London 2012 Olympics Go For Gold in the Extreme 'Ambush Marketing' Law Event: 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' – And No Streaking Allowed

from the bare-faced-cheek dept

The Olympic Games are not just about sporting success, but also legal excess – in particular, taking laws to extremes in order to "protect" sponsors, who are routinely elevated to the level of Greek gods during the games, with similarly superhuman rights over lesser beings like you and me.

Techdirt has already written about the UK police getting special powers to enter homes during the 2012 games, as well as free speech being curtailed. Now there are plans to suspend the presumption of innocence too:

One of the fundamental principles of European justice will be temporarily suspended during next year’s London Olympics to protect the commercial interests of sponsors, if Government proposals are accepted by Parliament later this year.

Under the plans, anyone suspected of so-called “ambush marketing” or unauthorized trading near the Olympic Park during the Games would be presumed guilty until proven innocent – a clear contradiction of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) believes the move is justified to facilitate the staging of the Games, which it describes as a “once-in-a-lifetime occasion”.

Regulations proposed by the DCMS state that an interference with the right to be presumed innocent “will be justified” as long as it is confined within reasonable limits.

So great is the threat of ambush marketing to the 2012 Olympic Games that other basic freedoms are being abrogated – like the right to run around naked in public with advertisements on your body:

Streakers who use their bodies to advertise during the Olympics could face a £20,000 [$32,000] fine under new rules.

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is being tweaked to target people who attempt marketing stunts during the tournament.

A man invaded a diving event at the Athens 2004 Olympics with a brand daubed on his bare chest.

The good news is that the tweaked 2006 Act would not apply to people running around naked without advertisements, although a spokesman said: "there may still be legal ramifications". So please do bear that in mind if you experience a sudden urge to take off your clothes in London during the Olympics next year.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: ambush marketing, guilty until proven innocent, olympics, uk
Companies: ioc

Olympics Continues Threatening ICANN Because It Won't Block All Olympics-Related Terms

from the fetchez-la-vache dept

We've established the weird fact that various countries seem to blatantly ignore the basic principles of copyright and trademark laws within their own countries to grant the Olympics special protections that go well beyond what is reasonable. It seems that the Olympics has come to expect this sort of fealty from everyone, without exception. Earlier this year, we noted that the Olympics were threatening ICANN about its new top level domains, because ICANN wouldn't bend over and block anything that the International Olympics Committee deemed owned by itself. It protested ICANN's new TLD proposals by saying that any benefits were "outweighed by the risks, harms and costs it poses" to the Olympics. Uh yeah.

ICANN's response was to more or less tell the IOC to go pound sand. So, it appears that the Olympics are back and threatening a lawsuit again. I say, let them. I doubt the IOC wants to actually test it's bizarre and blatantly expansionist interpretation of intellectual property laws in any court. The various lawyers who represent the IOC must know that it will lose and lose badly. That's why it's been threatening for months with no actual lawsuits being filed. You can even see this in the latest threat, where the IOC complains that it filed 11 comments on ICANN's policies and every one has been ignored. It seems that ICANN might want to continue this policy and see if it can call the IOC's bluff here.

Filed Under: domain names, icann, olympics, trademark

London Wants To Offer Full WiFi Coverage... But How Will That Work With The Digital Economy Act?

from the questions... dept

Rik was the first of a few of you to send in the news that the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is claiming that London will be fully covered by WiFi in time for the 2012 Olympic games. Of course, considering that the UK Parliament just passed the Digital Economy Act, which calls for carefully limiting access to the internet for people accused (not convicted) of infringement online, it makes you wonder how that's going to work. Even if Ofcom has said that the DEA rules won't initially apply to wireless providers, it does seem a bit odd to have the government offering a service like this. Once again, we're seeing how the government has these two competing issues that don't play well together: getting more broadband availability, while looking to help out the entertainment industry by kicking people off the internet at the same time. Who will be the first Olympic athlete kicked offline for downloading some music during the games?

Filed Under: london, olympics, wifi

NBC Tells Concerned Senator That Its Olympics Coverage Was Great... According To Itself

from the well,-that's-convincing dept

As you may recall, NBC was widely slammed for its ridiculous Olympics coverage, which included time delayed programming for no reason at all, extremely limited online programming, and -- in some cases -- requirements to prove you were a particular cable company subscriber to get access to the internet streams. This upset Senator Herb Kohl, who questioned NBC, and wondered if it would further restrict access to its programming should the merger with Comcast go through.

NBC has now replied, but has done so in a misleading manner -- claiming that "viewers had access to more coverage than in any prior Winter Olympics." Now, this is misleading by omission on two separate accounts. First, note the use of "Winter Olympics." Two years ago, NBC actually did provide greater access to its Summer Olympics coverage online. Four years ago, at the last Winter Olympics, broadband was more limited and you can't really compare the two. So that point is somewhat meaningless. Second, since there was no direct competition in the US, it's also a meaningless statement. However, if you look at how online coverage of the Olympics was handled in other countries, you quickly realize that NBC did a terrible job and greatly limited viewers. For example, we regularly heard from folks in Canada, who noted they could access almost everything via online streams.

NBC further makes this questionable claim:

"Without this hybrid approach to ad-supported broadcast households and (pay-TV) households, NBCU would simply not be able to bring our complete Olympics coverage to the American public."

Let's see... you took an amazingly popular sporting event, pissed off a ton of people who wanted to watch it by making it harder to watch and apparently lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. And now you're suggesting this was a successful strategy? Wow. Perhaps if you had provided more of what consumers actually wanted, you would have found a better business model.

Filed Under: olympics
Companies: nbc

Once Again, For The 2012 Olympics, Police Get Special Powers To Enter Homes And Remove Signage

from the civil-liberties dept

Late last year, before the Vancouver Olympics, there was widespread concern about a special law that was passed that allowed Vancouver police the right to enter homes and remove signs that the Olympics doesn't like (specifically, "marketing" signs). That seemed to trample on basic civil rights, even as the police tried to downplay the likelihood that they would use such a tool. However, it looks like the London police have been given the exact same rights as well. An anonymous reader sent over an article about the 2012 Olympics in London, which has a section towards the end highlighting similar questionable powers given to police:

Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events.

This has many people questioning why the government has tossed away their civil rights in favor of the now crassly commercial Olympics.

Filed Under: london, olympics

Olympics Threaten ICANN, Saying Its Trademark Concerns Outweigh Any Benefits From New TLDs

from the sense-of-entitlement-much? dept

It's no secret that the Olympics seem to have a massive sense of entitlement when it comes to trademark issues -- getting various governments to pass laws that go way beyond trademark laws in those countries to add special protections for the Olympics, barring pretty much any unauthorized mentions outside of press coverage (and even that's a bit iffy). This is not at all what trademark law is supposed to do. Its latest move is to complain to ICANN about its new plans for a .sports top level domain, worrying that any benefits "are outweighed by the risks, harms and costs it poses to trademark owners and the public." The public? Really? Furthermore, the IOC warns ICANN that it retains the "right to proceed against ICANN for damages resulting to the IOC or the Olympic Movement from the implementation of an unlimited number of new gTLDs." Nice of them.

That article highlights that the IOC already has special deals with a number of big domain registrars blocking any registration that includes an IOC trademark -- which is highly questionable, since registrations including trademarks are very much allowed to non-trademark holders, so long as the sites aren't confusing to the public (for example, with "sucks sites" which are allowed). Hopefully ICANN stands up to bullying from the IOC which has no real case here, unless gov'ts keep passing special "for the Olympics only" abusive trademark laws.

Filed Under: icann, olympics, tlds, trademark
Companies: icann, ioc

Even Senators Hated NBC Universal's Olympic Coverage

from the ouch dept

With NBC Universal already under a fair amount of scrutiny by the Senate, as it seeks to merge with Comcast, it seems that it's antiquated broadcast schedule of the recent Olympics isn't helping matters. Senator Herb Kohl apparently sent a letter to NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker, asking him to explain why NBC Universal's Olympic coverage was so incredibly lame. More specifically, he questioned if NBC's incredibly restrictive online Olympics video (much more restricted than two years ago at the Beijing summer Olympics) is a preview of "what is to come with respect to TV programming shown on the Internet."

While it may be a bit of a stretch to connect the two, it does seem like particularly poor timing and bad strategy by NBC Universal officials. Just as they're trying to convince the Senate (and others) that of course their content will be widely available in a post-merger world, they thought it would make sense to massively restrict the content shown during the Olympics -- including requiring viewers to first prove they had cable TV access from certain cable providers? And no one at NBC Universal thought that the loud complaints all over the internet about the ridiculous process and restrictions might wake up someone in the Senate?

Filed Under: coverage, delays, herb kohl, jeff zucker, limitations, merger, olympics, real-time, restrictions
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

Colbert Takes On Ridiculous Restrictions Over Talking About The Olympics

from the I'd-sue-you dept

On last night's Colbert Report, Stephen brought on his brother, Ed Colbert, an international copyright lawyer to discuss the totally ridiculous restrictions on what he can and cannot say concerning his Olympics coverage, to avoid getting sued by either NBC or the Olympics, leading Colbert to dub his reports the "Vancouverage of the quadrennial cold weather competition" to avoid saying things like Vancouver, Olympics or even winter games, as those are all on the forbidden list. Watch here (probably US only, tragically):

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Vancouverage 2010 - Ed Colbert
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Separately, if you watch the following segment on TV or online, I noticed that Comedy Central had to change the online coverage as compared to what was shown on TV last night. Last night, there were video clips from NBC's coverage of the opening ceremonies. I don't know if this was licensed or if Viacom/Comedy Central realized that those clips were fair use. But if you watch the online version, everywhere that Colbert showed a clip on the live version, there was, instead, a still photo -- such as when he discusses the dancers from the opening ceremony and the lighting of the torch. I'm guessing that there's some sort of licensing issue that explains why the online version of Colbert left those clips out, even though that seems ridiculous. Separately, if you look carefully in that same clip, you might catch a glimpse of occasional Techdirt contributor Blaise Alleyne who is seen laughing in the audience at one of Colbert's jokes...

Filed Under: copyright, ed colbert, olympics, stephen colbert, trademark

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 Idol

Seriously. 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.

Filed Under: free speech, olympics, trademark
Companies: red bull, usoc, verizon

Could Looking At London's 2012 Olympics Logo Land People In Prison?

from the pornographic-simpsons dept

Well, here's a fun one sent in by ChurchHatesTucker. You may have heard the somewhat troubling story of the guy found guilty of child pornography for downloading images of the cartoon Simpsons performing sexual acts. It does seem a bit ridiculous to claim that naked versions of famous cartoon characters represent actual child porn, but... so sayeth the court. But, here's the potential problem: That is the logo for the 2012 Olympics in London. My first reaction to it was that it's just hideous from a design standpoint, but others quickly noticed something worse. You can look at that logo and... um... see what appears to be Lisa Simpson... doing something she shouldn't be doing. Yeah. Once you see it, it never goes away. So, as CHT notes, given that ruling of child porn for having an image of a Simpsons cartoon child performing sex acts... is looking at the 2012 Olympic logo going to be classified as viewing child porn now?

Filed Under: logo, london, olympics, simpsons