Posted on 08/26/2004 8:13:09 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
The Bush campaign insists that it is on very firm legal ground in their depiction of the olympics in their ad, reports ABC News Ann Compton.
When the olympics are over, the campaign will take the ad down, as scheduled.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Okay, let me say it plainly. If you believe that not filing a lawsuit means that one does not have the right to do so, then you are brain dead. And your view would do more to muck up the legal system than any 10,000 trial lawyers could.
The ADVERTISEMENT makes not claim that Bush is supported by or affiliated in any way with the Olympics. The examples you gave like "Olympic Pizza" on the other hand do falsely imply official endorsement.
Dennis Prager just asked his audience to let the committee know how you feel about it. Demand an apology to Presiudent Bush. email them at media@usoc.org
Your posts #19 and #21 would belie that statement.
I'm waiting on the lawsuit.
Go file it yourself.
(If you can take the laughter, that is.)
waiting.....
waiting.....
Thanks for the list of the 10 members.
I see that:
3 are from California
1 is a professor from New Jersey
2 are from Wisconsin, including a woman, and a guy from Madison
1 works for Ted Turner
1 is a lawyer from Illinois
1 is a woman from Massachusetts
1 is from Washington DC
The list does have a liberal stench to it.
I didn't. So you can keep up with your silly posts all you like.
excellent point... i was just thinking, my child's history book has a chapter on the First Olympic Games in the ancient Greece section... did the writer of the book have to get permission to use the words Olympic Games? no, she did not...
I don't know which part of this some people don't understand:
"We're on very firm legal ground to mention the Olympics, to make a factual point in a political advertisement," said BC'04 spokesman Scott Stanzel... when the olympics is over the campaign will take the ad down, as scheduled.
It is only an excellent point if you don't understand the difference between an ad and a textbook.
Bull. In #19, you implicitly accuse the Bush campaign of infringing copyrights. In #20, someone asks you to clarify. In #21, you then make the implicit accusation explict, by saying that it is the whole point of the article.
That accusation is wrong, because no one has claimed the Bush campaign of using copyrighted material. It is only the usage of the "Olympics" trademark that is in question in the article.
Terrific!! I'm glad they're not backing down! I haven't seen the ad, only heard about it, but it sounds like it was a good one!
You're killing me....right....you're just kidding/fooling/making funny....
It's the ARTICLE, dude. The THREAD.
It's only 2 sentences long and it is about THE LEGAL ISSUE.
We are supposed to read those things that they post and then comment on them.
Waiting.....
You're crackin' me up! LOL!
anyone can file a lawsuit, that doesn't mean they have a valid argument... my brother owns a store called TROPICANA FOOD STORE in San Jose, CA... a couple of times he'd been threatened with a lawsuit from Tropicana Orange Juice because of the name... it never goes anywhere because my brother is not trying to imply that his store is associated with Tropicana Orange Juice... in fact, Tropicana is the name of the area where his store is located...
It's the length of the article posted that killing them. Many don't like those long, drawn out 2 sentence essays.
LOL!
I don't see how showing a picture of some generic games and mentioning the Olympics is a copyright infringement. The ad, as far as I know, simply stated that there were two additional free nations competing in the Olympics. That's just stating a FACT.
So if I'm interviewed on TV, and mention the Olympics, I'm violating someone's copyright? I don't think so! The Olympics has been around for millenia, NO one owns the name; the symbols created by the Olympic committee maybe, but NOT the name.
And you are the one who was claiming that the lack of a lawsuit equates to the lack of a legal right. An idiotic position.
I have no use for your silly posts. They mean nothing and have no purpose. Do not direct them to me any longer. Find someone who wants to listen to your crap, like Peach.
So, if a CBS newsman says, "stay tuned for some Olympic results, right after this break," he's violated the law? That *could* be viewed as a for-profit use, right?
Bush has lawyers, too. They must think he's on solid ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.