Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IOC Claims Olympian Lindsey Vonn's Name As Intellectual Property

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the somebody's-got-to-dirty-the-pool dept.

Canada 399

gehrehmee writes "As usual, the International Olympic Committee is coming down on hard on people mentioning things related to the Olympics without permission. This time it's UVEX sporting supplies, which sponsors Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn. Without explaination, their front page was today updated to include a tongue-in-cheek poem about UVEX's interaction with the IOC. Can the IOC really claim an Olypmian's name as their own intellectual property?"

cancel ×

399 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sure they can claim it (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192724)

Of course they can claim her name as their I.P. They can also claim to be from the planet Xenu, or they can claim to be 2,000-year-old leprechauns. Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property until a court has made the decision.

For a great example of other lawyers claiming untrue things, look at BoingBoing's laugh at Demi Moore's lawyers' expense. [boingboing.net] They claimed that BoingBoing was slandering Demi Moore by saying her image was photoshopped, when clearly it was not photoshopped as attested to by the sworn testimony of the photographers.

So the IOC can claim that Lindsey Vonn is made out of ice cream, milkweed pods, and sandpaper, if they want. Won't make it true. If UVEX wasn't getting such a good laugh out of this stupidity, I hope they'd have the integrity to restore Lindsey's name to their web site.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1, Insightful)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192862)

They can't in good faith make that claim. I hope whomever it is has a lawyer who will rip their head off and shit in their neck.

Re:Sure they can claim it (3, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193130)

I hope whomever it is has a lawyer who will rip their head off and shit in their neck.

Sorry, but you just gave me this image of the judge telling the IOC lawyers, "I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you!"

Re:Sure they can claim it (2, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193570)

You jest, but given the last few years of IP cases, it's about time judges started using stronger phrasing when delivering their verdicts. Thus, I would have not problem with the following court exchange:

IP Lawyer: Your honor, it is blatantly obvious that the defendant's flagrant disregard for my client's rights under IP law is deserving of the highest punishment afforded by law, as it represents an egregious violation of the very foundation of our society.

Judge: Look here you cunt-faced anus head, get the fuck out of my court before I release the hounds. And don't be thinking I don't have hounds back here, I borrowed them from the groundskeeper at the country club. Oh, and don't forget to leave that stinking pile of neatly typed bullshit you call a legal brief behind, the lavatory is low on toilet paper.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193610)

Who Dat?

Oops....sorry, this phrase was brought to you by the good people of the NFL, all rights reserved (as soon as they heard it was a popular saying down here).

Re:Sure they can claim it (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193572)

Unfortunately the U.S. DMCA provides no recourse to the victims. The IOC lawyers can just say, "Ooops sorry," and not even mean it. This law is skewed in favor of abuse.

There was a similar event ~3 weeks ago when the NFL tried to claim copyright over the "Who Dat?" logo. The NFL caused thousands (possibly millions) of dollars in damage to local businesses and all the NFL had to do was say, "Ooops... we were wrong." The victims have no recourse.

I think if I ever get one of these notices, I'll just ignore it. Fuck the megacorps.

Re:Sure they can claim it (4, Informative)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192910)

I would try to refute your claims using quotes from the article, BUT THERE ISN'T ONE

Re:Sure they can claim it (2, Informative)

Mehall (1494975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193278)

/. submitters finally give up the TFA, realising few get as far as the summary, just read the headline.

Re:Sure they can claim it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193334)

Giving Slashdot readers even a TFS is still like throwing a basketball at a bunch of niggers.

Re:Sure they can claim it (0)

Mehall (1494975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193420)

Step 1)

"a TFS" = a the
Bad grammar. Stop it.

2)

use of niggers purely in an attempt to either make yourself seem a "big man" or to try and fit in.

Stop it.

3) AC

Stop it.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192966)

>> Claiming a thing is their property does not actually make it their property *unless it's enforced by technical means, thus causing it to fall under the DMCA anti-circumvention clause*
Fixed that for you.

Re:Sure they can claim it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193070)

So if I attempt to circumvent her underwear to get between her legs I can get sued with the DMCA?

Re:Sure they can claim it (1, Offtopic)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193366)

That depends on whether her panties are encrypted or not, but you'd probably get your ass kicked by Lindsey either way. Hell, since the chances of your anonymous nerdy ass getting within 500 yards of her are practically zero, I'd say you're safe.

Re:Sure they can claim it (5, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192978)

Indeed, and the only way to challenge their claim is that you need lawyers. Good, expensive lawyers able to counter the army of lawyers the IOC undoubtedly has on retainer. Also, you need time...5-10 years for the courts to come to a final, uncontestable decision.

Nearly all individuals don't have the money or lifespan to do this. That's why big institutions hold all the cards when you deal with them. Only if the institution does something truly egregious do you have a chance of getting compensation.

Re:Sure they can claim it (4, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193346)

Indeed, and the only way to challenge their claim is that you need lawyers. Good, expensive lawyers able to counter the army of lawyers the IOC undoubtedly has on retainer. Also, you need time...5-10 years for the courts to come to a final, uncontestable decision.

False. All you need to do is say "So sue me or FOAD." Then they have to:

  1. weigh if the Streisand effect is worth it
  2. weigh if the costs involved are worth it
  3. see if they have to sue in your jurisdiction
  4. weigh if the chance of winning is worth it (balance of the probabilities, etc)
  5. weigh if the eventual monetary damages, if any, are worth it

Most lawyers letters are bluffs.

Most people fold.

It costs nothing to call their bluff and see if they take the next step, which is ... a demand letter giving you x number of days or else they'll sue.

... and again, you can fold or call their bluff ...

... because 90% of the time, it's a bluff.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193034)

They're not claiming her name as their IP, through copyright or anything else. They've told this skeezy gear company that they can't start using an olympiad's name to sell their crappy products just because that olympiad happens to use their products.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193156)

They've told this skeezy gear company that they can't start using an olympiad's name to sell their crappy products just because that olympiad happens to use their products.

Which is another way of claiming their right to restrict the use of her name. Yes, it's technically different than claiming her name as I.P., but I was answering the question as posed in TFS.

Re:Sure they can claim it (2, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193172)

I wonder when Adobe will pull a Google and protect their name by claiming Photoshop is not a verb (and therefore not an everyday term that might fall outside of copyright law). Or perhaps they'll just enjoy the fact (monetarily speaking) that people aren't saying, "Yah. That chick is gimped. You can see the floating pixels..."

Re:Sure they can claim it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193338)

Or perhaps they'll just enjoy the fact (monetarily speaking) that people aren't saying, "Yah. That chick is gimped. You can see the floating pixels..."

The real reason why people don't say that is because GIMP is a horrendous name from a marketing perspective, and that sentence will never be uttered by any one in their right mind.

I use GIMP, but still describe the image as being either edited or shopped.

Re:Sure they can claim it (2, Funny)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193576)

But if you can tell that it is shopped just by looking at it, doesn't that make the edit gimped? :P

Re:Sure they can claim it (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193176)

Why restore it now, a good slashdotting worth of free advertisement is probably more than they hoped for... or maybe expected. Either way, I'm sure they are happy with their site count today.

Re:Sure they can claim it (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193414)

Either way, I'm sure they are happy with their site count today.

Except possibly for the fact that the intersection of "People who purchase women's sporting gear" and "Slashdot readers" is going to be pretty close to a null set.

Re:Sure they can claim it (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193256)

They can, if they make the olympians sign a contract. For the Beijing Olympics, Britain made their athletes sign a contract promising not to say anything political during the event.

First Post - maybe (0)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192738)

and the answer to your question is: NO.

Re:First Post - maybe (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193150)

and the answer to your question is: NO.

And the answer to your "first post" is: NO.

Probably not. (2, Informative)

jra (5600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192748)

But there is right-of-publicity, and commercial use has different rules than editorial use; Olympians -- excuse me: "atheletes who compete in the biannual international sporting events held around the world -- may sign an agreement that restricts them from allowing companies to use their names commercially without their own agreement with the IOC.

Re:Probably not. (1)

jra (5600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192768)

In a related story, UVEX needs to hire a new staff poet; the scansion on that is *miserable*.

Re:Probably not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193200)

FYI, it's biennial.

Re:Probably not. (3, Informative)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193252)

Biennial: Every two years
Biannual: Twice yearly

Although either word would still be incorrect, since each sporting event is still quadrennial.

Re:Probably not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193336)

there is right-of-publicity

Speaking of publicity, this was a pretty good stunt of UVEX.

How many of you knew they sponsored Vonn? Now you do. Maybe you even visited their web site and know what they do.

Just a twist on the viral marketing scams.

Nope. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192764)

While the person that rightfully owns their name can allow others to use their name for financial gain, they cannot give ownership of their name away. If they did manage to do this, hopefully IOC sues them into oblivion because she took 'their' name when she was born.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192964)

Normally the "right of publicity" belongs to the person.

Re:Nope. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193036)

What if your name is Prince?

Nice looking Blonde (-1, Troll)

l0l0_ph0r3v3r (1679698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192788)

I wanna do her. Proud to be l337!

Too bad she was married (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193132)

may be you will have a chance in your next life.

CANADA 4 THA GOLD (-1, Offtopic)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192818)

off topic but...

all that matters is CANADA WON ANOTHER GOLD today!

And we're gonna win the gold in both mens and womens hockey, cuz we all know that the winter olympix are just aa huge hockey tournament with a bunch of other sports going on...

And vancouver rocks, if you need any BC bud and managed to get out of your moms basement long enough to reach the best city in the world, look for the brown guy with fake dreadlocks by the art gallery.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (-1, Offtopic)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192850)

You have no idea how much you just earned a downmod.

I think you got an offtopic, troll, flamebait, and over-rated all in one go.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192906)

"I think you got an offtopic, troll, flamebait, and over-rated all in one go."

4 in one just like your mom last night

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Troll)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192968)

It's too bad there isn't a "-1 Canadian" mod.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Offtopic)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193164)

I believe you meant to say +1 Canadian.

Because, let's be fair, Canada has three gold medals, neener neener, and there's nothing you can do about that mark of excellence.

Eh?

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Offtopic)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193322)

Two gold medals. The women's downhill medal was won by Lindsey Vonn who competed for the IOC. At least the IOC say so and they're the experts.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Redundant)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193596)

You haven't seen the news today. They time delay it.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Redundant)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193386)

Blame Canada.

In a related story... (4, Funny)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192878)

The IOC has claimed the term 'CANADA' as their exclusive intellectual property

Re:In a related story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192914)

As a former Canadian resident now living in Washington state as a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., I say the IOC can have Canada, lock, stock, and barrel.

Re:In a related story... (2, Funny)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193000)

It's a loose claim though, everyone is still allowed to use it, the just have to say it slowly, and write it out like this : C-A-A-N-A-D-A-A

Re:In a related story... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193394)

It's a loose claim though, everyone is still allowed to use it, the just have to say it slowly, and write it out like this : C-A-A-N-A-D-A-A

Typical hoser. The greatest country in the world is spelled C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh?, eh?

Re:In a related story... (1)

unhooked (21010) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193566)

Pretty damn close, winter 2010 vancouver olympic winter games. The IOC is just about as evil as it get's.

On a side note - Tolkien was wrong.
Five rings to rule them all, five rings to find them,
Five rings to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0, Offtopic)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192896)

And vancouver rocks,

Lots of rocks, sure, but too bad about that snow.

And we're gonna win the gold in both mens and womens hockey, cuz we all know that the winter olympix are just aa huge hockey tournament with a bunch of other sports going on...

You seem obsessed with sports, ie 'physical activity' and claiming that someone else's physical activity makes you somehow better. Are you sure you're on the right site?

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193466)

Lots of rocks, sure, but too bad about that snow.

We've got rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and ...

Waterrrrrrrr. In Canada, Canada ...

I like toast.

Re:CANADA 4 THA GOLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193028)

all that matters is CANADA WON ANOTHER GOLD today!

And we're gonna win the gold in both mens and womens hockey, cuz we all know that the winter olympix are just aa huge hockey tournament with a bunch of other sports going on...

Shut up you iceholes!

It belongs to Uvex more than it does IOC (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192834)

If her sponsors are paying for her lessons, her training, and her equipment - they have more rights to her name than any olympic body. She wouldn't be at the olympics without her sponsor. The IOC did not pay Lindsey Vonn anything - if she won a medal and it was decided that medalists receive a cash prize (as the US olympic comitee has done in the past) then that was her earning, and it could have gone to anyone just as much as it was her, so its not considered payment.

If I were Uvex, I would counter-sue, claiming that they have more right to the name.

IOC is not a U.S. organization (1, Informative)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192874)

therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192956)

True, but the onus is on them to stop use of "their" IP. They'd have the bring the suit in the US to stop anyone from using the name here, and within the context of that suit they WOULD be subject to the laws of the US.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (2, Interesting)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193058)

What does ACTA have to say about that?

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193296)

It's corp on corp, so best laywers and most money wins.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (3, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193312)

According to ACTA -- the organization which donates the most money to the reelection campaigns of ACTA-supporting politicians gets to declare ownership of anything they damn well please -- so it's hard to tell at the this point, but my money would be on the IOC.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193022)

IIRC, the families of the hostages taken in Iran during the Islamic Revolution sued the Iranian government in US Federal court, won, and were awarded damages out of assets seized by the US government. Of course, I seriously doubt that the US is going to freeze assets of the IOC to award a judgement in a lawsuit. Maybe if Bush were President, sure.... I mean, the IOC /does/ let terrorist commies compete in their games, after all, so clearly they can't be with us and must be against us...

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193126)

therefore is immune to any lawsuit originated in the U.S.

Sheesh. Stop and think for a second. Do they do business in the US? Then they aren't immune. Just think of the ramifications if foreign companies that did business in the US actually were immune from lawsuits like you claim.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (3, Informative)

Matheus (586080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193142)

You really must preface that comment with IANAL... as it stands you are quite wrong. This essay describes in hefty detail mostly why http://www.scribd.com/doc/24956746/DJ-Ettinger-Legal-Status-of-the-IOC [scribd.com]

Excerpt: "...they can seek relief as a plaintiff, or be named as a defendant in a sovereign nation's court of law..."

PARENT ***NOT*** INFORMATIVE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193170)

The "parent" is dead wrong. The IOC does business in the US and has assets here.

Re:IOC is not a U.S. organization (2, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193426)

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

There are plenty of cases of organizations and even COUNTRIES being sued in the U.S. civil court system by individual plaintiffs. If the individuals win, the courts will attach any assets that are, or later enter, the U.S. There are even cases where the U.S. courts petition foreign banks to freeze assets held in foreign countries. And yes, sometimes it really works.

It depends... (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192918)

Can the IOC really claim an Olypmian's name as their own intellectual property?

.

It depends upon the contract that the Olympian signed in order to compete in the Olympics. My opinion is that the Olympians have to sign away everything but their first-born in order to be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

I no longer view the Olympics as an idealistic sporting event. I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.

Re:It depends... (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193020)

And I see them as an exercise in creative pharmacology, shaping your body with hormones while trying to stay one step ahead of innovations in screening. Remember it's only wrong if you get caught, right?

Re:It depends... (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193080)

The measure of a man's true honor is what he would do if he knew he would not be caught.

Re:It depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193268)

I say it's high time they drop the pretense - I want to see gigantic roided-out competitors tearing their own arms off trying to deadlift at the 2012 games. Now *that's* SPORT!

Re:It depends... (4, Funny)

youngone (975102) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193432)

Absolutely. I lost interest in the Olympics when the Iron Curtin collapsed. All of a sudden it wasn't those dirty cheating commies using drugs to win, it was our guys.

Re:It depends... (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193076)

I'm not entirely sure that a contract stating that your name is someone else's intellectual property would be enforceable.

Re:It depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193144)

It depends upon the contract that the Olympian signed in order to compete in the Olympics. My opinion is that the Olympians have to sign away everything but their first-born in order to be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Debatable. Even if a contract with such terms exists between the IOC and the athlete, that does not invalidate a pre-existing contract between UVEX and the athlete.

In fact, the IOC would have a claim against the athlete for signing a contract with the IOC when the athlete didn't have the capacity to do so, having previously signed away some of the rights that the IOC wants to claim.

But UVEX is in the clear and fully entitled to the terms of their contract with the athlete.

Re:It depends... (2, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193166)

I now view it as a viscous commercial enterprise that exploits the dreams of young athletes.

Viscous? Yes, those marketing sleazebags certainly are an oily bunch. :)

I've been flipping over to NBC every once in a while to see what they're showing. Most of the time I hit either a commercial or reporters sitting at a desk talking about events. My best guess is that their contract has limitations on the amount of actual event time they can show -- either a fixed cap or some kind of dollars per minute arrangement.

Which is to say; I share your disillusionment.

Re:It depends... (3, Funny)

jra (5600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193220)

Extremely viscous.

Not much chance of you slipping through the cracks at all.

Re:It depends... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193328)

Yeah, I know. I caught that after I posted the message. I hate when that happens.

Re:It depends... (3, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193308)

I'm guessing you meant "vicious." Unless you're claiming that the Olympics have a high internal friction which resists deformation through shear or extensional stresses.

Re:It depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193384)

I'm guessing you meant "vicious." Unless you're claiming that the Olympics have a high internal friction which resists deformation through shear or extensional stresses.

Well, at the rate the snow is melting in Vancouver...

Re:It depends... (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193340)

I heartily agree with your statement that the Olympics is a sticky, oily commercial enterprise that is relatively highly resistant to flow.

Nothing new under the sun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193564)

The greek games were always about rich people throwing money around for publicity.

Look up the history of the classical greek funeral games, which where the spiritual precursor to our Olympics.

Re:It depends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193588)

any athlete that signs his or her rights to use their name is a spineless lemming.

I want to watch the Olympics (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192940)

I really want to watch the Olympics. I'm not much of a sports person, playing or watching, but I can't deny that it's inspiring to watch people who have spent their lives dedicated to one goal competing with each other and showing what they and the human race are capable of. I really really want to honor their efforts and cheer on every single person that has made it so far.

Unfortunately the organizers of this competition are the world's worst abusers of IP law and international politics, and flat out get away with open bribery. It's the best of the best sponsored by the worst of the worst. I'm sorry, I hate doing it, but I have to boycott the Olympics. If the IOC ever cleans up their act or another organization can organize a world competition that attracts the best athletes I'll watch. Until then, I won't.

Not outside the realm... (1, Interesting)

Nexzus (673421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192948)

...of possibility. VANOC, the Sponsors, and the IOC have done a number of things that could be considered downright criminal.
  - Closing two of the main viaducts in and out of downtown.
  - No stopping zones on large stretches of major roads.
  - Only accepting Visa or cash at all the venues.
  - Only allowing games related traffic on the road between Vancouver and Whistler during most hours of the day.
I tried to create a rumour that Bell, another major Olympic sponsor, was forcing the shutdown of all non-Bell cell sites around the venues, but I don't think people understood the implications of that if it were to happen.

Re:Not outside the realm... (3, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193204)

I should point out that most people going to the Olympics, like most people who live in Greater Vancouver, use the excellent light rail system there.

Why the heck would you want to pay $50 to park a car when you can get there faster by light rail - including the ski hill - for less than $5?

Olympics who? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192992)

Seriously, I haven't watched any of this years or the last olympics. Total waste of time. Home Shopping Channel is less boring.

ISO and IOC are similar in my view (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193032)

Once respected now just trashed. ISO was destroyed in my eyes by the whole Microsoft debacle. (some would say long before that, but I knew nothing of ISO's procedures or problems before Microsoft's involvement.) The IOC's pure greed and nonsense over the past few years had convinced me that the Olympics just ain't cool any more.

They may make great ski gear... (2, Funny)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193056)

...but they sure make lousy poetry.

They'll claim anything (2, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193072)

In the past, the IOC's have been a bunch of Narcissistic, money grubbing vampires that make the RIAA look like Sunday-School teachers; It's not out of character for them to not only claim a competitor's name, but their first-born child. a Strategy of sue everybody and let the courts figure it out isn't foreign to them either.

There are three things to consider (1, Redundant)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193138)

1. They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.

2. The name is not trademarked, as there are many people with that name, and many of them ski.

3. Lawyers hate America, so they can claim anything, and also be WRONG. For example, the activist US Supreme Court claims that Corporations are People and have the same rights as Citizens, which no sane citizen agrees with.

Re:There are three things to consider (2, Insightful)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193194)

1. They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.

What I want to know is, why hasn't any of the Olympian Gods smitten them yet? This is like McDonalds trying to claim trademark violations if there is anything with "Mc" in front of it. What are they going to do, sue all of Scotland?

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193530)

"What are they going to do, sue all of Scotland?"

They could try, but they canna take our FREEDOM!

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193218)

1. They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.

I highly doubt that they hold any rights on "Olympian [wikipedia.org] ," I know I think of the newspaper whenever I hear anyone use it.

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193550)

It depends on use.

I live in Washington State, where the Olympics are (the mountain range and the national park). There are pizza places called Olympic here, which is a place name.

Where you cross the line is when you use it in relation to sporting events. But even then, local sports teams here - and in Greece - have prior claim, so long as they don't advertise internationally.

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193260)

They hold an IP right to the use of Olympian, so the phrase Olympian Lindsay Vonn is a use of a trademark.

So? I drank a bottle of Coca Cola for lunch. Coca Cola is a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company.

So, um, is Coke going to sue me for using those words?

No, they cannot. That's not a protection that a trademark provides. I simply cannot create a similar product and name it "Coca Cola".

I can use the words "Olympics", "Olympic Games", and I can call Lindsay Vonn and Olympian. None of that is an issue.

I suspect that the lawyer for the Olympics knows this, but they're relying on people not wanting to go to court and deal with it. That doesn't make it right.

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193280)

3. Lawyers hate America, so they can claim anything, and also be WRONG. For example, the activist US Supreme Court claims that Corporations are People and have the same rights as Citizens, which no sane citizen agrees with.

Including voting for president?
Or even being president?

Re:There are three things to consider (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193580)

According to the activist Supreme Court lawyers or (and I use the term loosely) "Justices", yes.

They claim that Corporations that are owned by sovereign wealth funds owned by China, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia can donate money to run ads for and against a candidate running for President.

Obviously, they are just as insane as the IP lawyers working for the IOC.

Streisand Award (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193186)

I propose we inaugurate a new set of weekly, monthly and yearly Streisand awards. For this, I'd like to Nominate for all three categories this most boneheaded request of the IOC.

In the meantime, lets help UVEX [wikipedia.org] by directly linking their name (like I have here) with Vonn's [lindseyvonn.com] name.

They can't stop the mob!

yeah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193206)

I dunno, but I so want to fuck her.

Off topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193266)

Did anyone here even watch her downhill skiing victory? If her sob performance at the end is any indicator, the next two months will see this woman occupying all TV air time with her incessant crying. Shit, I was embarrassed just to be watching her. Even Michael Phelps was more pleasant to watch speak by comparison.

So, is anyone ACTUALLY mentioning Lindsey Vonn -- and not ridiculing her?

(Internet tough guy logging off...)

What you say now? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193318)

Doesn't anyone know how to construct a sentence around here anymore, or spell for that matter? It is becoming painful to read some of these headlines.

IOC is barking up the wrong tree (2, Insightful)

517714 (762276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193458)

If the name is the IOC's IP, even if only temporarily, then their gripe is with Ms rhymes with Bonn. She presumably signed a contract with Uvex and also presumably with the IOC. If the IOC can enforce anything it would be against her not the company. The IOC's rights do not negate an existing contract which allows Uvex to use her image.

No One Can Own Your Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193548)

No frakin' way. Unleash the lawyer dogs. Only when used as stated above "Olympian Lindsay Vonn". They can NOT own facts. So stating the "Lindsay Vonn, Gold Metal Winner" can not be OWNED... it is a fact known to the world. Screw the IOC.

official infringement page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193618)

I assume that UVEX is doing this in order to get more publicity then they would just get from Vonn's name alone. The very act of outing the IOC's request and pasting onto Slashdot has to be greater marketing then simply having her name on their opening page and hoping Google picks up the page change before the Olympic's are over.

But anyhow. Here is some real information about whether your marketing is (probably) infringing or not: http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/about-vanoc/the-vancouver-2010-brand/protecting-the-brand/business-community/business-community_88980js.html [vancouver2010.com]

Scroll down to "How does a business promote a non-2010 Winter Games sport sponsorship?" and you will see how to say what you want without tipping off on their infringement scale.

Still... you probably want to leave as is... now that Slashdot is advertising for you.

But to answer the poster: "No, the IOC does not hold rights to claim infringement on Lindsey Vonn's name."

I expect UVEX would know this. But in reality, their current setup is better marketing for them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?