Olympics: Thou Shalt Not Tweet (Without Paying Up)
from the the-gold-medal-in-stupidity-goes-to... dept
Every time you think that the Olympics can't get more ridiculous with its attempts to abuse trademark law to control its name, they go one step further into ridiculousness. Following the threat to goggle maker UVEX for mentioning skiier and gold medalist Lindsey Vonn on its website, the US Olympic Committee is threatening Red Bull and Verizon for daring to tweet about the Olympics without first paying up. I'm not kidding. Both companies showed some basic Olympic spirit with some simple tweets, supporting some winning athletes. Here's Red Bull's "offending" twitter message:We're rooting for you @LindseyVonn @Shaun_White @GregBretzz and @Drahlves in the 2010 Winter #Olympics!And Verizon's:
Who are the REAL American Idols? Shaun White, Lindsey Vaughn & Shani Davis draw more viewers than American IdolSeriously. And the US Olympics straight-faced response?
"When people partake in this kind of ambush behavior, it hurts American athletes."Yes. Two simple tweets from companies cheering on successful Olympians are considered "ambush behavior" that "hurts American athletes." Apparently, these threats from the Olympics worked on at least Red Bull who pulled its Twitter message supporting the athletes.
This goes beyond the typical abuse of trademark law to ridiculous levels. While Verizon hasn't yet pulled its post, I would hope that it will stand up for basic free speech rights that say the Olympics has no right to tell it what it can and cannot tweet in support of the games.
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: free speech, olympics, trademark
Companies: red bull, usoc, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh. Sorry about the incurred cost of my reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amazing
While those companies advertise like crazy, those particular Tweets are nothing but pleasant positive statements! Might someone make note of who is tweeting? Yes. Should they be able to make Tweets like that? Of course.
Of course, if someone were to give the IOC free advertising, they wouldn't object for one second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, hope I didn't hurt those athletes. Last thing I want to do is hurt somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PULL the advertising
SHAME on these companies...for speaking...well of athletes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retweet them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In defense of the IOC
What I see is that Verizon is too cheap to actually give money to the athletes and Subway spent all its add money on Michael Phelps, so now they try to leech off of the successes of Vonn, White, et. al. by repeatedly mentioning their products in the context of athletic successes where they have not contributed a single time to the athletes, development programs, or hosts.
I may hate the IOC, but I hate Verizon more. At least the IOC created something of value for the athletes (a forum to showcase their skills) while ripping off everyone in sight, and trampling the free speech rights of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
I wonder how much the USOC spends on lawyers and others who spend their time watching Twitter and Facebook and every other place someone may mention the Olympics so they can quickly shoot off their "shut up or pay up" emails. Maybe the money spent on the lawyers would be better spent on the athletes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
Maybe, what we really need is the end to "official sponsorships." The USOC/IOC/etc should be required to accept money from anyone who is willing to donate. Its as if "UNICEF" was officially sponsored by Microsoft, and then refused money from IBM, and then proceeded to criticize them for advocating for Children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In defense of the IOC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
And the athletes bring the value, not the IOC. You have that entire concept backwards. Would you rather watch the snowboarders in the Winter X Games or on your local slopes tearin' it up ... or watch video of the Olympic downhill track with nobody on it or if it were filled with a bunch of local kids just learning how to not fall down?
Do people only watch hockey games once every four years? Would the Olympic hockey rink be nearly as interesting if the hockey players weren't there or if it were filled with random Joe BlowBeerguts slapping away?
No, the IOC brings little value to the Olympics, it's the training and hardwork of the athletes and their coaches that create the value, and the IOC is banking off of their value and charging everyone else who even mentions any of the athletes or the event by name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of the IOC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you know the names, you would have no idea it was a comment about the Olympics.
If an athlete participates in the Olympics, does that mean their name becomes the property of the IOC? I sure hope not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To the IOC it does. You are not allowed to even mention the athlete's names while the games are going on without paying the IOC sponsorship money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Not Surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alright I give up
No idea what the deal is, but reading uncensored comments was a draw to this blog. I'm not interested in reading only what your moderators approve. Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IOC and monopolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get it straight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PS If this went to court I suspect that the USOC would lose, especially given the Citizen's United ruling.
PPS I have no ethical complaint against RedBull, since they actively support the athletes mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
Strawman alert. No one is upset that there is money to be made at the Olympics. They're upset about someone abusing trademark law to prevent someone from cheering on the Olympics.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. I don't see anyone complaining about the owners of pro sports teams trying to make a buck. Of course the athletes make the games, but at the same time the games make the athletes. An unheard athlete can win a gold and overnight be a multi-millionaire.
Again, no one is complaining about the business side of things.
Please try to stick with defending what's actually being argued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
Well that certainly clears up a thing... or two.
Why are you not upset that commerce and marketing is stifled, on scales large and small, by abuse of IP laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
Give me syntax or give me death!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
THIS is where the flaw is, y'all are all taking the message at face value, and not taking into account the INTENT of the message.
Twitter has an alerting process that allows people to watch for names and phrases to be used and to alert you of these uses. These companies intended to take advantage of this to get their company names out there. Do you not see the flaw in this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
As much as I love TechDirt your comments demonstrate my biggest criticism which is a real one-sided editorial view. Why have a forum if your comments act to cut off debate on potentially relevant aspects to the discussion? It seems that you want was is being argued to be limited to the narrow question of "Isn't the USOC's arguments about what can be tweeted an abusive ridiculously over-reaching use of trademark?" And I would say that, there is another point of view incorporating a more expansive view of the USOC's relationship to its athletes which makes this a valid concern of the USOC, and weakens the "abusive" aspect to the claim.
I think the constant editorial comments in the articles make it harder to educate people, by making TechDirt seem a bit extreme. I'm not against editorial content, but you do a great job consolidating reporting on the issues, I think it would be shame to have the blog become nothing more than a one-sided editorial piece. I'd like to share more of your articles with friends, but there are too many that just seem extreme. This is one of those instances.
No one is upset that there is money to be made at the Olympics
Yes there are people who are upset about the financial aspects, and while they would generally be remote from a discussion of trademark and IP they are relevant here as per the USOC's objection that some companies are advertising without being official sponsors.
They're upset about someone abusing trademark law (emphasis added)
The USOC is not a person, and neither is Subway/Verizon. I think that makes a big difference, and I think you would agree.
Point 1: I don't believe that tweeting is an important aspect to a narrowly defined conception of Verizon's business activities, and therefore is advertising. If they are not sponsors of those athletes then in my mind they should have no legal right to use the athletes name in advertising (anymore than Verizon could use my name). Contrast this with RedBull (a sponsor of the athletes), and the New York Times (a newspaper with a business purpose of protected 1st amendment rights) where I would draw different conclusions.
Point 2: Assuming Point 1 does the USOC have a legitimate right to act on Vonn's behalf? I believe it would as it provides the venue, and manages publicity for the events. In essence it can act as a publicity agent for the athletes during the two-week span of the Olympics. This is a good thing for a new athlete who captures the public's attention. Following their successes they will have a powerful organization attempting to limit the misuse of their name giving them time to contact a professional to work on their behalf.
Point 3: The USOC's lawyers may feel that trademark is the simplest and most direct means of accomplishing this goal.
rebuttal Point 1: The USSC has clearly indicated that corporate speech is not to be narrowly constrained to the corporate activities, and they can say just about anything a person can say. Legally the USOC has no case.
rebuttal Point 2: The USOC doesn't act in athletes interests, but rather in the interest of the "official sponsors." I concede the point, the USOC sucks, the whole system sucks.
rebuttal Point 3: Trademark is a poor legal argument for the USOC to make. IANAL so I cannot assess the merits, as a citizen I would hope this would not hold up in court.
I would be concerned if given points 1 and 2 the third held, but you never even gave a thought to a reasonable argument of why the USOC would be interested in this and its bearing on athlete welfare before ridiculing the USOC's comments.
The best argument is to say "Even assuming that the USOC cares about the athletes and has a reason to try and stop the use of athletes names in advertising, is trademark a remotely appropriate vehicle to achieving that end? Should tweeting references to newsworthy items be sufficient to violate trademarks? We think not!" That's an argument I would share with others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Olympics is a business, hello!
Second, the USOC and Verizon and Subway each acts as a singular entity, thus the personification of the organization is proper.
Now, as to reasonable arguments for trademark violation, since the mark is not being used in a confusing manner, nor does this use dilute the mark in any way, then yes, they are violating trademark law. Does not matter if Verizon gets some ad time out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if I sponsor one of these athletes?
If it were a tweet from Coca-Cola or Visa, you can bet this comment would not have been uttered by the IOC. Never bite the hand that feeds you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Funny....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People wonder why I don't watch the Olympic Games. It's not that I don't support the athletes, it's because of the corporate idiots that run it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott IOC and sponsers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just in case someone from the IOC reads this
A) You are driving people away with your Orwellian world views. I don't watch summer Olympics and may not watch the closing ceremonies this weekend because I just so sick of you thinking that you are the King of Everything.
B) Go US athletes!
C) Re: Michial Thompson No, sorry. That isn't how the law works. In trademark law, anyone is allowed to say anything they want as long as they aren't trying to cause confusion. They also cannot misrepresent the facts. Pepsi can say "people don't like Coke" or "some Olympic athletes drink Pepsi." and both are legally allowed in the US, even if the IOC owns trademarks on the word 'Olympics'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
olympics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]