Legal use of the Olympic rings

[Carwash]

Does anyone know if it's legal to use the Olympic rings logo on your own artwork?

It's over 100 years old, so does this mean it's now public domain, allowing people to draw their own rings and use it on commercial artwork, or is it still protected and owned by someone?

Does the situation vary from country to country, as I'm in the UK.

There's a copy of the logo on Wikipedia that's listed as a public domain file, and I'd have thought if this wasn't true, it would have been removed by now.

So is there any reason I couldn't download this file (or create my own), superimpose it over my own photos and print them on some posters, T-shirts, mugs, etc?

 

[Deleted1929]

http://registration.olympic.org/en/faq/detail/id/80

--
StephenG

 

[RaymondR]

to drive home the point made by the prior poster, here is the provisions of the U.S. Code that make unauthorized use of the Olympics symbols a civil offense, thus implementing the exclusive rights of the IOC. the USOC is VERY aggressive in enforcing its rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506

--
RaymondR

 

[Carwash]

Thanks!

It did seem unlikely that it would be public domain, especially given how zealous the London Olympics have been about people using seemingly generic phrases like "London 2012", but that Wikipedia file raised my hopes.

I know this is straying from photography, but what about the UK flag - Is that public domain or are there laws protecting it too? I know the EU flag is copyrighted, but the UK flag is ancient, so it surely can't be in anyone's copyright by now?

Do all those companies printing posters and merchandising using the UK flag (or variations/derivatives of it) have to get permission or pay royalties to someone?

 

[Carwash]

Wow, I never thought there would be specific laws protecting these things. It must be fairly rare to get this kind of protection.

I notice that section C states the corporation can take civil action if anyone uses their trademarks for 'trade', so presumably you're still free to use them for something that doesn't make you money (directly or indirectly) or boosts any other trade for you.

 

[RaymondR]

Wow, I never thought there would be specific laws protecting these things. It must be fairly rare to get this kind of protection.

this is a rare level of protection. trademarks are protected usually only from other commercial uses that are likely to be confusing to the public. truly famous marks also get protection from dilution. but Congress gave the USOC exclusive rights irrespective of confusion or dilution.

I notice that section C states the corporation can take civil action if anyone uses their trademarks for 'trade', so presumably you're still free to use them for something that doesn't make you money (directly or indirectly) or boosts any other trade for you.

this is correct but as I indicated before, the USOC has a pretty aggressive interpretation of what constitutes trade.

--
RaymondR

 

[drusus]

I understand that a symbol like the Olympic rings may be trademarked, but the OP referred to a rule that has confused me in the past. I too had heard that copyright expires after 70 years or so, at least for works of literature. But I recently tried to get permission to reproduce a figure from a scientific article srom 1925, and the journal requested money for permission to do so.

So, does anyone know how US copyright works in this regard? Is it that any creative work (literature, non-fiction articles, photos, movies) is protected by copyright for 70 years, and then it may be copyrighted further only if its author or representatives take explicit action to extend its copyright protection? Or are the rules much more fragmented and specific to different forms of creative work?

I hope I am not hijacking this thread. I see this question as related to the OP's original question, but I'll be happy to ask in a separate thread if the OP prefers.

Thanks in advance.

Drusus

 

[Doug J]

Does anyone know if it's legal to use the Olympic rings logo on your own artwork?

It's over 100 years old, so does this mean it's now public domain, allowing people to draw their own rings and use it on commercial artwork, or is it still protected and owned by someone?

Does the situation vary from country to country, as I'm in the UK.

There's a copy of the logo on Wikipedia that's listed as a public domain file, and I'd have thought if this wasn't true, it would have been removed by now.

So is there any reason I couldn't download this file (or create my own), superimpose it over my own photos and print them on some posters, T-shirts, mugs, etc?

Here is the official website that lists restrictions, etc.
http://www.london2012.com/about-us/our-brand/using-the-brand/

Cheers,
Doug
--
http://www.pbase.com/dougj/birds_birds_birds
http://www.pbase.com/dougj

 

[RaymondR]

I understand that a symbol like the Olympic rings may be trademarked, but the OP referred to a rule that has confused me in the past. I too had heard that copyright expires after 70 years or so, at least for works of literature. But I recently tried to get permission to reproduce a figure from a scientific article srom 1925, and the journal requested money for permission to do so.

So, does anyone know how US copyright works in this regard? Is it that any creative work (literature, non-fiction articles, photos, movies) is protected by copyright for 70 years, and then it may be copyrighted further only if its author or representatives take explicit action to extend its copyright protection? Or are the rules much more fragmented and specific to different forms of creative work?

I hope I am not hijacking this thread. I see this question as related to the OP's original question, but I'll be happy to ask in a separate thread if the OP prefers.

Thanks in advance.

Drusus

OK, this is a bit complicated. For works created after Jan 1, 1978, the current term is life of the author, plus 70 years for works created by an individual. If a work for hire (typically something an employee created in course of employment for a company), then 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. No renewals. And this puts US law on approximate par with much of the world.

Where it gets tricky is for works created before Jan 1, 1978, because the law was different and because Congress has tinkered with the law several times since 1976 when the current law was passed. Under the 1909 Act there were 28 year terms, an initial term and a possible renewal.

There are no simple rules for pre 1978 works and even seasoned copyright lawyers can get confused. You have to read the statute carefully and know the status of the work in question (was it an individual work or a work for hire; was it renewed after initial term, etc.) So the upshot is that the work you referred to as being from 1923 could very well still be covered by copyright.

And do NOT assume that because the publisher asked for money that paying is still required. Consult a lawyer.

--
RaymondR

 

[rsbones]

Wouldn't the logo be a trademark, not a copyright issue? I mean, you can't use the logo of a company for your own purposes no matter how old it is.

 

[drusus]

I understand that a symbol like the Olympic rings may be trademarked, but the OP referred to a rule that has confused me in the past. I too had heard that copyright expires after 70 years or so, at least for works of literature. But I recently tried to get permission to reproduce a figure from a scientific article srom 1925, and the journal requested money for permission to do so.

So, does anyone know how US copyright works in this regard? Is it that any creative work (literature, non-fiction articles, photos, movies) is protected by copyright for 70 years, and then it may be copyrighted further only if its author or representatives take explicit action to extend its copyright protection? Or are the rules much more fragmented and specific to different forms of creative work?

I hope I am not hijacking this thread. I see this question as related to the OP's original question, but I'll be happy to ask in a separate thread if the OP prefers.

Thanks in advance.

Drusus

OK, this is a bit complicated. For works created after Jan 1, 1978, the current term is life of the author, plus 70 years for works created by an individual. If a work for hire (typically something an employee created in course of employment for a company), then 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. No renewals. And this puts US law on approximate par with much of the world.

Where it gets tricky is for works created before Jan 1, 1978, because the law was different and because Congress has tinkered with the law several times since 1976 when the current law was passed. Under the 1909 Act there were 28 year terms, an initial term and a possible renewal.

There are no simple rules for pre 1978 works and even seasoned copyright lawyers can get confused. You have to read the statute carefully and know the status of the work in question (was it an individual work or a work for hire; was it renewed after initial term, etc.) So the upshot is that the work you referred to as being from 1923 could very well still be covered by copyright.

And do NOT assume that because the publisher asked for money that paying is still required. Consult a lawyer.

--
RaymondR

Thank you very much, Raymond. This is very helpful.

Drusus

 

[Mentor_1]

In Vancouver BC the Olympic Pizza shop opened it's doors in 1953 but when the Olympic committee came to down for 2010 they were forced by the court to change their name!
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

Gear: My Lab Lara, cameras, lens, tripod, monopod, cars, MH, motorcycles (yah bought another), helmet, yacht, etc. too much stuff.

 

[Sante Patate]

It isn't the USOC that gets to decide what "trade" is, it is the courts. The catch is that they go after little people who cannot afford to defend themselves.

For practical purposes, the USOC are in the same position as any other famous brand. Historically, restrictions on trade marks, trade dress, etc applied only to the same line of business and the same geographical area. So Fred's Tripods of New York could not stop someone selling Fred's Carving Knives in New York, or someone selling Fred's Tripods in San Francisco. Nowadays the WTO rules specify that firms that are internationally famous are entitled to protection from people using their brands even if they do not in fact produce similar goods. So you can't market tripods branded Apple, or Nike, although 50 years ago you could.

 

[Doug J]

It isn't the USOC that gets to decide what "trade" is, it is the courts. The catch is that they go after little people who cannot afford to defend themselves.

This would depend on the definition of "little people" - what is the economic impact and the cost & return to pursue infringers.

For practical purposes, the USOC are in the same position as any other famous brand. Historically, restrictions on trade marks, trade dress, etc applied only to the same line of business and the same geographical area. So Fred's Tripods of New York could not stop someone selling Fred's Carving Knives in New York, or someone selling Fred's Tripods in San Francisco. Nowadays the WTO rules specify that firms that are internationally famous are entitled to protection from people using their brands even if they do not in fact produce similar goods. So you can't market tripods branded Apple, or Nike, although 50 years ago you could.

Cheers,
Doug
--
http://www.pbase.com/dougj/birds_birds_birds
http://www.pbase.com/dougj

 

[RaymondR]

It isn't the USOC that gets to decide what "trade" is, it is the courts. The catch is that they go after little people who cannot afford to defend themselves.

For practical purposes, the USOC are in the same position as any other famous brand.

This isn't quite right. The USOC is in a MUCH stronger position that even owners of famous marks. IN addition to having to provie use in trade, owners of famous marks have to prove likelihood of dilution (by either tarnishment or blurring), which is not a particularly easy thing to do. The USOC must only prove that the use of the symbols are being made in trade.

Nowadays the WTO rules specify that firms that are internationally famous are > entitled to protection from people using their brands even if they do not in fact produce similar goods. So you can't market tripods branded Apple, or Nike, although 50 years ago you could.

This isn't quite right either. Rights in marks in the US is governed solely by US law. Trade treaties like those creating the WTO may make whatever provision they like, but if Congress doesn't implement it, it has no force, and if Congress does implement it, it works the way Congress says, not the WTO. Famous marks have to be truly famous in the US to garner dilution protection and have to be in use in the US in order to garner ordinarly trademark protection. So a mark may be famous internationally but if it isn't famous in the US, it will not qualify for dilution protection and if it isn't in use in the US, it won't even qualify for trademark protection.

RaymondR

 

[Rdefen]

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

 

[Rdefen]

Good luck with that. IOC makes Disney seem tame insofar as suing people that use it's IP.

 

[Sante Patate]

Congress is obliged, as a WTO signatory, to embody the WTO rules in legislation.

It is true that the WTO rules do not clearly define famous brands, so national law can vary, but it was the US that insisted on this provision, precisely because the great majority of such brands are American.

The intent was to stop some Chinese factory making Apple Tripods and arguing that Apple do not make tripods so there cannot be any confusion.

 

[Carwash]

A couple of articles relating to this topic:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/25/olympics-2012-nike-ambush-ad?newsfeed=true

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/25/non-olympic-brands-ambush-marketing?newsfeed=true

And another question about using your own photos for commercial purposes. You may have seen news coverage of the London Mayor getting stuck in mid-air whilst sliding down a rope to help promote the Olympics.

Since then, lots of people online have photoshopped this image to make it look like he's hanging from various 'comedy' things. One of the photos I saw made him look like a car air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror, so it made me wonder...

If I had been there and took my own photo of the Mayor dangling on a rope, and then used it to make some real novelty car air fresheners, would I have to get his permission or would I be free to use that photo as I liked?

 

[Carwash]

Sorry, forgot to post a link to the London Mayor story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2182153/VIDEO-Boris-Johnson-stuck-zip-wire-Victoria-Park--Its-Boris-Dangle.html