If you are a business customer just tell them that you aren't buying from them because you don't like the olympics attitude. Then wherever-the-f* 2016 will have a little more difficulty finding suckers.
> Then wherever-the-f* 2016 will have a little more difficulty finding suckers.
You think? Somehow I don't imagine BP or P&G or Cisco saying 2016 Olymipcs committee: "sorry, we couldn't sponsor you anymore, that excuse-me guy from Hacker News really got us in the tough spot, so we have to choose between being associated one of most watched and admired events in the world and his business, so we can't really do anything here. Maybe in 2020..." Olympics are popular, probably vastly more popular than the Hijackers bunch, that describe themselves as "We're a bunch of fuck-wits". I have nothing against them having their fun, provided they don't hurt anybody, but given the existing trademark laws, it is hard to expect a different outcome. And if you plan to boycott every business that defends their trademark, you have a lot of boycotting to do...
Companies are extremely sensitive to their public image and want the sports they sponsor to match that.
Formula 1's image used to be exclusive/glamour/rich and so had Rolex type sponsors. Then when tobacco adverts were banned it went after young/adventure/excitement types.
But do RedBull really want their cool/hip/trendy young customers in Seattle to picture RedBull with police shooting democracy protesters at the Bahrain GP?
For example, IBM sponsor golf - Apple don't. IBM's customers don't care that the golf tournament is being held at a course that doesn't let women in - Apple's certainly would!
BP - frankly they could put baby seals into a wood chipper on national television without damaging their public image!
But CISCO are the most vulnerable to image. Up to now they sold to big business who just bought on a salesman's word. But now they are trying to be the face of the internet to regular buyers. Having their name plastered across news reports about visitors to the olympics being banned from posting twitter/youtube/facebook doesn't look so good.
Nobody was banned from posting to twitter. What was banned is the use of specific image - similar to registered trademark. And somebody like Cisco has nothing to do with it, so you are trying to build a chain starting with event that did not happen and going to the people that had no connection.
You're playing with words. An account definitely was banned/blocked/suspended/whatever due to "the use of a specific image". But it's the account that was blocked, not the image as you imply.
No I am not. "Banned from twitter" means that person/organisation was prohibited from using Twitter. That is not what happened - account was temporarily suspended because of the usage of trademarked image (not because of its ownership or content) and if they stop using the trademarked image they could post to twitter as much as they wish. Nobody censors them because they offended the mighty 1% (these constant knee-jerk allegations really are getting tiresome). Their account is suspended for using trademark that doesn't belong to them - that would happen with any trademark in any situation. Try using Coca-Cola logo in your twitter account and if Coca-Cola learns about it your account most probably will be suspended. Not because Coca-Cola hates you but because you're using their trademark.
And the makers believe the olympics=popular=worth sponsoring message.
If someone like Cisco got the message that Olympics = expensive / anti-social / corrupt, then they might not be rushing to sponsor it. That's why `cool` web companies don't sponsor golf or yachting
Why disable the account rather than just notifying them and asking them to change the logo?
I had a parody twitter account which was accused of trademark infringement last year. Twitter just asked me to change the logo to make it more clear that it wasn't the official one (I changed the shape of it rather than just one of the words), and everything carried on as normal.
The whole thing was over in a couple of days and my account stayed online the whole time.
The rules around the olympics branding extends further than normal laws. There are guidelines even on referring to the games and athletes. The fact they are using a variation of the official logo is rights for a challenge. However shutting the account is a bit far. Is this in breach of twitter terms and conditions?
Edit: Their account is temporarily suspended and not shutdown. If they change the branding and verify their account they will be reinstated.
As Livingstone prepared to sign, he paused for a moment. Then he looked up at the I.O.C.’s executive director, Gilbert Felli, who was standing by his side, and said, “My lawyers advised me not to sign this contract. But I don’t suppose I’ve got any choice, have I?”
I believe unless you are officially a sponsor for the games, or have recieved permission to use branding, you may not use the phrases "2012 Olympics", "Olympic Games" or "London 2012". There was a hotel had to change it's advertising to "Need rooms for the big event this summer" or something allong the lines because they weren't an official sponsor. And a Cafe had to change it's name from "Cafe Olympic" to "Cafe Lympic" [1]
From the 2012 Olympics "Using The Brand FAQ" [2]
>4. Who is allowed to use the Games' Marks?
Official commercial partners, sponsors, suppliers and licensees are allowed to use the Games' Marks in accordance with the terms of their agreements with LOCOG or the IOC. See our current partners.
>
>We have also granted a number of non-commercial partners helping to deliver the Games the right to use our brand. This includes central government departments, the Greater London Authority and boroughs hosting various events for the Games.
So it's more likely than anything they were taken down just for using the Olympic name and modified logo
I'm sure there is/would be a political reason, but it's most likely some marketing person refreshing a Google alert feed then (metaphorically) hammering anything that isn't one of their official sponsors. Just a theory
So no reason to push through amazing legislation that bans the use of phrases like London / Summer / 2012 / Games to such a ridiculous degree?
"This legislation offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."
This twitter account https://twitter.com/#!/london20l2 may be of interest to people reading this thread. It appears to have been setup by people involved with Space Hijackers, though that is not totally clear...
Also https://twitter.com/#!/charltonbrooker has been trolling them for some time now. He's a very popular figure so if they send him a takedown notice then it will suddenly become a big issue.
Bow to the O-word overlords or we'll chunk you in jail.
I live in London and the city has turned to shit since it was announced. Everything is literally broken and being fixed up and convered in turd polish.
The last 5 times I've bothered to commute in rather than sitting on my arse at home, the public transport is screwed.
Their logo looks pretty close to the Olympics one. So twitter really doesn't have much choice unless they want to risk a lawsuit - which they do not. Olympics guys probably don't have much choice too - TM laws require the owner to defend the trademark or lose it.
The SJ guys would have to create their own logo.
Comeon, the IOC is by far the most aggressive ip owner in the world, even counting all other sports events. It s more Like "protecting the rights of Adidas to say I sponsor Olympics" than protecting the ancient Olympia
It is universally known that the members of the Olympic (tm) (r) (truly sorry) Commitees would gladly kill their mother to protect their intellectual property (which the ancient Greeks built but who cares).
I could see changing the logo, but shutting the account down was too much. I doubt the account itself had any content related to the Olympics aside from the logo.
You can be a good legal citizen and a huge jerk at the same time. These are just different domains. There is no causation that if you are acting within your legal rights you're exempt from moral responsibility.
