Make way for Olympians: Duckling statues would be off limits to public during Games

You must have posted in the wrong spot -- or the wrong thread -- or the wrong site.

Sucks to be them then, I guess.

All joking aside, would you honestly be surprised at any restrictions and checkpoints in the name of "security"?

I realize that what we're discussing with the ducklings is small beans compared to people losing jobs at Widett Square, but I actually do think the ducklings are protected. Looking at the article, and the foolishness the IOC was up to, I still think that the IOC could not appropriate the actual ducklings or an accurate facsimile of the ducklings unless they bought the copyright or made arrangements with the copyright holder, and copyright of a work of art is not subject to eminent domain.

As silly and overzealous as some of the citations in the Independent article are, they are pretty straightforward bans on people trying to either falsely claim affiliation with the Olympics for profit, or use language invoking the Olympics as a sales technique (the latter should not be banned, in my view, but I think there is already case law on this in the US-- will defer to a lawyer to respond).

While the IOC took an overbearing, arrogant, but probably borderline legal attitude towards the use of words that have a clear relationship to the Olympics when in the vicinity of the Olympics (like the words "Gold" and "Silver"), and trademark names like Coca-Cola have their own set or protections anyway, the ducklings are not inherently part of the Olympics. And, because the ducklings are already protected by copyright, they cannot be hijacked for Olympic use.

In short, unlike "Cowboy UP!" (remember that?) a third party can't waltz in and claim the Ducklings-- they are already claimed.

However, the IOC could, perhaps, hire an artist to do an oil painting of the ducklings passing the Olympic torch from one to another, buy the copyright from the artist, use it to sell t-shirts, and sue anyone who uses it without IOC permission.

I have a postcard showing the ducklings dressed in Sox gear. I've had it for years, and who knows how old it is. And this image is protected-- I cannot use it for profit, I cannot publish it uncredited, I cannot use it to sell cars. And the IOC cannot snag this image, created years before the Boston Olympics were wetdreamed up, and claim that the photographer or current copyright holder has no right to it.

However, if the same photographer made a bunch of tiny Olympic medals, photographed the ducks wearing them, and sold t-shirts with the photos, the hypersensitive IOC probably would have a case that the photographer illegally used their trademarked symbol. Copyright would not cover a depiction of the medal under these circumstances, but trademark might.

Lawyers: I'm basing this mostly on my experience dealing with copyrighted material-- books, personal papers, and art-- in my work in libraries, archives and museums. Please weigh in on anything I have wrong, or other considerations I've missed.

PPS: I'm a little sad the Combat Zone is gone-- I would have loved to hear the court case over how "Gold," "Silver," "Rings," and "Triathlon" are being misused.

This place would have to change its name.

Also this one.

This one too.

Probably this one, as well.

This one might escape notice.

Those are all pizza parlors (and there are more of them.) There are a raft of places that don't have pizza in their names, but do have Olympic or Olympian, and under the IOC's new laws, they would have to change their names, just as the ones in London did.

There would be no students in that dorm for the entire summer. They would be sent off at the end of the semester, not to return until the fall. That dorm would be used for event housing - and premium event housing, at that.

Could be. I'd imagine that the law will get reversed toot sweet if the Olympics are coming to town, so, non-issue.

I may be joining in soon.