Mexican Government Officials Have Press Creds Withdrawn From Olympics Over Uploaded Cell Phone Footage

from the still-the-most-live-olympics? dept

We've been detailing the ridiculous lengths the IOC and other Olympics organizations go in bullying others with their super special intellectual property protections. It's always quite stunning to watch an event supposedly about fostering international cooperation and sporting devolve into a mess of commercial protectionism, speech-stifling threats, and the kind of strong-arm tactics usually reserved for members of organized crime groups.

But I will give these Olympic goons credit: they appear to consider their bullying a matter of principle, deciding not to go any easier on an entire group of Mexican government officials because one of them uploaded one video of one Mexican athlete to a social media account.

According to a report by Mexico’s Eluniversal, the Rio Organizing Committee has taken the decision to withdraw press credentials from Mexico’s National Commission of Physical Culture and Sports (Conade) following a copyright dispute.

The publication says that Conade violated licensing conditions put in place by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) after one of its members filmed the gymnast Alexa Moreno using a cellphone. The video was subsequently posted to social media. According to the Committee, Conade failed to obtain the necessary rights to broadcast Olympic content, so in retaliation nine Conade members, who work for the Mexican government, had their press credentials taken away.

Yes, why didn't this government person secure the rights to take a cell phone video of one of their country's own athletes competing in an event? Didn't he or she know that the Olympics operates in a time-bubble, where the things the rest of the world does every day, like upload short videos to Facebook, don't happen?

Making this more hilarious is that Conade is a government group specifically tasked with promoting athletics within Mexico.

While the Committee probably felt it needed to set an example, taking away the credentials of the Conade staff will be felt back home in Mexico. Conade is the arm of the Mexican government charged with promoting physical education and sport in the country. Before their punishment, they were also the conduit between the Games and their countrymen.

But while the Rio Organizing Committee punishes the whole of Mexico for the sharing of a single video, thousands of people are sharing recorded events at will on sites such as The Pirate Bay.

Because nothing says international cooperation like petulantly nixing the press credentials of a country's government representatives for uploading a single cell phone video while pirate streams and video sharing go on elsewhere unabated. Gold medal.

Filed Under: mexico, olympics, press credentials, social media, video
Companies: conade

Here Is The End Result Of The USOC And NBC's Over-Protectionist Olympic Nonsense

from the nice dept

When it comes to intellectual property bullying, the unholy alliance between the USOC and NBC seems to be trying to see exactly how far it can push things. Between NBC's "most live ever" broadcast of the games that still has unnecessary delays in both its television and streaming product and the USOC's strange belief that companies that sponsor athletes year-round somehow can't tweet out factual results or news images of those athletes as it relates the games due to trademark law, it's enough to make you laugh.

But it's not only the antics of the USOC and NBC that is chuckle-worthy. Local sports coverage of the Olympics is too, thanks to the laughable restrictions NBC has put in place. Here's my hometown sports anchor, for instance, who came up with a creative way to cover the Olympics by not covering them at all in protest.

Yes, instead of actually reporting on the games at all, Pat Tomasulo of Chicago's WGN decided to relay just how insane NBC is with its demands for how its footage is used and how other news groups are allowed to cover the Olympics. He decided to cover a different international competition run by "one of the most corrupt organization's in the world", whose logo is a series of interconnected triangles and whose theme song is Bump and Grind by R. Kelly. Then he read some Olympics results over footage of his own high school wrestling days, fully crediting his own mother.

Now, this isn't just funny, it's also a wonderful little push back against NBC for its frankly insane restrictions on Olympics coverage. As a reward for being that restrictive, at least one local news organization decided not to report on the Olympics at all. So, NBC... mission accomplished?

Filed Under: fair use, olympics, pat tomasulo, sports coverage, wgn
Companies: usoc, wgn

Comcast/NBC Ignores Lessons From The Cord Cutting Age, Buries Olympics Under An Ocean Of Annoying Advertising

from the you-will-like-what-we-say-you'll-like dept

It's becoming abundantly clear that the lessons of the cord cutting age are not sinking in at Comcast/NBC Universal headquarters. Last Friday night, NBC aired the Olympic opening ceremonies, but spent the weekend being mercilessly ridiculed on social media for a broadcast that was not only showy and hollow, but absolutely slathered with not just ads -- but the same ads shown over and over again. Viewers, many of whom were already annoyed by NBC's refusal to show the opening ceremonies live, made their displeasure abundantly clear: In 2011, Comcast agreed to pay $4.4 billion for exclusive US broadcast rights to air the Olympics through 2020. It shelled out another $7.75 billion for the rights for the games until 2032. To begin recouping the costs of this deal, Comcast/NBC was quick to brag about how it nabbed $1.2 billion in national advertising in the games. But lost in this conversation, as usual, was what paying customers actually wanted. What consumers repeatedly told NBC they wanted was less blathering, more live events, and a live broadcast of the opening ceremonies. They got none of those things.

What they got was a one-hour tape delay so NBC could try and shovel as many advertisements at consumers as possible (under the guise of needing to add "context"), and some incoherent rambling from hosts who often went hysterically out of their way to avoid addressing any of the volatile realities surrounding the games in Rio. Previously, NBC execs tried to justify this tone-deafness with all manner of excuses, ranging from absurd to relatively insulting:

The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.

As the complaints bubbled over among the viewing public, NBC started playing defense, telling industry news outlets like Ad Week that the Rio games ad load is "very similar" to the 2010 London Olympics; it's the public perception that's to blame:

"As we did for London, we inserted a few more commercials earlier in the show so that we can afford time later in the show to present as much of the ceremony as we can, including every single country in the Parade of Nations," said an NBC Sports spokesperson. "Given that the commercial load was very similar to London, we believe that consumption habits, such as binge-watching and 'marathoning,' have changed perceptions among the viewing audience regarding commercials."

That's NBC admitting that modern consumers are finding over-advertising and other legacy cable habits more annoying than ever. Something NBC should have already known as consumers slowly but surely either cut the cable cord or trim back on their viewing packages because the game has changed. And what did NBC do armed with this information? It doubled down on being annoying. The result was a 30+% decline in the 18-49 demographic, with people trying harder than ever to explore Olympics streaming alternatives (or even use a VPN to watch live international streams if necessary).

This isn't just inflexibility and tone-deafness, it's almost a celebration of them. And it's just one more example of how the traditional cable and broadcast sector isn't just ready for real disruption, it's absolutely begging for it.

Filed Under: advertising, olympics, opening ceremonies, tape delay, time delay
Companies: nbc universal

Minnesota Carpet Cleaning Business Sues US Olympic Committee Over Its Ridiculous Social Media Rules

from the david-v.-SUPERGOLIATH dept

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) must spend a majority of the four-year break between Olympics thinking up new, spectacularly petty demands to make of everyone when the next event rolls around. It's always been overbearing and thuggish, but it seems determined to top itself with each new iteration of its sports-related boondoggle.

In the run-up to this year's particularly dystopian Olympic games, being hosted in a city without clean water or a clean police force, the USOC has already demanded:

- That a company take down Olympic-related social media posts pertaining to the Olympic athlete the company is sponsoring

- That no non-official commercial entities are allowed to use certain hashtags in tweets

- That no "non-media" companies are allowed to refer to the Olympic games, outcomes of events, or even share/repost content posted by official Olympic media accounts

It's these last two that are being challenged -- not by a megacorporation unable to buy its way into the USOC's good graces, but a Minnesota-located franchise of the Zerorez carpet cleaning business.

A small business in Minnesota is suing over the US Olympic Committee’s ban on tweeting about the Olympic games. The Committee announced last month that non-sponsors are banned from even using hashtags like #Rio2016 or #TeamUSA. Zerorez, a carpet cleaning business in Minnesota, will file suit in U.S. District Court on Thursday.

So why is this seemingly random floor cleaning business in Minnesota the one suing? They simply want to root for the home team.

“They’re very engaged with social media,” Aaron Hall, CEO of the JUX Law firm, told me over the phone. “They felt concerned about being censored on social media, especially at a time when we’re going through a time of pain and negativity.”

The JUX Law firm filed its lawsuit [PDF] Thursday, angling for declaratory judgment that would give it permission to do all the things the USOC seems to feel no businesses should be allowed to do when the Olympics roll around. (h/t to JUX Law for sending me a copy of the filing before it hit PACER.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Minn. Stat. ch 555 (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act), Zerorez seeks a declaratory judgment regarding its rights to discuss the Olympics in social media and other online forms of public discourse as follows:

a. The examples of social media posts in paragraph 11 do not violate the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act nor the trademark rights of the USOC;

b. Businesses, including those that are not official Olympic sponsors, are not entirely precluded from engaging in conversation about the Olympics, Olympic results, and Olympic athletes on social media;

c. It is possible for businesses, including those that are not official Olympic sponsors, to mention the Olympics, Olympic results, and Olympic athletes on social media without violating the legal rights of the U.S. Olympic Committee;

d. The U.S. Olympic Committee exaggerated the strength of its legal rights by claiming “commercial entities may not post about the Games on their corporate social media accounts;”

e. The U.S. Olympic Committee exaggerated the strength of its legal rights by claiming businesses categorically cannot use its trademarked words and phrases, such as Olympic, Olympian, and Team USA, on social media and websites;

f. The U.S. Olympic Committee exaggerated the strength of its legal rights by claiming businesses may not wish good luck to Olympic athletes on social media;

g. The mere mention of the Olympics, Olympic results, and Olympic athletes, by a business not sponsoring the Olympics, is not necessarily a violation of rights of the U.S. Olympic Committee;

h. The USOC’s trademark rights in hashtags such as #TeamUSA, #Olympics, and #Rio2016, do not categorically prohibit businesses from using those hashtags to accurately reference these Olympic topics;

i. The USOC has misrepresented and exaggerated the authority granted to it under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act;

j. If the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act were interpreted so broadly as to prohibit all businesses from non-commercial speech regarding the Olympics, the Act would be unconstitutional because it would restrict First Amendment rights;

k. The USOC violated fundamental Constitutional rights as set forth in this Complaint;

l. Speech is not commercial in nature merely because it is on a business’s social media account; and

m. A statement about the Olympics on social media, that does not propose a commercial transaction and reference a specific product or service, is not commercial speech and does not violate the USOC’s rights.

The post contains examples of tweets Zerorez would like to send out, but the USOC's new rules apparently forbid it from doing so and place it in danger of being on the receiving end of a lawsuit, rather than dishing one out.

Congrats to the 11 Minnesotans competing in 10 different sports at the Rio 2016 Olympics! #rioready

Are any Minnesotans heading to #Rio to watch the #Olympics? #RoadToRio

St. Cloud native Alise Post is an #Olympian competing in the #Olympic BMX events today. Follow her at @alisepost11

Good luck to our 11 Minnesota Olympians competing in #RIO2016.

All very innocuous, supportive and non-deceptive. And all the sort of thing the USOC says no one but official sponsors are allowed to do.

I'm not sure this is the sort of declaratory judgment filing Mike was asking for at the end of his post about how the USOC harms Olympic athletes with these stupid social media rules, but it's the only one we have at this point.

There are some interesting First Amendment issues tucked in between the USOC's outsized trademark assertions and the lower protections afforded commercial speech. There's zero chance this will even be viewed by a judge until after the Olympic games are underway and any decision will probably arrive after the games have finished.

But if it does contain enough actionable claims that the court doesn't toss it after the first motion to dismiss, there's a slim chance the USOC won't be able to be quite so overreaching in the future. If nothing else, Zerorez may find itself freed of USOC stupidity. If it does that, many other commercial entities and nonprofits will probably seek similar judgments of their own.

Filed Under: free speech, olympics, rio, tweets
Companies: usoc, zerorez

How The Olympics Bullshit Ban On Tweeting About The Olympics Is Harming Olympic Athletes

from the all-about-the-profits-for-the-olympics dept

Every couple of years as the Olympics gears up again, we end up posting a series of stories about massive bullshit overclaims by the Olympics concerning trademark law. And none of it is actually about what trademark law allows. It's all about the Olympics' weird infatuation with making sure no company that doesn't give them a ton of money first can "associate" with the Olympics. Again, that's not how trademark law actually works, but few companies are willing to stand up to the International Olympic Committee or the US Olympic Committee. This year, the crackdown seems even more ridiculous than usual, with letters being sent to companies who are helping and sponsoring athletes stating that, unless they're official sponsors with the US Olympic Committee, they can't even tweet anything mentioning the Olympics. Companies that had sponsored athletes were being forced to blur out or delete social media posts about their own athletes because their racing bibs said "Olympics" on them.

In our comments, Emily White, the founder of a crowdfunding for athletes site, Dreamfuel, which many Olympians use to help fund their training or the abilities of their families to come see them at the Olympics, shared her story as well. That included being told that a company built specifically to help fund athletes can't congratulate their own athletes:

We're thrilled to be able to provide a new and viable revenue stream to all athletes, whether they are Olympic sports or not.

We have been contacted by the USOC about all of the above (our team was stunned that we cannot publicly congratulate Dreamfuel athletes who qualify for The Olympics). I want to add that we've also been told that we also cannot post the press we've been receiving on the funding we've been generating for Olympic athletes (we don't have a publicist; all press on our mission is organic by nature) because it uses the O word.

I've been speaking with Emily about all of this and apparently after pressure from the Olympics about their special campaigns to get funding for families to come to the Olympics, they were told to never mention the Olympics or "Olympians" at all. They can only say "athletes" who are going to "Brazil" (they were told they can't even say "Rio").

Last Wednesday, the rules got even stricter as "Rule 40" went into effect. This ratchets things up to ridiculous levels and basically says that if a company so much as tweets a congratulations to an Olympic athlete, that could cost the athlete their medals. Really. And, yes, that's totally fucked up. Ridiculously, the Olympics claim that they put in place Rule 40 to prevent commercialization of the games, that are perhaps the most commercialized sporting event ever -- it's just that all the money goes to the Olympics themselves, and not to the athletes.

At least one company went so far as to build an entire marketing campaign around attacking Rule 40:

During the U.S. Olympic track & field trials earlier this month, a flatbed billboard truck traveled around the University of Oregon campus, bearing slogans such as, “Not pictured here: an athlete living below the poverty line to bring glory to their country.” It was part of a campaign, called “Rule 40” in reference to the section of the Olympic charter which it disputes, that went live in early June and has mainly consisted of social media posts and covertly-distributed T-shirts and stickers.

The campaign takes issue with an International Olympic Committee rule preventing any participant in the Olympics—athletes, coaches, trainers and officials—from capitalizing on their own image for advertising purposes from nine days before the opening ceremony until three days after.

There's even a Rule40.com website protesting the ridiculousness of these rules, and it's getting lots of folks talking about how ridiculous these rules are. Going back to Dreamfuel, with Rule 40 going into effect, she tells me that at least some family members of the athletes using Dreamfuel were surprised and upset to see that a bunch of the images of their children had to come down from the funding campaigns, or the athletes might get disqualified altogether. Because the US Olympic Committee says that companies can't mention anything during the Rule 40 period -- but individuals can -- it leaves Dreamfuel in a weird position where it's announced it can't promote its own crowdfunding campaigns that help the families of athletes get to the Olympics, but Emily can tweet them out as an individual. This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that they're threatening Dreamfuel helps underline what a complete lie it is for the Olympics to claim that this is about stopping the overcommercialization of the Olympics. Just like Kickstarter helped make it easier for independent creators to create and innovate without having to get big corporate backing, Dreamfuel has done that for athletes and their families. As a platform, it's the antidote to overcommercialization... and yet the Olympics are silencing the company from even letting people know that they can help support Olympians and their families in Rio.

I'm hoping that someone, somewhere eventually challenges the Olympics with a declaratory judgment filing or something. The trademark claims here are ludicrous and are directly being used to silence speech.

Filed Under: athletes, crowdfunding, free speech, olympics, rio, rule 40, trademark
Companies: dreamfuel, usoc

Dear US Olympic Committee: Tweeting About The Olympics Is Never Trademark Infringement

from the seems-reasonable dept

It seems the USOC is just getting started with its bullying bullshit this Olympic season. Fresh off the heels of threatening Oiselle, a corporate sponsor of an Olympic athlete (but not a sponsor of the Olympics themselves), over trademark concerns because the company posted a congratulatory tweet for its sponsored athlete that included the Olympic bib she was wearing, the USOC is now sending out a helpful little reminder to other companies that have sponsored athletes but not the games. And by helpful, I mean that it's helpful in seeing just how blatantly the USOC will outright lie in order to continue its bullying ways.

ESPN got its hands on the letter the USOC sent around.

"Commercial entities may not post about the Trials or Games on their corporate social media accounts," reads the letter written by USOC chief marketing officer Lisa Baird. "This restriction includes the use of USOC's trademarks in hashtags such as #Rio2016 or #TeamUSA."

It's the kind of blanket statement that the USOC likes to make, even as it avoids any of the pesky nuance that might call its claims into question. Certainly, as part of trademark law, a company's Twitter account could not claim to be an Olympic sponsor, or attempt to confuse followers into thinking it had some kind of affiliation. And this might translate into that company not including trademarked hashtags themselves. But what about retweets? What about posts that mention the sponsored athlete but not the hashtags? What about informing followers of the success of the athletes the company sponsors?

Well, for that last one at least, the USOC has boldly claimed it owns the rights to facts.

The letter further stipulates that a company whose primary mission is not media-related cannot reference any Olympic results, cannot share or repost anything from the official Olympic account and cannot use any pictures taken at the Olympics.

Yeah, that's not actually true. Like, at all. As we've pointed out in the past, several times, there is no applicable part of trademark law that applies to facts, such as the factual results or stats of a sporting event. And there's no line in the sand to draw between the average Twitter user and a corporate Twitter account when it comes to this, meaning that corporate sponsors of athletes are absolutely free to mention the results of their sponsored athletes at the Olympic Games or trials. Beyond that blatant lie, claiming that a company's account can't retweet an Olympic account misunderstands the very nature of social media (make your damn account private then!), while blanket claims about what types of pictures of the games can be used completely ignores any Fair Use arguments that could be made, of which there are many.

But this is SOP for the USOC, even as they further lie about the necessity for all of this bullying.

While the USOC argues that money from sponsors and licensees who pay for the rights allow them to support athletes to go to the Games, Bergesen says the stringent rules hurt the athletes because companies that can't support them during the Games can't afford to pay them because of lack of promotion.

"It costs $300,000 to send an Olympian to the Games, and for our athletes, the USOC has reimbursed them about 1 percent of that cost," Bergesen said. "Is that supporting them?"

Well, no, but of course that isn't the point of the Olympics, which long ago transitioned into a money-making machine rather than any kind of international sporting competition. The corruption is so bad, few countries even want to bid to host them anymore. But, sure, keep focusing on corporate sponsors that want to congratulate their athletes, as though that was the problem.

Filed Under: olympics, sponsors, trademark
Companies: usoc

NBC's 'Most Live Olympics Ever' Will Have A One Hour Broadcast Delay For The Opening Ceremony

from the late-to-the-party dept

It's Olympics season again. What is normally an expose of how the IOC and the USOC become the biggest IP bullies on the block has had a little spice added to it this year in the form of a host country that by all reports is woefully unprepared for its duties while simultaneously being rocked by a pest-spread disease with the delightful symptom of shrinking the brains of fetuses. And if that doesn't make you believe that some combination of a god and/or the universe wants the Olympics to cease to be, perhaps the fact that the whole fiasco will be broadcast by NBC will.

Yes, running in parallel with our posts about IOC bullying, you will find a history of posts about NBC's strange attempts to turn back the clock on its broadcast of the games. Historically, this has meant limiting the live streaming of most of the events, making it as difficult to find and watch any event as possible, and delaying all kinds of event broadcasts until NBC deems that the public wants to watch them. But have heart, dear friends, for the NBC overlords have listened and have declared that these Rio Olympics will be the "most live Olympics ever."

For Rio 2016, NBC says this will be its "most live Olympics ever" with 4,500 hours of coverage streaming on NBCOlympics.com and the recently renamed NBC Sports app. Also new this time around is that the NBC Sports app is on connected TV devices (it launched on Roku and Apple TV last year), not just mobile.

Now, I'll just go ahead and note here that while NBC has been very busy patting itself on the back for how much more live coverage there will be of the Olympics in Rio compared with previous broadcasts, the fact that there is a time difference of exactly one hour between East Coast time and Brazil means that all the live coverage is probably just happenstance rather than any concerted effort by NBC. But, hey, the company has still gotten the message that live coverage only makes sense in a hyper-connected world where view-on-demand can be achieved by the devices we carry around in our pockets at work and while in transit, right?

Sure! Except for the opening ceremony, because you idiots aren't smart enough to be able to watch that live.

The Rio Olympics formally begin August 5th with the opening ceremony from the Maracanã stadium. Proceedings start at 7 p.m. Eastern Time, only you won’t be able to watch them on NBC until at least an hour later. At a press conference yesterday, NBC execs announced plans to broadcast the ceremony at 8 p.m. Eastern Time and 7 p.m. Central Time, each on one hour delays, and at 7 p.m. Mountain Time and 8 p.m. Pacific Time, on two and four-hour delays respectively.

So why the need for anywhere between a one and four our delay to watch the opening ceremony? Two reasons. First, forget all of that hyperconnectivity thing we just talked about, this shit has to only air during prime time. Also, without post-production and planned narration of the ceremony, you viewers won't get all of the great story lines NBC wants to feed you.

By doing a short tape-delay of one hour, it allows us to put it in a time period when more people are home to watch, because it is a Friday night and they get out of their commute or home from wherever they are. And it allows us to curate it with the narrative and storytelling of our announcers to explain what’s going on. And it allows us to put in commercials without cutting out large chunks of the show.

Also, the opening ceremony is really for all of the penis-less viewers out there. And we all know how the ladies don't really like sports but do like their soap operas, amirite?

The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.

Now, to the point about the prime time coverage. Look, hyperconnected or not, it is certainly true that many adults only have certain hours of the day to which they can dedicate some couch-time and watch a bunch of people from a bunch of countries walk around in a circle for a while. But that doesn't mean NBC couldn't also stream the ceremony live for those that want it live. The commentary might be pared down and perhaps we wouldn't get all of the juicy narrative NBC wants to inject for lady viewers, who we all know universally hate sports and all that, but there is value to live coverage that many people want. It's not just a small number of sports writers.

As for that context it claims it needs to inject, that's not the whole story. What the delay really allows NBC to do is inject commercials wherever it wants without omitting any countries from the ceremony while also being able to cut out any undesirable content (i.e. political content) that shows up in the ceremony.

NBC has an incentive to air the ceremony live, but by delaying, they are sacrificing the chance to be first so they can tailor the coverage, cut out any shenanigans, and pick the best places to cut away to commercial. And, of course, cut anything controversial. As Gary Zenkel, NBCSG’s president, pointed out, it’s a show, not a competition.

Which, fine, if NBC wants to act as the speech filter for its viewers, so be it. But who is going to be surprised when NBC also screams bloody murder at people seeing results, highlights, and even coverage of the opening ceremony that will be available on other streams from other nations' broadcasts, on Twitter and Facebook and the like? NBC can't seriously delay its coverage and get mad when all the customers whose demands it ignores move on to other options.

But that's exactly what will happen. We've been here before, after all. And no matter how "live" these Olympics are this go-round, delaying the broadcast and stream of the opening ceremony leads me to believe I know exactly how it will go this time too.

Filed Under: ads, commercials, olympics, opening ceremony, time delay
Companies: nbc

USOC Demands That Company Take Down Twitter Posts Of Olympic Athlete It Sponsors

from the facepalm dept

All I have to do is say that this is a story that involves the Olympics and you probably already know exactly what kind of story this is going to be. That's because we here at Techdirt have posts going back years that detail how the IOC and the USOC go about bullying, threatening, berating and downright pestering anyone it can over even the slightest of intellectual property concerns. The fact that these international games come around every two years now, instead of four, only means this bullying occurs now in near perpetuity instead of at a pace of a half-a-decade staccato.

So, with the Rio Olympics right around the zika-infested, super-bacteria-in-the-water corner, it's time to start relaying the most predictable news possible: the USOC are still bullying people over laughably slight trademark concerns. Though I will credit the USOC this much: they're finding new and inventive ways to come off as petty and money-grubbing as possible. The link above details the USOC's demands that Oiselle, an athletic apparel company that sponsors Olympic athlete Kate Grace, take down the following Instagram posts.

The USOC said these posts were trademark violations and that Oiselle was using them to confuse the public into thinking it was sponsoring the Olympics. Now, Kate Grace is sponsored as an athlete by Oiselle. The posts above appear to be a runner's sponsor alerting its followers at the accomplishment of one of its athletes. You know, exactly the kind of thing that a corporate sponsor should be expected to do. So, are you confused as to what any of the above has to do with the USOC's claim that Oiselle is trying to trade off of the trademarks of the Olympics?

Sally Bergesen, CEO of Oiselle, told the Orange County Register that she received an email from the U.S. Olympic Committee informing her that the posts violated USOC trademark guidelines, requesting that Oiselle to take down all images of Grace and other Oiselle athletes competing at the Trials. The USOC official, Carol Gross, asked that Oiselle stop all “Olympic-related advertising” and take down images by “close of business” Wednesday, July 6.

“This is about USOC’s intellectual property, ownership of the terms Rio, Road To Rio, the rings—all of the branding they use,” Bergesen said by phone. “By using the caption ‘She’s heading to Rio’ and showing the branding [#RoadToRio, Olympic rings] on her bib, which is ironed onto her Oiselle top, they’re saying it’s akin to creating advertising, that we’re making it look like we’re part of Team USA and doing Olympic advertising. They’re saying that our reporting is advertising; we differ with that.”

Yes, because the USOC has managed to get all kinds of generic trademarks on words and locations that have no business being trademarked at all, and because the athlete was wearing a bib while competing that showed some valid IOC trademarks, suddenly the image and caption can't be put on social media. Does anyone actually look at that picture and caption and immediately conclude that Oiselle is an Olympic sponsor? Even the hashtags, a brand new insane place for people to fight over trademark concerns, don't conjure up an association with the olympics.

But here's where we can see the USOC's intentions laid bare. Keep in mind that Kate Grace is sponsored by Oiselle, just not for the Olympics. Instead, she's a sponsored athlete for all of her non-Olympic competition and training. Meaning that Oiselle is part of what got Kate Grace to the Olympics, but now that company can't even tweet out a picture of her success.

Bergesen says she understands the USOC’s position with regard to maintaining the value of trademarks, but takes issue with the fact that the neither the USOC nor its major corporate sponsors support athletes’ training, nor pay athletes for competing at the Olympics, but make vast sums from the event. “It comes down to how the money is spent,” she said. “I would be somewhat okay [with non-USOC rmarketing restrictions] if some of the money were getting to athletes. But the reality is, if it were not for small private entities who actually support athletes, you’d have a beautifully branded stadium with no athletes in it.”

Filled with all the branding in the world and nobody there to take pictures of it all and tweet them out, because the athletes are actually supported by the very people unable to congratulate them on social media. Gold medal for asshole-ery goes to the USOC.

Filed Under: kate grace, olympics, rio, rio olympics, trademark, usoc
Companies: oiselle, us olympic committee, usoc

Prominent Salt Lake City Residents Sue The NSA Over Mass Warrantless Surveillance During The 2002 Olympics

from the statute-of-limitations-may-be-a-problem dept

All the cool kids are suing the NSA these days. The EFF and ACLU led the way, suing the NSA before suing the NSA was cool. Others followed as a series Snowden/Greenwald split releases gained popularity (culimating in Greenwald leaving The Guardian to start his own label website). Most recently, those abused by the NSA for their whistleblowing efforts enlisted the help of the frequently more-entertaining-than-effective Larry Klayman to sue the NSA (and many others) for the retaliatory actions that followed their whistleblowing efforts.

The AP reports (without attaching the relevant filing, because information wants to be free omitted) that former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson is suing the NSA for "mass warrantless surveillance" conducted during the 2002 Winter Olympics, which were held less than six months after the 9/11 attacks.

Rocky Anderson may be suing the NSA, but it appears he's only doing so by hitching his name to a pre-existing lawsuit. Anderson's name isn't found among the listed plaintiffs, which basically makes him a "similarly situated party" -- indistinguishable from the average Salt Lake City resident except that the press is willing to publish his statements.

"I was outraged by this," Anderson said Wednesday. "Fundamentally, we want to get to the truth and expose what our government is doing."

Anderson says he learned about the program from a 2013 report in the Wall Street Journal and has since confirmed it with an unnamed agency source.

The suit names the NSA, FBI, George W. Bush, Michael Hayden, Dick Cheney and 50 "Does." What's alleged in the filing is the interception of data and communications in the Salt Lake City area for the duration of the Winter Olympics.

The NSA, in conjunction with the FBI, planned and implemented a mass warrantless program—for which there was no probable cause, completely outside the Constitution and outside of any applicable federal statutory laws, including FISA, the Wiretap Act, and the Stored Communications Act—in which blanket surveillance was attempted and achieved during a period preceding the commencement of the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games and throughout the period of the Games, from February 8, 2002 (Opening Ceremony) through February 24 (Closing Ceremony), over everyone within designated geographical areas, including Salt Lake City, Utah, and the areas including and in the vicinity of all Olympic venues.

That surveillance included the interception and key-word spotting analysis of the contents of every text message sent and received, every email sent and received, and information reflecting the time and length of, and telephone numbers involved in, every telephone conversation involving any person within the areas subjected to the blanket surveillance. In some instances, people or telephone numbers were targeted by the NSA and FBI and telephone conversations involving such targeted telephone numbers were illegally and unconstitutionally recorded and subjected to analysis, without a warrant and without probable cause.

In support of these allegations, it cites the exposure of the "Stellar Wind" program in 2005, as well as other confirmations of the warrantless wiretapping authority granted after the 9/11 attacks.

The plaintiffs' standing relies on very simple assertions: that they made phone calls and sent text messages/emails during the Winter Olympics. Given what we know about the NSA's bulk collection programs, this is all that's really needed to make these allegations. Ex-mayor Rocky Anderson says he knows "about 200 others" who could make similar claims, but the barrier of entry for this class is low enough that thousands of residents and non-residents could join the proceedings, if granted class action status by the court. Here are the class stipulations:

All individuals in the United States who sent or received a phone call, text message, or email from or to a location within Salt Lake City or within an area including and adjacent to any other 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games venue where any of the defendants were engaged in warrantless surveillance of communications by telephone, text messaging, or email during the time of December 1, 2001 to February 24, 2002 (or whenever it is established the warrantless surveillance took place).

The lawsuit alleges First and Fourth Amendment violations, as well as violations of FISA, the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. It also cites similar violations of Utah's Constitution.

I'm not sure this suit has any chance of surviving a motion to dismiss by the government. While standing is easier to achieve now that leaked documents have verified the specifics of the NSA's collection programs, the courts have generally granted more deference to the government's "national security" arguments. What is (slightly) helpful is that the Second Circuit found the Section 215 bulk collection isn't actually authorized by the Patriot Act. While Utah resides outside of that Circuit, decisions that question the legitimacy of bulk surveillance still may prove useful to the plaintiffs' claims.

If there's going to be any retribution for the NSA's abuses, it will probably have to wait until the Supreme Court takes a swing at it. And by the time it does, the question about the legality of its bulk collection program (under Section 215) will be largely moot, thanks to the passage of the USA Freedom Act. While lawsuits like these have been mostly fruitless in their pursuit of favorable judgments, they have proven useful for shaking loose previously-hidden documents and legal justifications for warrantless, domestic surveillance.

Filed Under: fbi, mass surveillance, nsa, olympics, surveillance, utah

IOC Forces School To Remove Rings From Crest For Some Reason

from the champions-of-bullying dept

Have you thought about the Olympics lately? No? Then I guess you didn't drive past any of the tiny little schools in this itty bitty school district in the Poconos in Pennsylvania that serves a population of almost twenty-five thousand whole people, because, if you had, the International Olympic Committee is quite certain you would have been all, "Oh, look, that must be a school run by the Olympics for some reason." Otherwise, the IOC's pressuring the district to re-draw this district crest would make no sense.

You can probably spot the source of the problem immediately. It's those damned rings at the top-left, of course, and the IOC ain't happy that some stupid little learning institution could think that those rings could be incorporated in a logo. After all, the Olympics has nothing to do with learning, with a cooperative spirit, or with domestic institutions. Which is exactly what has me questioning why there is any trademark standing to begin with. After all, the two entities aren't competing in any kind of marketplace and the IOC, notoriously trademark-protect-y, has allowed the Wallenpaupack's district crest to exist since the 1970's.

Now, however, the IOC has convinced the school district that it must come up with a new crest. Quite unfortunately, the IOC even appears to have district officials convinced that the trademark claim is all super-legitimate.

“They obviously have a legitimate concern. It’s a trademarked item. We do have to come up with a plan of phasing it out,” said Superintendent Michael Silsby. Phasing out the rings because Silsby said an attorney for the U.S. Olympic Committee called last week, saying the school could no longer use the rings to represent athletics.

No, that isn't a legitimate concern, even if narrowly applied to athletic teams, because there's no commerce or competition here. This was simply the IOC, through the domestic USOC, bullying a school because it felt like it. Or maybe the USOC lawyers found some downtime and decided to fill it up smacking around schools. Either way, nothing about this is born out of a legitimate concern.

The district is reportedly going to have students create the new crest, which is all well and good, but that doesn't remove the bile from my mouth over the USOC's actions. You folks must be so proud...

Filed Under: crest, ioc, olympics, poconos, schools, trademark, usoc