Not missing a thing, I don't look at the add and think "boy the IOC sure does support Bush." Not at all. I think is about the truth hurts. :)
\\Edit Where does the add mention the olympic flag symbol or motto?
Not missing a thing, I don't look at the add and think "boy the IOC sure does support Bush." Not at all. I think is about the truth hurts. :)
\\Edit Where does the add mention the olympic flag symbol or motto?
That's not the point... The IOC is an a-political organization. You can advertize "the truth" as much as you want, but keep the Olympics out of it. They don't do politics, and they shouldn't be drug into it.
Edit to your edit: it doesn't, like I said...
Granted, nothing is said about the term "Olympics", but in its Charter the IOC definitely makes it clear that anything Olympics-related is not to be used for any form of advertizing, for the reason stated below.
The term "Olympics" is being used, and I'm sure you agree that it is referring to the actual Olympics and not to some "non-trademarked olympic-spirited games that are going on somewhere outside of Greece".
Quote:
http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284...w=wn_tophead_3
The word "olympics" dates back to ancient Greece, but its use as a protected brand in America was established by Congress in the 20th century through the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.
Under that law, the USOC is granted exclusive rights to the use of words and logos relating to the modern Olympic games -- including the term "olympic."
"We are authorized by federal statute to regulate use of the word -- it's not only our right, but our responsibility," said USOC spoke
But the ad does not politicize the Olympics because it does not present the Olympics in any sort of political light. It merely states that two more free countries can compete there.
It's like saying that because I gave a job to these two people, they can now go to McDonald's (which I'm sure will be coming to these two countries shortly). Did McDonald's do anything? No. It rather shows a reflection on me for providing jobs for these two people.
Isn't it a political ad? That uses the Olympics to get the message across?
The use of the term "Olympics" alone is more than enough for the USOC to file a complaint (which it did, as they are required to do by the IOC, btw), no matter what the message is. It all depends on how you look at it, of course, but I'm more than interested in knowing the outcome of this.
I quickly browsed through that Ted Stevens Act, and section 220506 is of particular interest.
Pretty interesting, and the Bush ad is a clear violation of that Act, no matter what.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me at all that the Bush ad uses the word... but law is law, and the USOC is right to file a complaint. You'd think that the Bush campaign would have looked into the law before using the word.
I'm pretty sure it if Kerry used them in his Ads....things would be completely different....no1 would bitch about them. And thats the way the cookie crumbles!Quote:
Isn't it a political ad? That uses the Olympics to get the message across?
The use of the term "Olympics" alone is more than enough for the USOC to file a complaint (which it did, as they are required to do by the IOC, btw), no matter what the message is. It all depends on how you look at it, of course, but I'm more than interested in knowing the outcome of this.
I quickly browsed through that Ted Stevens Act, and section 220506 is of particular interest.
Pretty interesting, and the Bush ad is a clear violation of that Act, no matter what.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me at all that the Bush ad uses the word... but law is law, and the USOC is right to file a complaint. You'd think that the Bush campaign would have looked into the law before using the word.
I'm 100% sure that the USOC would file the same complaint, since they have to by IOC law. The IOC supervises, and the national Olympic Committees have jurisdiction in the country they're at...
This is what is not allowed:Quote:
I quickly browsed through that Ted Stevens Act, and section 220506 is of particular interest.
How is the ad doing any of these?Quote:
if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition
This is all about money. Article from 2000 Olympics. Bush needs to donate more money so that he can keep his sponsorship :D
http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive...dvertising.htm
Quote:
USOC seeks to stop Nabisco from using 'Olympic terminoloy;' Qantas Airlines agrees to stop saying 'Olympic rates'
San Francisco, September 9, 2000 -- The United States Olympic Committee filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, which seeks a temporary restraining order to restrict Nabisco from continuing the alleged usage of Olympic terminology in an ad campaign. At issue are print ads used to sell Nabisco's 'Fig Newton' product. The ads contain the wording, "The ancient Olympians worshipped the fig and used it for energy during training", and is accompanied by an image of an athlete throwing a discus. Nabisco is not an official Olympic partner and the complaint avers that the ads "inaccurately suggest an affiliation" with the Games and the Olympic movement, according to Sports Business Daily.
Certainly, the USCO is expected to protect the Olympic marks for which marketers continue to pay enormous sums of money, in hopes of attaching themselves to the Olympic ideal. The USOC has suggested that, in the ads, Nabisco attempts to portrait its Fig Newton product as an energy food, and is directly competing with current official Olympic partners. Nestle SA-owned 'Powerbar' is the official nutritional energy bar supplier to the USOC. Nabisco's ad has run in various sports and fitness-related magazines and also appeared at the Boston Marathon. Prior to filing the suit, which seeks unspecified damages, the USCO had repeatedly requested Nabisco to drop the campaign, after it first appeared in April.
In another advertising controversy, Sydney Games sponsor, Ansett Airlines sought to ernjoin competitor Quantas Airlines from engaging in Olympic-related advertising. Quantas had run ads which included Australian Olympians and offered special domestic "Olympic" rates. Although, it seemed that Asnett had previously "ignored" the efforts of Quantas to tie itself to the Games, Asnett sought an injunction to ban Quantas from running newspaper ads, claiming the ads had "the potential to irrevocably erode.Ansett's significant investment as an Olympic sponsor," according to Financial Times. The two airlines had reached an undisclosed settlement, with Asnett claiming that it was satisfied that Quantas' advertising efforts would not infringe upon the rights of Asnett as an official Olympic sponsor.
Quote:
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF CORPORATION - Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the corporation has the exclusive right to use -
...
(4) the words "Olympic"...
Subsection (d) clearly doesn't apply here (unless they're referring to the mountain with the same name, or the ad was made before 1950).
You're right that the Act doesn't directly authorize the USOC to file a complaint (although "theatrical exhibition" may apply here :D ... or "induce the sale of services"... isn't selling yourself what the elections are all about?), but like I said: can't wait to see what a judge thinks about it.
Also keep in mind that this document is merely the "rules of corporation" of the USOC - the IOC itself may very well file a complaint of its own.
Chapter 220507 states that the corporation (read: the USOC) shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office. Again: I wonder what a judge thinks about being drug into politics...
OverdueSpy: Bush would have to start a beverage company or something... the only companies allowed to use Olympics-related advertizing are the ones that actually contribute (in goods or services) to the USOC.
Would one of his oil companies count Neg?
Lemme guess... they fuel the planes that bring the athletes to Greece?
Neg: I can fully understand how someone who's first language isn't English may be confused by this "legalese". Allow me to assist you here..... ;)Quote:
the corporation (read: the USOC) shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.
The sentence really says two things:-
1. The corporation shall be non-political, and
2. The corporation may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.
Now, you will note that in both "parts" of the sentence the subject is "the corporation" which you rightly allude to being the USOC.
So you see Bush's ad does not contravene section 220506 of the act because Bush is not "the corporation" and nowhere in the ad does it state that the ad carries the "ok" of the corporation. In fact, the two are totally separate entities with "the corporation" never having any hand, say or giving a "nod" to the makers or benefactors of the ad.....
Case closed.....
By the way.... Would anyone like to research to see how the ungrateful little shiites, (pun intended), got from Iraq to Athens and who picked up the tab...... That alone should at least have them be a little polite with their whining...... :rolleyes:
You don't have to hold my hand, Tiger... what you just "tought" me is exactly what I said.
clearly indicating that my issue is about what a judge would think about a political party dragging the USOC into politics rather than the USOC itself being involved in politics. I thought I was clear enough without stressing the being drug into part.Quote:
Chapter 220507 states that the corporation (read: the USOC) shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office. Again: I wonder what a judge thinks about being drug into politics...
It's "whose", btw... not "who's" :p
It's dragged not drug!!!! :p
Bloody foreigners.... ;)
Methinks the Media dragged the USOC into politics..... But that's the cynic in me speaking....
dragged... not drug... okies... it'd be cooler if it were drug... "the drugs drug him to the street"... blah.
So I guess that the 568 buisnesses in Liberal California, with "Olympic" in their names have to be condemned and can no longer advertise. Unitl they change their name of course.
http://yellowpages.superpages.com/li...Search=Find+It
If they'd want to make a point out of it: I guess so, yups... unless they're older than 54 years or are referring to the mountain with the same name :)
What is really interesting? The next summer Olympics (this word used without consent of the USOC and Athletes from Iraq. It is used in a context to define the time and place when all countries get together and compete. And that time is indeed called the Olympics. If you are offended by this word and the usage contained in this paragraph, please call 1 800 NEW SPEAK ) is in Bejing China. In that context imagine an olympic ad detailing more "democratic" countries when the host nation itself is not. Talk about a pun. :)
Haven't had time to read all six pages of this, but someone has to bring this up:
Translation: I would resist the invading American pig-dogs, but I'm too busy playing soccer.Quote:
In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.
Glad the ungrateful little dweeb has his priorities straight. :D
also something else that strikes me as odd in the add..
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120"
I do know the commercial doesn't say so.. but the wording makes it sound like Iraq and Afganistan are now democracies . . . .
Where's the chosen government in either country ??
Maybe he'll have time now the olympics are over to hijack his means of transportation on the way home....
SourceQuote:
ATHENS, Greece - They all have taken cover from bullets and had bombs fall nearby. Most of what laughably passed for their training facilities was destroyed by war. When they came to Athens for the Olympics, they had to leave Baghdad on a military transport plane because a commercial airliner would have been too vulnerable to attack.
Paid for by US tax payers no less......
How can
equateQuote:
"In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120"
?Quote:
Iraq and Afganistan are now democracies
It sounds to me the point is how the overall face of the world has changed over the past couple of decades to favor democracy.
How did these guys see the ad anyway? I doubt Bush is campaigning in Greece. That means someone had to present the ad to these guys. Makes you wonder how it was presented. I'm sure it was in a completely unbiased manner.