LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 100
0 members and 100 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 08-27-2004, 09:54 PM   #2899
Not Me
Too Lazy to Google
 
Not Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,460
IOC and Bush

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"To induce the sale of any goods or services," Hank. To put it in terms you can understand, 43 is at the second interview stage in front of a really large Recruitment Committee. But the end result is the same --- sale of services. It's hard to see when the prospective hire is already rich, I know, but it's there if you look.
Nice try, but no cigar* for you. All that statute does is prevent someone from selling a T-shirt or other goods with the Olympic rings on it or calling their sporting event the Olympics.

It certainly doesn't prevent non-commercial speech about the Olympics. If it did, the IOC could go after a newspaper for discussing the Olympics. Or even go after us for talking about the Olympics here. That of course would be unconstitutional.

The statute in no way affects the copyrights to a film. If you took a video tape of an event and tried to sell it commercially labeling it with the Olympic rings or even entitiling it with the name Olympics, that statute would apply, but not under copyright law; it would be a mark issue.



*I am sure you can get a cigar from your buddy Clinton, though. It might be a bit stinky, though.
__________________
IRL I'm Charming.

Last edited by Not Me; 08-27-2004 at 09:59 PM..
Not Me is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.