Wired Epicenter writes that athletes are confused by the IOC rules that limit what they can publish on blogs, twitter, facebook, etc. during the games.  

That’s not surprising given the nature of the restrictions.  For more details about those restrictions, see some of my earlier comments.

Its amusing / ironic / puzzling whenever someone who aggressively tries to protects its own copyright, trade-marks, or other intellectual property finds itself on the opposite side.   In other words, they engage in the very behaviour that they find offensive in others.

The latest example is Vanoc (aka the Vancouver Olympics).  Seems that there are a couple of instances where Vanoc has been accused of trying to acquire rights from others that crossed the line.

See the details on Excess Copyright or Techdirt.

The IOC is well known for its relentless control over everything relating to the Olympics.  After all, it makes its money by selling sponsorship and broadcasting/reporting rights.   That attempt to control runs headlong into the expectations and desires of athletes and fans to participate in the Olympics.

Witness this post on boing boing, reporting that the IOC has sent a takedown notice to someone who posted a photo on flickr of the exterior of the Beijing water cube.

The commenter states:  I hope that the IOC is aware that it’s about to show up in one of the most media-savvy towns in the world, and that trying to stop private citizens from posting “unauthorized” photos will be nothing short of a fool’s errand.

It is being suggested that IOC concern over US border policies may have been a significant factor in Chicago not getting the 2016 Olympics. 

Canadians and the Canadian government have been critical of the new, tougher US border policies.   Perhaps another instance where the risk/reward of security procedures is out of whack – and where security theatre has trumped the actual need.

For my Slaw post this week I referred to my Free Press article from Monday, being the last post I made.  But I added some thoughts based on a Slaw post from the 2008 Olympics.   It reads as follows:

That’s the title of my Free Press article for this week. It talks about the new IOC rules for athlete blogging for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. In essence, the IOC has amended its rules to allow limited blogging, and have taken the position that bloggers are not journalists. In essence, they don’t want them to be journalists, as that might run counter to the rights they sell to traditional media outlets.

In checking Slaw this morning to see if anyone else has mentioned this subject, I noticed Connie Crosby’s post from last summer about athlete blogging. She pointed out that several Canadian athletes blogged as part of the CBC’s site. That’s actually an interesting compromise. Presumably those athletes could do that without the IOC restrictions because they are doing so as part of accredited media. So to some extent the blogging athlete and the media outlet get the best of both worlds.
Read my article on my blog, on the Free Press site, or on the Canoe tech page

For the London Free Press

Read this on Canoe

The International Olympic committee (IOC) recently announced its athlete blogging rules for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

There are still restrictions, but they are more flexible than those for the 2008 Beijing Games, which was the first time athletes could blog about their experiences.

That decision was made by the IOC only a few weeks before the games, and it wasn’t something they particularly wanted to do. Rather, a number of athletes publically stated that they planned on blogging no matter what the official policy was. In response, the IOC quickly put together rules to control what athletes could and could not put in their blogs.

For the Vancouver Games, the IOC had more time to decide how to handle blogging. Athletes are not allowed to display the official Olympic symbol on their blogs –the well-known, five interlocking rings. Athletes can’t display the official mascot of the games. And don’t expect to see any images or videos of the action, either — those are banned under the rules.

The IOC has stated that it “considers blogging . . . as a legitimate form of personal expression and not as a form of journalism.” This position was no doubt taken in an attempt to not upset the media companies that pay so much money for exclusive rights.

But, truth be told, bloggers are quickly becoming the new age journalist. Some bloggers have found themselves with journalistic credentials to cover events.

Traditional media may be in knots over the impact of Olympic athlete blogs — many people may prefer to hear about the Olympic experience from the perspective of the athletes themselves, rather than through a media filter.

The IOC has been very restrictive about what can and can’t be put on a blog. In addition to banning mascots, symbols, or emblems, bloggers have to be careful where they even use the word “Olympic.” They can’t use the word in any way that would make a reader think the blog is trying to piggy back a product on the Olympic name. There are also restrictions on how athletes can describe games action.

It looks like the IOC is trying to embrace the Internet audience, without giving up too much control over how the games are reported.

One challenge is that the Olympics are only held every two years, and in that time, the Internet dramatically changes the way we view everything in the world, including sporting events.

Despite the restrictions, the IOC’s decision to let athleted blog is a victory for Internet fans — as if the IOC had a choice. Olympic blogging provides a view into the life of athletes that traditional journalists just can’t deliver.

In the end, despite restrictions that some find unreasonable, the IOC may have reached a compromise that will keep everyone basically satisfied for now.

The Federal Privacy Commissioner has initiated some research into public surveillance.   From the Privacy commissioner’s blog:

We’ve decided to commission research into how developments in public surveillance techniques and technology are affecting Canadians, individually and as a society. First off, Queen’s University will be examining the proliferation of surveillance cameras across the country, and report on the trends in the use of public surveillance – although it seems as if we are seeing more and more attempts to expand surveillance networks. As well, the University of Alberta will be taking a detailed look at whether privacy issues are being properly considered in the run-up to the 2010 Olympics.

I look forward to the results of that research.  I subscribe to the view that for the most part public CCTV is security theatre that does not have any significant effect on actual security.

Read the Comissioner’s post for more detail and insight into the issue.

Apparently the tickets for this summer’s Olympics will contain a microchip with the ticket holder’s photograph, passport details, addresses, e-mail, and telephone numbers. The idea is to keep troublemakers and protestors out of the stands.

Of course this raises issues about privacy and just what will be done with all that information, and its questionable whether those measures will have any effect on that goal.

A great example of security theatre – somehow not surprising when it goes along with the theatrics of the opening and closing ceremonies.

Read more on Slashdot

While I do have some sympathy for the IOC’s desire to maximize TV revenue from the Olympic games, the IOC always strikes me as being about a decade behind in their rules about things like event video on Web sites, and blogging.

The IOC has just released its rules on what athletes can and can not do on their blogs. Techdirt sums it up by saying: First Rule: No Blogging Anything Interesting

Frankly, watching Olympic events is not a zero sum game. How many of us have the time or inclination to watch hours of TV every day during the Olympics? If people turn to websites or blogs to get their Olympic news or watch a winning performance in a sport they are interested in, it doesn’t have to mean that TV viewing/revenue will drop.

Read the Techdirt post for the details

For the London Free Press – February 11, 2008

Read this on Canoe

In preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics, Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act came into force on Dec. 17.

The Act protects the Olympic brand. The Olympic brand is comprised of dozens of names, phrases, marks and logos related to the 2010 Winter Games. Examples include obvious examples like the word “Olympic,” the use of the official Olympic emblem, as well as less obvious examples such as Vancouver 2010, Sea to Sky Games and the Olympic rings.

The IOC and its marketing partners have placed VANOC under a legal obligation to protect against unauthorized use of the Olympic brand and ambush marketing in Canada.

Ambush marketing occurs when business uses false or unauthorized associations between its business, goods or services and the goodwill associated with the Olympics. Ambush marketing threatens the financial viability of the Olympic Games by impairing the ability of organizers to raise the necessary sponsorship and licensing funding. Essentially, organizations and corporate sponsors participating in the 2010 Vancouver Games marketing program must be confident they are investing in something not available for free.

VANOC’s brand and logo policy on its website states it will assess whether there has been an infringement of the Olympic brand through a six-part test which assesses whether the Olympic brand is:

- Used accurately without distortion or modification.

- Used in an overly promotional manner which contributed to the creation of an unauthorized business association.

- Used in a commercially neutral manner or whether it created an unauthorized business association between the Olympics and a commercial entity?

- Given undue prominence within the context of the overall initiative or storyline?

- Used visually to create an association between a business and the Olympic or Paralympic movement.

- Whether there are any other elements not contemplated in the proceeding factors that otherwise create an unauthorized association with the Olympic or Paralympic movement?

Each factor is rated between one and three and an aggregate score is generated. A score of more than indicates infringement and VANOC can take action to protect the mark, including the use of the courts.

The website also has examples of what uses would be considered acceptable or infringing.

Concerns with this legislation have been noted by critics. First, unlike normal trademarks, IOC and VANOC are not required to prove they have suffered harm under this legislation. Nor does it require the use to be confusing. This will make an injunction or an order for damages easier to obtain. It will be difficult for small businesses to challenge a corporate giant like the Olympic committee.

While the legislation provides an exemption for parody and media, it has been noted that filmmakers, musicians and artists are not exempt from compliance when they wish to reproduce their materials on a commercial scale.

It has also been noted the protection impedes free speech.

It appears corporate sponsorship, trademark law and free speech will be competing for gold at the podium.