Copyright Out Of Control: Does Saying '2012 Olympic Games' Violate All Sorts Of Copyright Laws?
from the have-fun-with-it dept
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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 ]
You are violating my copyright
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trademark not copyright
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 ]
Re: trademark not copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentive is the reason for copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents, Trademarks, and other thievery
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 ]
Is this copyright or trademark?
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2012 Olympics will suck as well
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 ]
My Solemn Olympic Oath
..
..
...
Olympic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Solemn Olympic Oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
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 ]
easy solution
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 ]
difficult problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: difficult problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
verdict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This just in...
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 ]
The way to beat them (and everyone else) at their
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 ]
still every 4 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
venti
Im gonna own venti uno, and make a fortune! Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm suing the whole English speaking world
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 ]
suing the bad at spelling
I guess that is the mass market though ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't be sued for misspelling then??!!
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 ]
A FRIEND SUGGESTED AN EVEN BETTER ONE!!
LOLz!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]