Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Censorship Facebook The Media Twitter United Kingdom Technology Your Rights Online

Posting Photos of Olympics Could Land You In Court 394

Posted by timothy
from the land-you-a-lesson dept.
hypnosec writes "With London's summer 2012 games due to take place in the very near future, you'd think that organizers would make more of an effort and persuade people to show more of an interest — yet it appears the complete opposite has happened, with strict guidelines banning athletes from posting photos of themselves on Twitter with products that aren't official Olympics sponsors, as well as prohibiting videos or photos to be taken from the athlete's village. Oh and just for good measure, fans could find themselves barred from sharing videos and photos on Facebook and YouTube of themselves delighting in said Olympics action."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Posting Photos of Olympics Could Land You In Court

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Another (Score:5, Informative)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @05:15PM (#39738979) Journal

    I never started missing them until they started these ridiculous rules.

    Now they're more difficult to find online and less valuable to me as a consumer, as their value is being decreased by the IOC.

    Way to go, IOC.

  • So let's see... (Score:5, Informative)

    by tekrat (242117) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @05:22PM (#39739081) Homepage Journal

    I'm an American. In order to attend the Olympics, I have to be stripped naked and groped in order to get on the airplane. Anything I do during this procedure that is not ordered by the goon squad is likely to have me arrested, where I can be strip searched again in Jail.

    When and if I get on a plane, anything of value in my luggage, such as ipods, cameras, and laptops are likely to be stolen by the baggage handlers, who are not searched and groped by the TSA, apparently.

    When and if I land in London, I'm likely to be searched again, what for, who the hell knows, but apparently it's standard procedure. At this point, I discover I've been robbed, but there's no way to file a claim, and yelling about it is just likely to get me arrested.

    And when I attend the games, I'm going to be sued for using my eyes and brain as a copyright infringement device, assuming I haven't shelled out for a new camera to replace the one that's stolen. And I would have to post the pictures to the internet, because I can't keep them in the flashcard of the camera, because that will be stolen on the return trip (or confiscated by customs).

    Yeah, let me see... Nope, I don't think I will be attending the games, or even watching on TV. Because who knows, they might sue me for watching it on TV. It's going to happen sooner or later, who wants to be the first test case?

  • by azzy (86427) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @05:44PM (#39739359) Journal
    The UK were essentially forced to pass the legislation - else they couldn't get to host the Olympics. For anyone interested http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/22/contents [legislation.gov.uk] is a good place to start looking.
  • No surprise here (Score:3, Informative)

    by DirkBalognapantz (609779) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @05:45PM (#39739365)
    This doesn’t surprise me based on how over-controlling the International Olympic Committee is. For instance, I used to work for a finance company that had the word “Olympic” in it. Their Lawyers threatened the company, so they had to change it to “Arcadia”. You can not use the word “Olympic” in anything due to their trademark on the word. I have even seen a couple business signs with the word “Olympic” painted over with another name. Before then, I was under the silly impression that the word “Olympic” wasn’t anyone’s property. They will come after you at night wearing togas and carrying torches.
  • Re:So let's see... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @05:53PM (#39739475)

    When and if I get on a plane, anything of value in my luggage, such as ipods, cameras, and laptops are likely to be stolen by the baggage handlers, who are not searched and groped by the TSA, apparently.

    Fuck you. I am working part time right now as a baggage handler while I finish graduate school, and I can tell you that the last thing any of us want to do is stop and dig through each and every one of the 100 bags we handle at a time to dig through them looking for expensive electronics. Do you like handling other peoples' dirty laundry? Never mind that fact that we are already overworked and barely have time to do our jobs anyway, or that stealing is both wrong and illegal. We're out there in the heat, the rain, the cold, the snow. We couldn't give a shit what's in your bag, we just want to get done and go home. So, again, fuck you. My karma can take a hit.

  • Re:So let's see... (Score:2, Informative)

    by couchslug (175151) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:03PM (#39739581)

    I'm an American, and wouldn't attend the Olympics if I had free tickets and a chartered jet.

    Jocks. So what? Yawn.

    The way to defund such things is not to try to find ways to support them.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:05PM (#39739609) Journal

    TFA:

    "In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."

  • by AxeTheMax (1163705) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:09PM (#39739661)
    A man was convicted of a minor offence for refusing to obey a police instruction to leave a green space on which an olympic practice pitch was to be built. He was then served a further order banning him from going anywhere near anything connected with the Olympics.

    "The asbo, which will be either confirmed or overturned by magistrates at the start of May, prohibits Moore from going within 100 yards of any Olympic-related venue, "route" or the home of participants, officials or spectators, or approaching any road where the Olympic torch will pass that day."

    That means a pretty large area. Since he lives in London and cannot possibly know where the homes of all these numerous people are, it seems to mean that he can be arrested for leaving his house.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/17/protester-receives-olympic-asbo [guardian.co.uk]
  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:09PM (#39739671)

    I thought you were talking about some movie, but then I found this on wikipedia:

    "The terms of the Burning Man ticket require that participants wishing to use video-recording equipment (including, in practice, most digital cameras) sign over copyright in their images to Black Rock City, and forbid them from using their images for anything other than personal and private use. This has been criticized by many, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[87][88]

    A Burning Man spokeswoman replied that the policies are not new, were written by a former head of the EFF, were used when suing to block pornographic videos and ultimately arose from participant concerns: "Weâ(TM)re proud that Black Rock City (a private event held on public land) is widely acknowledged as a bastion of creative freedom. [B]ut that protection [of participants' freedoms] does necessitate the acceptance of some general terms of engagement when it comes to cameras... EFF seems to think that anyone attending any event somehow has an absolute right to take photographs, and then to do whatever they want with those images without any effective restriction or manner of enforcement.

    "While we believe that such rights do make sense for any of us taking pictures in purely public spaces, this is not true in the private space of Burning Man â" if it were it would mean that Burning Man couldnâ(TM)t protect participant privacy or prevent commercialization of imagery."

  • Re:So let's see... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:20PM (#39739767)

    We couldn't give a shit what's in your bag, we just want to get done and go home.

    Some of [boston.com] your [cbslocal.com] coworkers [cbslocal.com] disagree [www.tnp.sg].

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:22PM (#39739809)
    This is just as bad as the orange dress [telegraph.co.uk] incident at the World Cup. Women were being arrested for wearing orange mini-dresses because FIFA said they were ambush marketing for Bavaria. Never mind that some of them might be supporting the Dutch by wearing the national color of that country.
  • Re:So let's see... (Score:5, Informative)

    by PraiseBob (1923958) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:28PM (#39739881)
    Your honesty is appreciated, but a simple google search reveals a new baggage handler theft ring busted at some airport every few months. So yes, it does happen, and has happened to both me and a friend. It is why I will never check bags again and always carry-on, and in turn directly leads to TSA rage because they take stuff out of my bag and throw it away and berate me for not paying attention to the size of my toiletries.
  • by nebulus4 (799015) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:37PM (#39739999)

    Can we all just agree it's 1999 again, and have a "do over"?

    Except that year 2000 was still 20st century... you know, 21st century [wikipedia.org] began on January 1, 2001.

  • by davester666 (731373) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @06:44PM (#39740077) Journal

    I don't know if I should be happy or feel sorry for all the religious "leaders" that failed to get raptured...namely, all of them...

  • Re:So let's see... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @07:04PM (#39740297)

    And I guess I should also have added this while I had everyone's attention, but I'll try it anyway. Please, to help make our jobs a little easier, if your bag has one or both of it's handles broken, buy a new one. And please, please, do not fill it to where it weighs 55 lbs and the zipper is about to bust open. Like I said in my previous post, we don't want to dig through your dirty laundry, so we don't want the bags to pop open and then not be able to close. Also, bags with broken handles (especially if they are over packed and really heavy) are much more likely to get broken further: I've had one of the legs on a bag break off on me just from taking it out of the bag cart it was so heavy. I know people want to save money on bag fees, and also save money by using bags as long as possible, but it really would make it easier for everyone to keep the bags sensible. Although I really think part of the problem is that people tend to overpack in general. Anyway, I've been wanting to get this off my chest for a few months, and this was a convenient soapbox.

    And this is more of a personal plea, but try not to ship dogs as baggage/freight if you can help it. They are always terrified and frightened, it's real sad. Breaks my heart every time I see one literally shacking in fear.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @09:04PM (#39741305) Journal

    It's in TFA:

    "Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.

    In 2006, accordingly, parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence."

    So far as I can see from a brief glipse at the law [legislation.gov.uk] in question, it basically amounts to giving police powers to directly enforce whatever rules IOC comes up to. This [legislation.gov.uk], in particular, looks like it allows the police to arrest you on the spot if you're wearing a T-shirt with a wrong logo or anything like that.

  • by jc42 (318812) on Thursday April 19, 2012 @10:12PM (#39741795) Homepage Journal

    Except that year 2000 was still 20st century...

    Oh no! It's the old "There was no year zero in the Western calendar" bugbear appearing to drag yet another discussion into the depths and devour it.

    So far, my favorite comment on that topic [wikipedia.org] is that the years 1 through 524 also didn't exist in our Western calendar. The numbering we use, usually called "A.D." (for Anno Domini" was devised in the year 525, and wasn't used before that time. Actually, it was hardly used by anyone except a few monks for several centuries after that.

    My other favorite comment on the topic is that today is also the start of a century - the century that starts today and ends 19 April 2112. Every day is the start of a century. So arguing against a popular "start of century" year is basically silly.

    Any group of people is free to settle on an arbitrary "epoch" as the start of their calendar, and many of us do just that. Thus, the unix crowd uses the start of 1970-01-01 UTC as the start of their time(1) date/time system, and nobody seems to chide them for missing the first 1969 years of the calendar. Astronomers also have their own favorite zero time, but use only years (with a decimal point and lots more digits to whatever precision they need at the moment).

    But silliness can be fun, so go at it ...

  • by nebulus4 (799015) on Friday April 20, 2012 @01:30AM (#39742765)

    So far, my favorite comment on that topic [wikipedia.org] is that the years 1 through 524 also didn't exist in our Western calendar. The numbering we use, usually called "A.D." (for Anno Domini" was devised in the year 525, and wasn't used before that time. Actually, it was hardly used by anyone except a few monks for several centuries after that.

    What difference does it make if it wasn't used back then? It is used now.

    If you're 5 months old, it's your first year on Earth. If you're 1 year and 3 months old, it's your second year on Earth. Year 2000 is the 2000th year. In order for us to say that two millennia have passed the year must end, thus the new millennium starts in 2001. There's no year 0, because it would mean the 0th year of Christ on Earth. Which means he did not exist, ergo BC.

    My other favorite comment on the topic is that today is also the start of a century - the century that starts today and ends 19 April 2112. Every day is the start of a century. So arguing against a popular "start of century" year is basically silly.

    We are talking about Gregorian calendar here. The year doesn't start at April 19. You are free to create whatever system you like, it wouldn't change the Gregorian calendar though. Therefore, it's a silly argument.

  • by xSander (1227106) on Friday April 20, 2012 @06:21AM (#39744053)

    I'm from The Netherlands and as some people here may know, my country wanted to host the World Cup 2018 or 2012 together with Belgium. There was some outrage that the FIFA demanded exclusion from taxes from the Dutch and Belgian government. I'm actually glad that "we" did not get the World Cup, although "we" probably would have been the sanest choice (never hosted a World Cup before, played two [now three] World Cup finals, etc.)

    I find it not surprising that Russia and Qatar (of all places!) won the bid. Especially Qatar does not make sense. Hold a professional football tournament in the Middle East in the summer?! Even if they succeed to bring down the temperature on the pitch through airconditioning or whatever, the country does not have much of a football culture and it's a very tiny country to boot, much smaller than Belgium or The Netherlands. I hope the FIFA gets in all kinds of trouble over this.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...