International Olympic Committee tries to prohibit Olympic photos on Flickr, then backs off

Months after Richard Giles, a Social Media Specialist at the CPSU/CSA in Perth, Australia, posted his stunning collection of photographs of the Bejing Olympic Games on his Flickr account, he received a "cease and desist" letter from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) , claiming  trademark infringement.  Giles describes himself as a guy who respects the system, but given the potentially far-ranging impact of the issue, he took a night to sleep on it taking the images off the site.

"I’m a firm believer in not rushing things" Giles said in his blog.  "Unless of course it’s about life a death. So rather than be hasty and respond any further I chose to sleep on it. They required a response within about 48 hours, and I figured that it was unlikely that I’d be sued or locked up in jail if I took a little time.

Then Giles posted his blog, seeking the "wisdom of the crowd."

"Given they made several points, I was completely confused and unsure if they were requesting that I remove the photos from Flickr completely, or if I just needed to change the license," Giles wrote.

"Regardless, the heavy handed nature of the letter made me want to share it online to see what others thought. As we all know, the wisdom of crowds goes a long way. I posted the letter on Flickr, and tweeted about it.

A lot of people expressed their support for me, as well as their concern about what appeared to be the IOC’s draconian rules. It caused quite a stir and within hours the Inquisitr had an article online about the C&D."

Last night, the Vancouver Observer contacted Giles to ask him how this will affect Flickr, copyright laws,  the creative commons---and those who photograph the Vancouver 2010 Games.

Finally, he wrote IOC:

"With reference to the below email and the attached letter.

Could you confirm that the IOC would like me to change the license of
my photographs on Flickr. Are you requesting that I change the license
of the photos taken from inside Olympic venues to Copyright, or is
there another Creative Commons license that would satisfy your
organisation? Or are you requesting something else?

Please let me know as soon as possible.

Kind regards
Richard"

IOC responded, more nicely, this time:

"Dear Richard,

Thank you for your email.

We hope you understand our goal is to promote and not to censure the Olympic spirit and to protect the rights of the athletes appearing in the photos.

Indeed, what the IOC is asking is that you change the license of the photos taken inside of the Olympic venues from “attribution – share alike” to “all rights reserved”. We are happy that you and thousands of people share your exciting experience of the Olympic Games on flickr and other social media but the IOC would like to avoid uncontrolled use of athletes’ image rights and of Olympic images and identifications.

You might be interested to know that one of your pictures was chosen from the Creative commons database and recently re-used in England for commercial purposes, in breach of your CC license as well as of the image rights of the athlete depicted.

We thank you for your understanding and complying with the above.

Should you have any further question, you can contact me by email or by phone."

 

And Richard wrote back:

"Hi,

Thanks very much for your email, it clarifies the issue a lot.

I have also been contacted by the AOC and they have explained that
a bookstore in the UK is using my Usain Bolt photograph
without permission. I was not aware of this, and will contact them to
discontinue their use of the photo.

I am now fully aware that you’re happy for me to share my photos, but
that you require me to license them for non-commercial use. Would you
be ok if I changed all the licenses on these photos to another
Creative Commons license, rather than full copyright? This is the
license that I think might suit your request:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Thanks again for your email, it’s much appreciated.

Kind regards
Richard"

VO: Where do things stand now? Will the IOC accept a Creative Commons license or must it be full copyright?

Richard Giles: I'm currently waiting to hear back from the IOC as to whether they
definitely need the photographs' license to be copyright. They need
the license to be for non-commercial use, which I understand, but
think that there are some Creative Commons licenses that would serve
that purpose. It'd be fabulous if the photos could be shared in that
way, allowing non-commercial use, so that others can reuse my
photographs. I think it'd work for the wider community, as well as the
IOC. After all the Olympics are more about sharing the spirit of the
event, and allowing amateur photographers to share their photos in
this way would help further that.

VO: In the letter from the IOC, you were told, "IImages, videos and sound recordings of the Games taken by you with a camera, video camera or audio equipment or any other kind of equipment may not be used for any purpose other than private, non-commercial purposes." And it was also made clear that Olympic identifications such as the Olympic rings and the word “Olympic” can not be used without its prior written consent. Can you think of an organization that guards its brand as carefully the IOC guards the Olympics?

Giles: Well, it's not something I give a lot of thought to. But Apple does
spring to mind. I understand that organisations need to protect their
own trademarks, and to be fair to the IOC they have come a long way
since the initial C&D they sent me. It seems they have less of an
issue with me sharing the photos than they do with one particular
photo being used in the UK by a book store. So although the C&D is
fairly militant, I don't think their attitude is as strict.

VO: The IOC is not making any claim to the copyright of the images, but just the licensing. Do you think they will have legal jurisdiction over images taken by an Australian in a public stadium in China and hosted on an open-source website in the U.S.? Why comply with their request at all?

Giles:  I've heard a few people say that they may have a very hard time
enforcing their license, given similar reasons to those you mention.
However, it's not my style to buck the system. I've probably taken my
time more than others may have, but the more I thought about the
situation the more I realised that it's actually very important. If I
caved in so quickly and removed my photos or placed them under
copyright, then we might never find out if the IOC are happy with
Creative Commons. Well, at least until the next person receives a C&D.
The world has changed rapidly since we have become more digital, and
we're all learning quickly what that means.

VO: Why did you take the letter online and seek the wisdom of the masses?

Giles: I actually live online. My job role involves the online world, and
so I spend a good amount of time in social networks. It just made
sense that I check in with the "wisdom of the crowd" before I made a
decision. Someone else may have had very relevant experience, and be
happy to help. Besides, the Creative Commons license is more about the
greater good, and I felt that by licensing the photos in that way,
that they were more a public commons. So I should at least check in
with the people that I shared the photos with.

VO:You asked Nicolas Suzor, Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia for his counsel and he suggested you comply with the demand and temporarily remove the CC license. Besides deciding to sleep on it, how did you react to this?

Giles: I think what Nicolas said was very logical, and it was tempting to
do just that. In fact my first instinct, before I'd spoken with
anyone, was to do something similar. But I knew that a quick reaction
wasn't the right move, and that taking an extra night to consider
things carefully made much more sense. In the morning I had a much
better sense of how important it was, especially when others reacted
the way they did online.

VO: Overall, how would you describe copyright laws in Australia?

Giles: I'm not an expert on law, or copyright, but I think copyright law
in general have a lot of catching up to do. Not just in Australia. The
Internet is certainly testing a lot of these laws, and I think we'll
see a lot of changes in the coming years. It's also testing business
models in the same way, and so the way that people have been use to
doing business is also being tested.

Unfortunately for Australians, we have a Government that tends to wait
and see how others deal with things internationally. So we're also
always a few years behind the rest of the world.

VO:  You wrote on your blog yesterday, "...if you’re an organisation it’s a great idea to dispense with legal letters and have real conversations with your customers. Had the IOC sent me a brief email or tried to contact me via phone, rather than send a threatening C&D, all this could have been avoided.
How many, if threatened with a cease-and-desist letter would have responded as you did?

Giles: I think most people would panic when they get a C&D letter. Especially from an organisation as powerful as the IOC. However, I've got a pretty good handle on what my rights are, and also know they would have very little to gain from any more aggressive action. I've made no money from my Olympic photographs, and none of my actions have caused any ill affect for the IOC. 

VO: For indoor, outdoor and other photographs, what advice would you give visitors coming to the Vancouver 2010 Games?

Giles: I'd be really clear on what license you're agreeing to when you buy a ticket. I guess we've all become blasé about those little terms and conditions that appear on everything we do, but it's worth knowing your rights. So have a read and ask a bunch of friends online what it all means. Hopefully the IOC will get back to me in the next few days, and we will find out if they're happy with a Creative Commons license. That means we can all share our photographs from the Olympics, as long as it's not for commercial use.