Olympics

25 October 2007

By Sarah Thompson

It is not the first, or last time that the Olympics have gone over the top in trying to protect its brand. Years ago the US Olympic Committee hit back against anyone who dared to use the word 'Olympics' to describe some sort of competition, and recently sought legal changes in Canada for the protection of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olymics title. Here in the UK, the use of the word 'Olympic' could be barred under copyright law and therefore perhaps even the digits '2012.'

The exposure of the publication of Robert Ronson's 'Olympic Mind Games' has resulted in the organising committee expressing their concerns about the use of the Olympic brand. Consulted by its British branch, they emailed Ronson asking him not to use the word 'Olympic' nor the expression 'London 2012 or 2012' in the title. The committee was able to do so under The Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006, which modifies the original Olympic Symbols Act 1995. The Act effectively turns all elements of its title into a trademark. The committee voiced the concern that the word Olympic was being used in the title of a fiction book, stating that "there is no such thing as Olympic mind games." They wanted to "ensure that there was no confusion" as to whether the novel was "an official licensed product." Although the committee has decided not to sue Robert Ronson, who refused to change the title of his novel, the point is that based on the law, they could have done.

It has become commonplace for organisations and their promotional departments to protect their commercial interests and attempt to claim sole property through the copyright of words and phrases. The Olympic committee is continuing and pushing the boundaries of this trend. The very lables used to identify products and the words and phrases incorporated in thier make up are now being treated as commodities, with attempts to privatise the objects that facilitate the most basic forms of human interaction; communication. Communication is an essential part of expression, referencing tangible and non-tangible aspects of the real world. Much of our imagination is supplemeted by the image making of others and it is fair for them to want to pretect this and potentially copyright this asset. However, they also need to be acutely aware that in doing so, they decrease the availability of material in the public domain and thus restrict the arts of articulation and illustration.

Contact Us Sarah Thompson is a student at Liverpool John Moores University.