dbfoen wrote:
+1
protecting their IP is the only way Nike can stay in biz
That's not the only issue, and your statement is incorrect.
If you hold IP and fail to act to protect it; you can lose it, in a legal challenge.
dbfoen wrote:
+1
protecting their IP is the only way Nike can stay in biz
That's not the only issue, and your statement is incorrect.
If you hold IP and fail to act to protect it; you can lose it, in a legal challenge.
Avocado's Number wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Even with copyrighted pictures (you can post your own picture anywhere you damn please) the fair-use best practice is determined by informational vs commercial. Precedent is that journals, even if they make money, are about distributing information so it's fair use.
That's really not accurate. Although the "fair use" doctrine is often asserted as a basis for noncommercial copying of material that is generally protectable under U.S. copyright law, federal courts tend to apply the doctrine very narrowly.
In any event, it sounds as though this matter relates to trademark rather than copyright issues. I'd still like to see the USOC's correspondence and supporting documents, rather than someone else's characterizations of the USOC's assertions and demands.
News reporting is well within that "narrow" application in the US. LR reports the news.
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
copyright holders do not care about fair use and issue DMCA take down notices anyways.
even non-copyright-holders abuse the DMCA. It is rigged in favor of anyone who issues a notice, real or bogus. The plaintiff remains anonymous while the defendant has to provide contact info, including their name and physical address, to the plaintiff in order to contest it. And there is no punishment at all for filing false notices. That's what happens when you let corporations write laws.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:That's really not accurate. Although the "fair use" doctrine is often asserted as a basis for noncommercial copying of material that is generally protectable under U.S. copyright law, federal courts tend to apply the doctrine very narrowly.
In any event, it sounds as though this matter relates to trademark rather than copyright issues. I'd still like to see the USOC's correspondence and supporting documents, rather than someone else's characterizations of the USOC's assertions and demands.
News reporting is well within that "narrow" application in the US. LR reports the news.
Blah Blah Blah wrote:
copyright holders do not care about fair use and issue DMCA take down notices anyways.
even non-copyright-holders abuse the DMCA. It is rigged in favor of anyone who issues a notice, real or bogus. The plaintiff remains anonymous while the defendant has to provide contact info, including their name and physical address, to the plaintiff in order to contest it. And there is no punishment at all for filing false notices. That's what happens when you let corporations write laws.
You are a bonafide moron. No wonder your critics have a field day with your work. Copyright is in the constitution. Everything else is mechanism to protect it.
Pretty funny sue happy Nike is afraid oiselle is going to put them out of business in a few years.
My observation.... wrote:
Pretty funny sue happy Nike is afraid oiselle is going to put them out of business in a few years.
God the LR sheeple are so dumb. This came from the USOC not Nike.
We have ZERO facts other than a vague tweet and no follow-up information.
Don't forget genius that Oisella exclude 1/2 of the running population.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:That's really not accurate. Although the "fair use" doctrine is often asserted as a basis for noncommercial copying of material that is generally protectable under U.S. copyright law, federal courts tend to apply the doctrine very narrowly.
In any event, it sounds as though this matter relates to trademark rather than copyright issues. I'd still like to see the USOC's correspondence and supporting documents, rather than someone else's characterizations of the USOC's assertions and demands.
News reporting is well within that "narrow" application in the US. LR reports the news.
It sounds as though you are confusing the "fair use" doctrine, which provides narrow exceptions for unauthorized use of copyrightable material, with the threshold issue of whether the material is copyrightable. You don't have a general right under the "fair use" doctrine to use copyrightable material merely because you're purporting to use it for "news reporting." You can generally use information obtained from other sources to report news (or anything else) without violating federal copyright law, but that's because the news itself is not copyrightable, not because of the "fair use" doctrine. Copyright law doesn't protect information (or "news"), but rather protects particular expressions of ideas, which can include photographs of sports activities, audiovisual recordings of sports activities, and journalists' descriptions of sports activities.
I still have seen the USOC's "demand" or other documents that might shed light on this matter.
Avocado's Number wrote:
I still have seen the USOC's "demand" or other documents that might shed light on this matter.
"I still haven't seen . . . ."
800 dude wrote:
There's no copyright in a live sporting event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Ass%27n_v._Motorola,_Inc.
USOC could have people kicked out of a venue for recording images of the competition, but they can't stop them from using those images commercially.
USOC's lawyers disagree. Take them to court and let's find out.
During the 1996 Olympics I volunteered. My job was to patrol a section of the cycling road course and look for guerilla marketing or banners of advertisers that were not Olympic sponsors that might show up on TV coverage. I saw a rather large inflatable Miller beer bottle on the property of a shopping center. I called it in and someone came to check it out and determined that it was not an issue (too far from the road).
I saw security boot a person from near the track venue who was giving away free samples of sunscreen---it was from a competitor to a USOC or IOC sponsor.
Then I got involved in Olympic sports and really learned about the marketing aspect. There needs to be some sort of balance, but I see it from both sides. Remember, the "big" behemoth rarely looks good in these situations.
USOC is Broken wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:USOC's lawyers started talking tough, warning the world they would be strictly enforcing IP rights.
I'm not sure how the big photo farms like Getty Images will deal with this. Maybe they bought rights?
Ding, Ding, Ding ... Winner, Winner Winner.
The USOC, USATF, etc. need new revenue streams. Lawyers need pay raises. The scam grows large; the death of the sport is on the way.
The Sport has been DEAD for awhile.
The patient was on life support with a DNR request years ago.
USATF couldn't sell tickets to JLO on a stripper pole.
It's now just a Wax Museum freak show.
USOC is Broken wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:USOC's lawyers started talking tough, warning the world they would be strictly enforcing IP rights.
I'm not sure how the big photo farms like Getty Images will deal with this. Maybe they bought rights?
Ding, Ding, Ding ... Winner, Winner Winner.
The USOC, USATF, etc. need new revenue streams. Lawyers need pay raises. The scam grows large; the death of the sport is on the way.
So wait, if Sherman's Shoes gives me a part-time job and discount gear, and after my 23rd-place effort at trials they post a picture my wife took of my smiling mug after the race, that is a violation to USOC?
It is a violation if my university athletic department posts a photo my coach took?
Seems bad for the sport.
luv2run wrote:
During the 1996 Olympics I volunteered. My job was to patrol a section of the cycling road course and look for guerilla marketing or banners of advertisers that were not Olympic sponsors that might show up on TV coverage. I saw a rather large inflatable Miller beer bottle on the property of a shopping center. I called it in and someone came to check it out and determined that it was not an issue (too far from the road).
I saw security boot a person from near the track venue who was giving away free samples of sunscreen---it was from a competitor to a USOC or IOC sponsor.
Then I got involved in Olympic sports and really learned about the marketing aspect. There needs to be some sort of balance, but I see it from both sides. Remember, the "big" behemoth rarely looks good in these situations.
The IOC uses volunteers to protect its sponsors financial interests? That is sad, and very telling.
If I volunteered for any event and I was assigned a job that consisted of helping some sponsor company make money, I'd walk away immediately.
If the IOC needs to police non-sponsor brands' marketing, they should HIRE people to do it, not pin it on volunteers.
It looks like Sally was trying the old "I was calling it news" defense. Which is utterly stupid.
This article explains everything, and includes snippets of the email Sally received from USOC
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/athletes-721741-olympic-usoc.html
trials fan wrote:
This article explains everything, and includes snippets of the email Sally received from USOC
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/athletes-721741-olympic-usoc.html
The whole dampens her celebration is quite stupid. It's clear the rules are for people exactly like Sally. Who try to engage in ambush marketing.
These are the guidlines.
http://www.teamusa.org/brand-usage-guidelinesThe "reporter" clearly took a side. Was this an opinion piece and why does every lazy journalist talk to that loser Nick?
Sofa king Kool wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/oiselle_sallyLink to her Twitter account
Ummm, Sally is hot. Sweet.
USOC is Broken wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:USOC's lawyers started talking tough, warning the world they would be strictly enforcing IP rights.
I'm not sure how the big photo farms like Getty Images will deal with this. Maybe they bought rights?
Ding, Ding, Ding ... Winner, Winner Winner.
The USOC, USATF, etc. need new revenue streams. Lawyers need pay raises. The scam grows large; the death of the sport is on the way.
It's absurd that USOC would rather shrink the sport until it's out of business than miss one cent on a weak IP rights stance.
Peekachew wrote:
Copyright is in the constitution.
Yeah, and at the time it was written, the camera hadn't been invented yet.
The fact that copyright law has been allowed to extend to anything that the eye can see of an event is a complete absurdity...an absurdity that has come to be with the help of corrupt lobbies, corrupt greedy lawyers, and bribed or brain-dead judges.
completely outrageous wrote:
USOC is Broken wrote:Ding, Ding, Ding ... Winner, Winner Winner.
The USOC, USATF, etc. need new revenue streams. Lawyers need pay raises. The scam grows large; the death of the sport is on the way.
It's absurd that USOC would rather shrink the sport until it's out of business than miss one cent on a weak IP rights stance.
Please explain how this is shrinking the sport. Then explain how Saucony, New Balance, Brooks were able to promote their athletes with pics bios etc for the OTs.
Sally is a lazy, she wants to steal other people's work for her own benefit.
also, as someone mentioned, if someone doesn't enforce IP rights they could be lost.
Other companies have had no issues with following the rules which have been set forth and in place for a long time...