay for it for the rest of my life out of their council tax, would that lead to legal action on the grounds that it could be confused with an 'official Olympic product' (which was the basis for the complaint about the book)?
Perhaps the Bush administration should trademark 'Iraq war', thus making it impossible for those opposed to it to refer to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charles, 25 Oct 2007 @ 8:21pm

venti
Starbucks tradmarked venti. Twenty in Italian. Starbucks owns it. Stellar dollars owns it. http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/003070.html

Im gonna own venti uno, and make a fortune! Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power Hungry, 27 Oct 2007 @ 11:52am

I'm suing the whole English speaking world
I’ve just copywrited the word “copywrite” including all forms & instances of it’s usage. I also have a copywrite on the words “the”, “and”, “it”, “to” & “all”. So you’ll all be hearing from my new army of attorneys soon.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a long list of companies to sue first (because they’ve got more money than you do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald, 10 Mar 2008 @ 6:18am

suing the bad at spelling
Power Hungry: by copyrighting "copywrite" you'll only make money out of those who can't spell.

I guess that is the mass market though ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EnglishPirate (profile), 19 Jul 2012 @ 10:02am

Can't be sued for misspelling then??!!
That's it! I got it!

OLIMPYKS - OLLYIMPICZ - OLIYMPYCS - ULLYMPIKZ !!!

Can't get sued for that rubbish!

As far as I am concerned, I lost my respect for The GAMMEZ and the organizers can literally stuff it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EnglishPirate (profile), 19 Jul 2012 @ 10:17am

A FRIEND SUGGESTED AN EVEN BETTER ONE!!
OLYMPIGS!!!

LOLz!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]