November 2007
Olympic Battle over Children's Book
After all the controversy over the London 2012 Olympic logo, now there seems to be a new row developing over simply the words “London 2012” themselves.
Novelist Robert Ronson was contacted by the organising committee for the London Olympic games regarding his new children’s book “Olympic Mind Games”. The committee’s argument is that the word “Olympic” and the phrases “London 2012” and perhaps even “2012” when used in a particular context, are protected marks which the committee have the right to licence as they wish. They asked Ronson to remove the offending terms but Ronson refused. The committee have now decided that it would be disproportionate to pursue the issue but have made it clear that “Olympic Mind Games” is not an “official” London 2012 product.
The worry for rights holders such as the Olympic organising committee is that brands like cartoon characters, celebrities and sporting events can be worth millions when licensed for use on merchandise. Unauthorised use of a name or image, if unchallenged, can make it more difficult for a right holder to enforce their rights when they really want to. This is especially true if the claim to the image is a little weak anyway. This means that right holders have to prevent, or at least appear to try to prevent, unauthorised use even when that use doesn’t cause the right holder any loss.
Briffa’s comment
This tension between legitimate rights and legitimate artistic use can appear ridiculous to the public eye. Rights holders, and in particular large companies, can appear to be unreasonably stifling creativity. Obviously artists and writers need to refer to the real world and the need to remain as true to reality is a genuine one. Real products and events add context and may inspire very specific reactions in the mind of the audience, which might not be possible without them.
However, rights holders are put in a difficult situation by the law as it stands where unauthorised use can “dilute” the value of a right. The courts may, and often do, take the view that a right that is sometimes used for free is less valuable. Additionally, if a brand name is used too widely there is a risk that the word could become generic, potentially leaving the right open to challenge.
Clearly some balance needs to be struck, but perhaps some sort of guidance from the courts or government could be useful in this area so as to lessen the effect in “common sense” situations.
For more information contact Peter Mason