Intellectual Property Rights
Smiley433
Posts: 7,890 Forum Member
✭
Nico Rosberg had to change the design of his crash helmet last week after FIFA objected to his planned use of an image of the world cup in a tribute to Germany's win - see here.
Although technically it was a copyright infringement, Rosberg wasn't going to gain financially or personally from the use of the world cup symbol. However he complied with the request to remove the image.
I know the International Olympic Committee are just as protective of their logo and symbols preventing unauthorised use of the famous five rings and other words I'm not going to list here for fear of copyright infringement. I've been able to find stories in the run up to the games two years ago of shops being asked to remove certain images from their window display so as not to infringe copyright. I'm sure there are lots more.
But where is the line drawn? What about those competitors who had images of the five rings tattooed on themselves - why haven't they asked to blank them out or get an arm cut off or something?
Are games competitors exempt from copyright infringements?
Although technically it was a copyright infringement, Rosberg wasn't going to gain financially or personally from the use of the world cup symbol. However he complied with the request to remove the image.
I know the International Olympic Committee are just as protective of their logo and symbols preventing unauthorised use of the famous five rings and other words I'm not going to list here for fear of copyright infringement. I've been able to find stories in the run up to the games two years ago of shops being asked to remove certain images from their window display so as not to infringe copyright. I'm sure there are lots more.
But where is the line drawn? What about those competitors who had images of the five rings tattooed on themselves - why haven't they asked to blank them out or get an arm cut off or something?
Are games competitors exempt from copyright infringements?
0
Comments
The Olympic logo is a trademark.
To answer your ill-considered question, the purpose of a trademark is to denote source of origin. Would your likelihood of confusion increase if you saw someone with a tattoo? An average consumer would not and should not be flummoxed by a tattoo.
I understand that Intellectual Property may seem nonsensical, but if you understand the law, even a little, these decisions make commercial sense. If you ever have time, I recommend reading into the subject: it's fascinating.
So is the world cup trophy.
What is ill-considered about it?
I'm pretty clear on trademark infringement rights, thank you very much so there's no need for the condescending tones, and I understand the need for the relative organisations to want to protect theirs. I was merely curious as to why one organisation requests the removal of one of their protected images, but it seems acceptable for people to use another organisation's image without issue. Maybe personal tattoos are deemed acceptable use of copyright imagery?
But that's IMAGE copyright not INTELLECTUAL. Intellectual governs things like how Microsoft software works, Apple's way of making the IPhone work, the design of a Formula 1 engine's management system etc
Fair point, my thread title is not the best.
However the Olympic rings and world cup are image copyright.
With the helmet it looks like the objection was on the grounds that the helmet contains sponsorship logos from other companies and is also considered a commercial product.
The issue is to do with the commercial use of trademarks which is why business premises such as shops etc. usually get into trouble. I doubt that an Olympian sporting the Olympic rings would be viewed as exploiting the image for commercial purposes. However, it would be interesting to know if, when an Olympian is doing paid advertising work, they're allowed to show the Olympic tattoo! If I had to guess, I'd say they probably weren't as it could be argued that the company paying for the advert was exploiting the Olympic trademark as well as the Olympian themselves.
With Rosberg, it could be argued that his racing helmet was featured heavily in the press because it had the World Cup image on it, and as a result the manufacturer of Monster energy drinks was getting additional publicity as their logo was right next to it! I imagine FIFA would want to ensure that, in future, the manufacturers of products weren't going to ask those they sponsored to add images of the World Cup slap bang next to their own logo in order to get extra free publicity.
*Edit* ... and Ber has just beaten me to it!
Ok I see now - hadn't appreciated the other logos on the helmet, I thought FIFA were objecting to only the image of the world cup itself.
I doubt Rosberg was intending to use the world cup image for commercial purposes, I'm sure he was just celebrating his country's victory. But I appreciate that commercial contracts are in place for world cups and that another company's logo visible next to the trophy would not be acceptable.
Yup, understand now. Thanks both for the replies.
Intellectual property is a catch-all term that includes copyright, patents, design rights etc. so the OP's use of the expression was correct.
To answer the OP's question, it is up to rights holders to decide how aggressively to pursue infringements. There is little benefit in taking legal action against an athlete who had a tattoo of the Olympic logo but a commercial company who associates themselves with your brand through unauthorized use is benefiting unfairly and devaluing your brand with respect to paying sponsors.
Regarding the Rosberg incident, having the world cup image on his helmet surrounded by the logos of the Mercedes F1 team and sponsors would not be acceptable to FIFA. That's understandable because FIFA sell rights to sponsors for huge amounts of money and they have a duty to those sponsors to protect their exclusivity of association to the world cup brand.
A quick search shows that the FIFA World Cup was sponsored by Hyundai and Kia Motors. I'm sure those companies wouldn't be happy to see the world cup image linked to Mercedes.
Adidas are another world cup sponsor, but Mercedes F1 have an association with Puma sportswear, so again a big conflict.
Another one: The tyre company Continental sponsor the world cup so they don't want the Pirelli brand (who make the tyres for F1) anywhere near the world cup brand.
Another poster already mentioned Merc F1 is sponsored by Monster energy drinks but Coca Cola are a big world cup sponsor.
There are probably more conflicts of interest but hopefully these examples show why it's important for rights holder to protect their sponsor's interests.
Intellectual property is the umbrella of copyrights, trademarks, patents and such.
Under IP, there is no difference between image and text in terms of copyright, patent or trademark.
I was just about to look up potential conflicts of interest with official FIFA sponsors, so you've very helpfully saved me the effort! :cool:
Feel free to take a bow!
Bow taken ;-)
Mind you the Olympic Committee went way over the top in London ( and have done in previous cities ) , making places such as Kebab shops change their name ,( no logo being used ) I mean who sees Olympic Kebabs and thinks of the actual Olympics. Their reasoning being it would affect sponsorship !
It might not make much sense pragmatically. But if the IOC has a contract with McDonald's worth many millions of dollars to provide sponsorship to the Olympics and that contract stipulates that no other fast food brand is allowed to use any Olympic intellectual property then the IOC have a legal duty to chase down any infringement even if it is just a local kebab shop called Olympik Kebabs.
Possibly true but having the world cup logo associated with these other brands in a sport which is broadcast on TV to millions worldwide would likely land them in very hot water with their own sponsors. They are probably contractually obliged under the terms of their agreements with their own sponsors to take action.
I had thought the Rosberg incident was purely on the use of the world cup image, I hadn't at the time appreciated it was more to do with the associations of the world cup and their commercial sponsors.
Thanks for taking the time to go into detail on the related associations.
If they'd "let it slip", the same thing would happen again because I can pretty much guarantee that some marketing bod would be asking every Tom, Dick and Harry they sponsored to put a World Cup image next to their own logo.
Because in theory everyone has to pay to hold the WC for instance, because at the end of the day it's the consumer whose paying for this sponsorship.
I'm not sure I get your drift (but I had too little sleep last night as it was piggin' hot round here!
Surely it's only the consumers of the sponsors' products who indirectly pay for the World Cup? If you didn't go to McDonalds, you weren't helping McDonalds sponsor the World Cup.
And you are completely free to boycott those brands which sponsor these large sporting events.
Events like the world cup and the olympics cost billions to put on. I think it's good that global companies sponsor these events. The events are enjoyed by people all over the world so it's good that at least some of the cost is provided by people from all over the world (ie. the customers of the sponsors). Would it be fair if the entire cost was put on the taxpayers of the host country?
Whatever the business model, these events will end up being paid for either directly or indirectly by the masses, like everything in life.
So I wonder, if Red Bull who are Rosberg's main personal sponsor and whose name appears on his helmet, were FIFA World Cup sponsors then would he have been OK to use the logo (the cup)?
It has it's own, special set of IP rights codified in British law under the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (and some predecessor acts). These go beyond normal IP laws.
I think you mean "Monster" energy drink ... but the principle is the same.
My personal view is that they wouldn't as the commercial agreement with Monster would be specifically related to the World Cup itself, not to other activities in which Monster was involved.