The economics of an event of this magnitude are fascinating. I read there will even be hundreds of “brand police” scouring the area for “unauthorized” things. The rules are so detailed that, for example, bars using a chalkboard to advertise their broadcasting of games and events must not include any beer names on the chalkboard which are not authorized sponsors. All restaurants except McDonald’s are banned from selling fries (or “chips”). They have gone so far as to ban local businesses from using any of the following words: Summer, London, Bronze, Silver, and Gold!
Wanted to add one thing. Under “More News” this article is referenced alongside an image of the Olympic Rings hanging from the bridge. This usage, despite very clearly representing a fair usage, would be very likely condemned as “unauthorized infringement” by the IOC.
“The Olympic rings are the exclusive property of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic rings are protected around the world in the name of the IOC by trademarks or national legislations and cannot be used without the IOC’s prior written consent. You will find the rule about this subject in the Olympic Charter: Chapter 1, Rules 7-14 and its Bye-law, p. 19-27”
The Olympics never fail to provide great examples of the extreme and often absurd results of the perpetual expansion of “intellectual property” rights in nations around the world.
You are correct about the Olympic committee protecting its ring symbol, but not about the photo.
Those rings you see are actually hanging from the bridge, London put them up earlier this year, presumably with the permission of the Olympic committee. If they allow their symbol to be displayed in a public place like that, they can’t prohibit people from taking a photo in public and using it. If however, IJ or any other publication superimposed the Olympic logo on a photo or a document without IOC approval, that could be considered a copyright infringement.
You are correct about the Olympic Committees extreme protection of its interlocking rings, but not about that photo.
That’s actually a picture of the London Bridge — they hung the Olympic rings on it this year, presumably with the permission of the IOC. Anybody can take a photo of that bridge and use it as they please. They can’t prohibit people from taking a photo in a public place just because they allowed their logo to be displayed there.
However, if somebody extracted the rings from the photo and put them on another image – or used them in a way that implied some type of official Olympic connection — then the IOC could go after them.
The economics of an event of this magnitude are fascinating. I read there will even be hundreds of “brand police” scouring the area for “unauthorized” things. The rules are so detailed that, for example, bars using a chalkboard to advertise their broadcasting of games and events must not include any beer names on the chalkboard which are not authorized sponsors. All restaurants except McDonald’s are banned from selling fries (or “chips”). They have gone so far as to ban local businesses from using any of the following words: Summer, London, Bronze, Silver, and Gold!
Wanted to add one thing. Under “More News” this article is referenced alongside an image of the Olympic Rings hanging from the bridge. This usage, despite very clearly representing a fair usage, would be very likely condemned as “unauthorized infringement” by the IOC.
“The Olympic rings are the exclusive property of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic rings are protected around the world in the name of the IOC by trademarks or national legislations and cannot be used without the IOC’s prior written consent. You will find the rule about this subject in the Olympic Charter: Chapter 1, Rules 7-14 and its Bye-law, p. 19-27”
The Olympics never fail to provide great examples of the extreme and often absurd results of the perpetual expansion of “intellectual property” rights in nations around the world.
You are correct about the Olympic committee protecting its ring symbol, but not about the photo.
Those rings you see are actually hanging from the bridge, London put them up earlier this year, presumably with the permission of the Olympic committee. If they allow their symbol to be displayed in a public place like that, they can’t prohibit people from taking a photo in public and using it. If however, IJ or any other publication superimposed the Olympic logo on a photo or a document without IOC approval, that could be considered a copyright infringement.
You are correct about the Olympic Committees extreme protection of its interlocking rings, but not about that photo.
That’s actually a picture of the London Bridge — they hung the Olympic rings on it this year, presumably with the permission of the IOC. Anybody can take a photo of that bridge and use it as they please. They can’t prohibit people from taking a photo in a public place just because they allowed their logo to be displayed there.
However, if somebody extracted the rings from the photo and put them on another image – or used them in a way that implied some type of official Olympic connection — then the IOC could go after them.