Olympical correctness gone mad...

Yes, bakers, butchers and old ladies have all fallen foul of the olympic copyright laws.
A butcher was ordered to take down a string of sausages because he had hung them in the shape of the five rings in his window. An old lady was banned from knitting a team GB jumper for a doll to be given to charity (may be a case there). And a baker shop was told to rmove bagels from it's shop window because they were displayed in an olympic ring style.

Is this copyright gone mad or is it fair play?

There is apparently a list of words which may not be used by companies where they use 2 or more words from the list...

Olympic, 2012, Summer, Games, GB, team - are the main ones to avoid.

I don't know where that lands newspapers then because they are constantly bang on about olympics etc in their headlines to sell newspapers. But is this sort of thing justified or ruining freedom and free speech.

I can see the argument for copyright claims but in this case I don't thing they are fair or measured in disallowing businesses and traders from jumping on the olympic bandwagon to some degree. All large national events and similar inspire trends and sales of all kinds from clothes to food to entertainment. And to a certain degree should be allowed.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, whatever the Daily Mail thinks.

This is nothing to do with copyright laws, more LOCOG showing typical British overreaction in the name of 'pc', not to mention the kowtowing to the companies who pay for advertising. I think LOCOG need to be careful that decisions made on behalf of the companies doesn't actually end up getting them bad publicity.

I've had the Olympic rings shaved into my hairy back. Let's see them try and stop me.

gloswhite wrote:This is nothing to do with copyright laws, more LOCOG showing typical British overreaction in the name of 'pc', not to mention the kowtowing to the companies who pay for advertising. I think LOCOG need to be careful that decisions made on behalf of the companies doesn't actually end up getting them bad publicity.

Am I the only poster on this forum who understands what the term 'political correctness' means? It is to avoid using certain words or avoid doing certain things which might be perceived to marginalise or exclude others.

'PC' therefore has absolutely nothing to do with people deciding they can use the Olympic rings in any way they like without permission and then whining about it in the Daily Mail when they are told to stop.

The term is increasingly hi-jacked and mis-applied as the buzzword of choice for people who consider themselves to have a 'no-nonsense'/'common sense' based approach to things. But it's simply the wrong term.

The Olympics are big business, a lot of companies have paid big money to be associated with the Olympics and use the 'rings' logo etc, it's quite right that some cake shop can't just decide to cash in and use the bloody rings in a window display. That's someone else's intellectual property, you wouldn't like it if someone stole your intellectual property.

LH, thats absolute bollocks, and you know it. The idea, and IPR belongs to the people, and has done for how long now ? The companies are merely asking (paying ) for their name to be used. THEY DON'T OWN THE OLYMPICS !

Can't be bothered arguing on such a nice day, and am now off to make a BBQ.

I don't think it's bollocks at all. The use of the word 'Olympic' for commercial uses is protected. The use of the 5 concentric Olympic rings is protected. Companies pay to use them, other companies don't. Why are you surprised that the companies who do pay to use them don't want the others who haven't to use them? What's bollocks about it? OK, answer on another day when the weather is a bit grim if you want.

The Olympics have become too commercialised. The bog sponsors pay millions and millions to advertise their products. How come McDonalds and Heineken can be sponsors but not tobacco companies ?

Junk food and booze is hardly the staple fare of Olympians.

Reebok Trotter wrote:The Olympics have become too commercialised. The bog sponsors pay millions and millions to advertise their products. How come McDonalds and Heineken can be sponsors but not tobacco companies ?

Junk food and booze is hardly the staple fare of Olympians.

I agree with everything you say in your post, but it won't stop a health good shop getting sued if it opens up on Stratford High St next week under the name 'Olympic Health Food'.

Ultimately I've no issue with big companies spending big bucks to sponsor the Olympics, it's better they spend that money that the thing being entirely state funded.

Kris Akabusi was interviewed today and he acknowledged that commercialism had increased massively since his day but it was absolutely essential because sponsorship paid for a large part of the games.

At the end of the day, copyright is copyright and there are rules, but searching people and limiting the number of sandwiches they can take into a venue seems a bit harsh.

So Olympic travel is not allowed (although the company exists) and with other companies with Olympic in their company name? Just think of all the Greek restaurants in the world, that use Olympic in their name, that ought to be sued!!!!



If I remember a few weeks ago didnn't LOGOC actually try to sue/ban a few businesses because they had Olympic in the name but were basically laighed at as the word Olympic has existed longer than the "modern" games and as such cannot be copyrighted, and as such anyone can use the name.



The use of the rings is different, though, as they are copyright of the Olympic organisation and do need permission to use it!

bwfc71 wrote:So Olympic travel is not allowed (although the company exists) and with other companies with Olympic in their company name? Just think of all the Greek restaurants in the world, that use Olympic in their name, that ought to be sued!!!!

Use your noggin, Chris. The IOC didn't invent the word 'Olympic', everyone knows it has legitimate Hellenic origins, and a company which has been trading in Greece for years is hardly trying to cash in on London 2012. The clue is in the word 'London'.