DSF

phoenixalpha;26822 wrote:I wouldnt even think of using the Olympic logo (or anything to do wi football tournaments) because they are ultra zealous in guarding their IP. I wouldnt even use it for free, or even think of associating anything I do with the Olumpics or Olympic themed.

Ditto that - It's FAR too risky.

And personally I'm not convinced the whole Olympic thing is being received at all positively anyway. - The vibe I'm getting is that it, and the commonwealth games are being seen as pretty elitist with quite a negative impact on the local poulations.

To give you an example of how zealously these organisations guard their IP, there was company two years ago before the world cup who had the slogan "the unofficial airline of the you know what" and they were taken to court and forced to change their slogan.

You'll have legions of cheap chinese knockoffs in the run up but personally I would advise against it.

...even though its advertised on their website, that you can use it?

I would have thought that, after reading these pages, BMS is on a bit of dodgy ground using the logo that way.

It's actually one of Xpres's images advertising that product, but the general principle is you can't reproduce the logo.

TPM;26832 wrote:...even though its advertised on their website, that you can use it?

I can only speak from my own personal and professional perspective here however...

JSR has posted links to some of the more obvious 'dictat's spewed out by the various clutches of 'little Hitlers' associated with this monster. In the page they make it quite clear that -

[COLOR="#0000FF]"Our banner links may not be used as a method of creating an unauthorised association between your organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012..." [/COLOR]

And go on to give what is actually just one example of something they might object to...

[COLOR="#0000FF]"...Our banner links should not therefore appear on the home page of a commercial organisation and should always be displayed in a proportionate manner."
[/COLOR]

Dig further and it becomes obvious that they're gunning for the most tenuous 'association' yet hope to persuade people to do their SEO and linkbuild for them. - Naive or cynical? I'm of the opinion option 'b' is the valid one!

You are NOT dealing with honest professional people hoping to do an honest day's work in a rational and reasonable manner. Rather a huge maliferous corporate monster the entire agenda of which is to 'fill its boots' from public coffers and whatever other sources it can identify. 'Profitus Maximus' would perhaps be a better slogan for them...

THEY would like to leach a link from you; but don't believe for a second that if they imagine you are benefitting from it in any way you won't find yourself with a legal bill - In fact such ARE the levels of corruption and dishonesty (it's the culture) within these quasi-civic vanity projects that this could well be one planned element as a revenue stream... - I honestly would not put it past this bunch of sheisters!

They are no more worthy of trust than the people who email you three or four times a day to tell you you've won the Nigerian lottery!

Matt Quinn;26839 wrote:I can only speak from my own personal and professional perspective here however...

JSR has posted links to some of the more obvious 'dictat's spewed out by the various clutches of 'little Hitlers' associated with this monster. In the page they make it quite clear that -

"Our banner links may not be used as a method of creating an unauthorised association between your organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012..."

And go on to give what is actually just one example of something they might object to...

"...Our banner links should not therefore appear on the home page of a commercial organisation and should always be displayed in a proportionate manner."


Dig further and it becomes obvious that they're gunning for the most tenuous 'association' yet hope to persuade people to do their SEO and linkbuild for them. - Naive or cynical? I'm of the opinion option 'b' is the valid one!

You are NOT dealing with honest professional people hoping to do an honest day's work in a rational and reasonable manner. Rather a huge maliferous corporate monster the entire agenda of which is to 'fill its boots' from public coffers and whatever other sources it can identify. 'Profitus Maximus' would perhaps be a better slogan for them...

THEY would like to leach a link from you; but don't believe for a second that if they imagine you are benefitting from it in any way you won't find yourself with a legal bill - In fact such ARE the levels of corruption and dishonesty (it's the culture) within these quasi-civic vanity projects that this could well be one planned element as a revenue stream... - I honestly would not put it past this bunch of sheisters!

They are no more worthy of trust than the people who email you three or four times a day to tell you you've won the Nigerian lottery!

Well said

Thats Matt - after those well chosen words I think I'll stay away.........!

Maybe we should have a section on copyright as this is being debated in most threads this way we won't have cross over when we want to ask about sublimation. Its getting that's all that being discussed is copy right.

Too true - BAN COPYRIGHT from any other section - it's all getting so stuffy!

Stitch Up;26844 wrote:Too true - BAN COPYRIGHT from any other section - it's all etting so stuffy!

...And a little tedious. But sadly it's a reality that affects almost everything anyone does in any of the creative industries.

All the more important because as the means of production become more accessible so rights owners are becoming ever-more litigeous.