Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Friday, 27 November, 2020

The London Olympic Summer Games of 2012

Date: 01 April, 2009

By: Chief

Imagehis is not an April Fools gag either.

After a fierce fight between England and France lasting a whole lot longer than it should have England ended up winning the privilege of hosting the 2012 Olympic Summer Games. BFD. So, come the year 2012 in the City of London, and of course other cities throughout the country, Olympians from all over the world representing their respective countries will be vying for the most coveted of all sports awards — an Olympic Gold Medal.

May the best man, woman or team - whatever - win.

But hey, guess what? Courtesy of the British Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) nobody shall be able to talk about the Olympics or medals or gold, silver and bronze. And while you are reading this you are probably saying something along the lines of 'yeah, right Chief. What drugs have you been taking lately'?

Other than caffeine and nicotine, and plenty of both I might add, I have not been indulging or experimenting with any other drug. Never have. Seriously.

So where did I come up with such a cockamamie idea? Why the London 2012 Olympic website itself.

Should you go there you shall find a (1) list of "[t]he following are some of the current items that make up the Games' Marks" and (2) a list of images which are protected. Okay, if you would rather not visit the London Olympic website and read all of their very dry legal dribble, here (courtesy of the BBC) is the purported 'no-no' list of protected words and other assorted hogwash:

See. I told you that I was not on drugs.

I also have great faith that the above list will, over time, grow.

Furthermore, once you read the fine print it gets an awful lot worse. You see, as I understand it, only the London Olympic Committee and maybe the IOC can sell privileges (rights) or licenses to those who feel like spending a gazillion pounds or more for the privilege, it sure as shootin' is not a right to officially sponsor or market products bearing a "protected mark." And, as you have already read, that mark maybe an image or it maybe the word "gold." Selfish dirtballs.

Gee, wonderful. But what is prohibited you might ask? Plenty is the only answer that comes to mind. Quoting the Brit Olympic website:

"The unauthorised use of any of the Games' Marks (or any other marks or logos that are confusingly similar to, or likely to be mistaken for, them) is strictly prohibited."

As it pertains to the Olympic flag and rings, just in case the frigging Brits haven't noticed, the copyright has expired. Quoting Wikipedia:

"The author died in 1937, so this work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less."

Well London, as Frank the Pug so famously said: "Kiss my furry little butt."

While I agree that most of what the London committee is saying pertains primarily to business, the question then becomes what if you or I do not fall under any of the categories listed on the website? Here is their answer (quoting the Brit website):

"You can help support London 2012 by understanding and respecting the need to protect the brand, and by not using our emblems or otherwise creating an association with the Games unless you are sure you are entitled to do so."

I believe it is sufficient to say that the London Olympic Committee for the 2012 Olympic Summer Games has never heard of the phrase "fair use." They also have probably never heard of the phrase "screw 'em and feed 'em fish heads" either. By the way that last phrase is pointed from me directly toward the blithering idiots who comprise the membership of the London Olympic Committee.

There are, to be sure, some complaints already about this new and improved draconian "protective mark" that the fools of the London Olympic Committee have put in place. I would also be willing to bet that there will be more. From the BBC:

"[T]he Institute of Practitioners in Advertising claims the new bill is so extreme that it could technically lead to pubs being prosecuted for using chalkboards to flag up coverage of the Games."

Naturally the organizing committee has said that is not the case but their quite specific verbiage says the exact opposite. We shall see what transpires in due course.

Can you imagine some sports commentator trying to cover the Olympics and every other word he speaks is 'bleeped' out? Actually, I think it would hilarious. There would be more bleeping going on than ever before. And the games would end up being a laughingstock. Which, in turn, would serve the Brits right as they have no sense of humor to begin with. Or no video coverage is allowed because some cameraman might inadvertently show the Olympic rings or some other such nonsense.

How about no still or digital cameras, home video cameras or camcorders would be allowed because the people who attend the games — supporting — their teams are not "[o]fficial partners, sponsors, suppliers and licensees."

Hey, I am not kidding. Going exactly and only by what the London Olympic Committee has posted on their frigging website, they could, if they were that exceedingly stupid, do exactly that. Who knows, they just might.

What is interesting is that even with all of these legal protections in place people will still find a way around them. People always do. Add to that the mere fact that the language the London Olympic Committee has chosen to use should, I would hope, really piss off a whole bunch of people. Not just in England but throughout the world. If it does, and somehow I suspect that it will, those legal protections will not mean squat by the time the smoke clears and the dust settles.

The travesty of the whole thing is, as usual, big corporate business has gotten involved and has nearly ruined the Olympics. They have already completely destroyed the spirit and intent of the games so why not screw up what is left. Buffoons.

Because of the commercialization of the games I would love to see the athletes themselves either not show up or not compete — until this crap of "protected marks, [o]fficial partners, sponsors, suppliers and licensees" is cleared up and deposited where it rightfully belongs — in the trash.

After all, if it were not for the individual athletes — there would be no Olympics.

(Return to the top)