Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads featuring team

[RoadClosed]

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?

[Negative]

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".

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

[PacSec]

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.

[Negative]

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.

[Cybr1d]

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!

[Negative]

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...

[PacSec]

I quickly browsed through that Ted Stevens Act, and section 220506 is of particular interest.

This is what is not allowed:

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

How is the ad doing any of these?

[OverdueSpy]

This is all about money. Article from 2000 Olympics. Bush needs to donate more money so that he can keep his sponsorship

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive...dvertising.htm

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.

[Negative]

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 ... 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.

[OverdueSpy]

Would one of his oil companies count Neg?