While waiting for NASA to bomb the moon this morning, I encountered a couple of examples of the Olympic Committees perhaps needing an encounter with a clue-by-four when it comes to the concept of fair use and social media.
First, seen at the Inquisitr:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has sent a cease and desist notice to a committee member of the Australian Web Industry Association (AWIA) over his publication of photos he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr.
The IOC is demanding that Richard Giles, who as well as being in charge of communications for AWIA is also the founder of Australian web startup Scouta, remove the images because under the terms of entry into the Olympics, photos taken “may not be used for any purpose other than private.”
The C&D (pictured below) even goes as far as suggesting that Richard’s use of the word “Olympic” is also illegal because it cannot be used without “prior written consent.”
Note to self: if I go to Vancouver, either leave the camera at home, or lawyer up before sharing any pictures I might take lest I risk the wrath of the Olympic committees.
Meanwhile, according to the Seattle Times, the USOC is making another fuss:
The U.S. Olympic Committee is protesting an effort by the parent company of The Olympian to trademark the newspaper’s name.
The McClatchy Co. submitted its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in October 2006, shortly after it bought Knight-Ridder, the newspaper’s former owner.
Lawyers representing the committee argue that the similarity in appearance and sound of its trademarks to The Olympian "tends to cause confusion or mistake, to deceive, and to falsely suggest a connection.”[…]
In 1978, Congress passed a federal law that gave the U.S. Olympic Committee exclusive control in the United States of numerous trademarks, including Olympic, Olympiad and Paralympic.
Congress amended the law in 1998 to provide trademark protection to the USOC for some additional terms.
But McClatchy attorneys point out that the amendment also includes a provision that recognizes Washington state’s claim to the Olympic name. This exception covers naturally occurring mountains or the geographic region named prior to Feb. 6, 1998, and where "such businesses, goods, or services are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial."
I understand and appreciate the obligation to defend one’s trademarks in order to maintain protection in the future. But you’d think that the idea of transferring a trademark on the name of a 100+ year old newspaper, The Olympian, based in Olympia, Washington, and serving the Olympic Peninsula of Washington wouldn’t raise such a stink.
I suppose that it’s too much to hope that adults could demonstrate a bit of common sense from time to time.
