Vancouver Olympics Unhappy With 'Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 and 2011 Edition' Slogan

from the oh-really? dept

We've been covering how the Olympics has been able to get various governments around the world to grant it extra special intellectual property protection on certain words and phrases, with the upcoming Vancouver Olympics being no exception. In that case, you have to be careful of the use of "Vancouver," "Olympics," and even "2010." So, clothing maker Lululemon decided to come up with a line that mocks these restrictions, with a brand new line of clothing called:

"Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 and 2011 Edition."

Note how careful the company is to avoid any of the restricted words. Nicely done.

Of course, guess who isn't happy? Reader Joe McEnaney alerts us to the news that, even though the Vancouver Olympics can't officially do anything to Lululemon, it has decided to try shaming the company instead, expressing disappointment that the company has "has broken the spirit of Olympic trademark regulations." Of course, even so, the Olympic officials seem to misunderstand what's going on here. They claim:

"We expected better sportsmanship from a local Canadian company than to produce a clothing line that attempts to profit from the Games but doesn't support the Games or the success of the Canadian Olympic team."

But, of course, that's not what's going on here at all. They're not trying to profit off of the Olympic Games. They're trying to profit off of the ridiculous free speech restrictions put in place by the Olympics for no good reason.

Filed Under: artwork, olympics, slogan, vancouver
Companies: lululemon

Vancouver Art Gallery Ordered To Remove Anti-Olympics Mural

from the free-speech?-not-with-the-olympics-in-town dept

Yet again, we're learning how when the Olympics come to town, your free speech rights apparently disappear. Rob Hyndman sends over the news that a Vancouver art gallery was ordered to remove a mural, because it was viewed as being anti-Olympics. The Olympics, of course, comes to Vancouver in a few months. The mural in question showed five rings, in the usual Olympic pattern, with four of the rings showing a frown face, and the fifth showing a smiley. The mural was hanging outside of the gallery, so the city claims the order to take it down came due to local graffiti laws -- though the gallery says in 10 years, this is the first mural it had to take down. In fact, when the landlord was told to remove the graffiti, he called the city back to ask what graffiti since he didn't see any and assumed the mural was fine, given the history of murals hung there. And, of course, there's already concern over a special law -- passed just for the Olympics -- that gives law enforcement the right to remove signage that they don't like.

Filed Under: artwork, censorship, mural, olympics, vancouver

Vancouver Olympics Silences Indie Rock Acts With Contractual Gag Order

from the stay-quiet-now dept

We've covered how the Olympics has time and time again abused intellectual property law to try to silence all sorts of reasonable activity, and the upcoming Vancouver Olympics have been no exception. In the latest move, sent in by drewmo (though he forgot the link, and made us go searching...) is that a Vancouver-based musician, Carey Mercer, is pointing out that the Vancouver Olympic Committee is pushing contracts on musicians that include a gag order against saying anything bad at all about the Olympics.

The Olympics always has a "cultural component," a cultural Olympiad, and this year, to quote their puke-in-my-mouth inducing website, they have made a back-patting hullabaloo about including "cutting edge indie rock." And each and every "cutting edge" performer that has agreed to play has signed a contract that includes the above clause. A clause that states, in case you skimmed over it, that these artists must never say anything negative about an entity that will spend 900 million dollars on "security." An entity that has already infuriated anti-poverty and anti-homeless groups who accuse VANOC of not living up to its promise of providing affordable housing.

Most participating artists claim to be unaware of this clause.

Part of Mercer's complaint is that no one seems to be able to determine if the Olympics is a public or private entity, since censorship by a government entity would seem like a big no-no:

No one, including our courts, can figure out if it is a public or private entity. It seems to be public when it needs tax dollars (6 billion), but private whenever it is challenged...

And, sure, you can understand why the Vancouver Olympics might not want musicians it hires to say anything bad about them, but putting a contractual gag clause in there seems to suggest that the organization simply can't take any criticism. Mercer is also concerned about what this does for the musicians who signed these gag orders, often without realizing it:

When artists are not allowed to critique their government, or the governing agency that endows them with grants and funding, then what they are asking for is nothing more than propaganda.

Filed Under: bands, gag order, olympics, vancouver

Olympics Trademark Law Insanity: Officials Can Enter Homes, Issue $10,000 Fines

from the please,-make-it-stop dept

In the past, we've noted how much the Olympics loves to overreach with trademark claims, trying to prevent anyone from using any phrase or word associated with the Olympics without having to pay up. Amazingly -- and to the detriment of the people they're supposed to represent -- politicians all too often grant the Olympics extra special trademark laws that just apply to them. Reader Jesse lets us know of the latest insanity up in Vancouver, where special new "bylaws" let officers enter homes to remove unapproved "signage" while also granting them the ability to issue fines up to $10,000. There are already lawsuits filed about this, but at what point do politicians tell the Olympics "enough is enough?" Update In the comments, reader Brendan points out that Vancouver's police chief is insisting this is an exaggeration, saying:

Just as ridiculous in my opinion, is the charge that the VPD will enter homes to confiscate signage.

Once again, I would ask that those speaking on our behalf, regardless of your motives, please stop, or at least ask us.

The additional powers that the City has obtained are intended to control unauthorized marketing.

If normal processes, such as a warning, ticket or summons, do not convince a person to abide by a by-law, in extreme circumstances, a warrant to enter premises can be obtained.

We have been assured by City license inspectors that they will be focusing on "guerrilla marketing" efforts that are prominent, and near official venues.

They will not be focusing on signage that is a political or personal statement.

The VPD has no intention of entering the home of any Vancouver resident for a sign issue during the Games. We are not the sign police.

Okay... but that still does say that they could get a warrant to enter people's homes for marketing signage. Why, exactly, should that be allowed? On personal property, if someone puts up a "guerilla marketing" sign, shouldn't that be their right?

Filed Under: olympics, privacy, trademark, vancouver

Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense

from the you-don't-own-the-photos dept

Last week, we wrote about the International Olympic Committee's complaints concerning a guy, Richard Giles, who had posted some images he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. At the time, it wasn't entirely clear if the complaint was the license or that the photos were up, at all, but as we noted, either way, it didn't make sense. The IOC has responded and said the main complaint is with the Creative Commons license, but, again, it's difficult to see how the IOC has any argument at all. The photos were taken by Giles, and thus he has every right to license them as he sees fit -- including under CC licenses. Furthermore, as Thomas Hawk points out in the link above, once you license something CC, you can't go back on it. It's still not clear why the IOC sees this as a bad thing. Giles is helping to promote their event. For free. Next time, maybe he should just send them a bill.

Filed Under: creative commons, licensing, olympics, photos, trademark

Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter

from the and-the-gold-medal-in-promotional-idiocracy-goes-to... dept

And we've got yet another example of insane attempts by the Olympics to extend copyright and trademark law well beyond its stated intentions (which, tragically, some governments have been known to accept in order to get the Olympics on their home turf). This time, it involves the International Olympic Committee sending a cease-and-desist to a guy who posted the photos he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr. Seriously.

It's hard to understand what they're complaining about specifically. They mention that he violated the "terms and conditions" on the back of the ticket (which are often not enforceable, anyway) in "licensing pictures." Inquistr suggests the problem is that the guy, Richard Giles, put his own photos (on which he owns the copyright) on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. It's difficult to see what sort of leg the IOC has to stand on here (though, it may involve jurisdiction in a few different countries). The guy took photos himself -- so it's his copyright. Putting them under a CC license is then his decision. The trademark claims are laughable. At best, the IOC might be able to claim breach of contract in violating the "back of the ticket" agreement -- but even that seems like a stretch, and it's difficult to see what sort of "harm" the IOC could suggest these photos caused.

It's difficult to understand what the IOC thinks its accomplishing here. This was someone spreading the word (and view) of his Olympic attendance to his friends and many others online. You would think that would be seen as good and free advertising rather than as something for which the legal dogs should be unleashed. What sort of organization lets loose its lawyers on a fan posting photos showing off his cool experience attending an event? Honestly, I can't fathom what anyone at the IOC could possibly be thinking here.

Filed Under: olympics, photos, trademark

Olympics Tries To Block Olympian Newspaper (From Olympia, Washington) From Trademarking Its Name

from the and-the-gold-medal-in-trademark-pushyness-goes-to... dept

It's no secret that the Olympics can be ridiculously over aggressive with trademark claims, often getting governments to pass special intellectual property rules to allow the Olympics special control over certain names or phrases well outside the contours of existing intellectual property law. The various Olympic committees insist they "need" this to protect their revenue stream, but we didn't realize that gov'ts had any responsibility in helping the Olympics make lots of money. The latest move is that the US Olympic Committee is protesting a trademark application for the name of The Olympian, a newspaper in Olympia, Washington (thanks to Erik for sending that in). It would appear that the Olympian has been operating since 1889. That would be seven years prior to the first modern "Olympics" in 1896.

While I am left wondering why the Olympian suddenly decided to try to register the trademark on its name now (leading to the attempt to block the trademark), it does seem pretty ridiculous that the Olympics could suddenly claim that there might be confusion between the two after over a century of the two "brands" living together peacefully.

Filed Under: olympia, olympian, olympics, trademark, washington

NBC Universal's Great Idea: Let's Make It Harder And More Expensive To Watch The Olympics

from the this-is-a-joke,-right? dept

During the last Olympics, we sat stunned as NBC Universal made mistake after mistake after mistake in making it incredibly difficult for fans who wanted to watch the Olympics online to do so. And then, NBC Universal executives bragged about how difficult they made it to watch, when really they just shot themselves in the foot, since even the audience who could actually watch it online watched it more on TV. In other words, everything about NBC Universal's strategy backfired... and then they talked about how great it worked. It's hard to understand how the folks involved still have jobs.

But... rather than learn from that, it looks like NBC Universal has decided to make things even worse for the next Olympics. NewTeeVee points us to the news that NBC Universal is working on a deal that will require online viewers to first prove they have a pay TV package before granting them the ability to watch buggy, limited, delayed online video of the event. Oh, and of course, this will only apply to the cable or satellite providers who first pay NBC Universal for the privilege. How a viewer will "prove" he or she is a customer is still being decided, but will likely involve an IP address if you're at home, or some other convoluted system if you're elsewhere.

This really is just an extension of the ongoing discussions between the networks and cable/satellite TV providers to lock up their content behind a paywall before online video wipes away the need for pay TV. It's like watching a trainwreck way in advance. Any attempt to limit what can be done for the sake of keeping an old business model in place has always failed miserably. It's always disappointing to see people who should know better make the same mistake over and over and over again.

Filed Under: difficulty, olympics, online video
Companies: nbc universal

Vancouver Olympics Using Copyright Law (Rather Than Scalping Laws) To Ban Ticket Reselling

from the misuse-of-copyright dept

Michael_S points us to the news that the Vancouver Olympics -- no stranger to massive abuse of intellectual property law -- is now using copyright law to prevent ticket resales. Now, lots of places around the world have anti-scalping laws that forbid reselling of event tickets (or reselling them above a certain price). Vancouver, however, does not have any such law. No problem for the Olympics folks... they're using the special copyright they were granted on a whole host of common terms, including "Vancouver 2010" to sue resellers offering the tickets. Obviously, that's got nothing to do with the purpose of copyright law, but when you grant silly monopolies, don't be surprised when they're abused.

Filed Under: copyright, olympics, reselling, scalping, tickets, vancouver

Should DVD Counterfeiters Fear Police Or The Internet More?

from the just-saying... dept

A bunch of people have sent in this story about UK Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy claiming that by the 2012 Olympics, London will be a "fake-free zone" as he begins to crackdown on counterfeit DVD sellers. Not surprisingly, this move involved a variety of public and private parties, including the Motion Picture Association, UK Film Council, UK Intellectual Property Office, Federation Against Copyright Theft, London Councils, Trading Standards and the London police. Of course, the whole thing seems sort of yawn inducing. For a few years now, there have been stories noting that internet file sharing has been putting the counterfeit street sellers out of business. And, over the course of the next four years, you have to imagine that pace is only going to accelerate. So, congrats, David Lammy, for spending taxpayer money on stomping out something that was naturally dying out anyway.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, dvds, london, olympics, piracy