Locog forces charity fundraiser to ditch Olympics theme

News

Locog forces charity fundraiser to ditch Olympics theme7

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 11 Jul 2012

Greentop Community Circus in Sheffield has been forced to abandon the Olympic theme of its forthcoming fundraising cabaret event after being contacted by the Olympic organising committee.

The circus arts charity had planned to mark the Games by theming its monthly Greentop Cabaret fundraiser as an Olympics Cabaret, but had to change it to the Sports Day Cabaret after Locog got in touch.

The Greentop Youth Circus had also chosen the Olympics as the theme of its end-of-year show but the children will now have to rethink their plans.

The email from Locog said the circus was benefiting from an “unauthorised association” and had flouted the rules of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. The words ‘Olympic’ and ‘Paralympic’ are copyrighted.

Coincidentally, Locog delivered the news to the charity on the same day that the Olympic torch came to Sheffield.

Megan Flynn, who joined the charity in June as venue director with responsibility for events, said: “I was really looking forward to celebrating the Olympics, instead on the day the torch came to Sheffield I spent a good part of the day erasing all mention of them.”

James Harkness, manager of Greentop’s events, said: “We are happy to clarify that Greentop Circus is not an official sponsor of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and that neither the charity, nor any of the themed acts and performers on our website, are in any way connected to the Olympics.”

The case has echoes of the case of Staffordshire florist Lisa Cross, who was ordered to remove her window display featuring the Olympic rings made from coloured tissue paper.

'The law stinks'

Trademark attorney Mat Healey, from Bates Wells and Braithwaite, is scathing about the disproportionate powers given to the Olympic authorities in the Act.

“I think the law stinks,” he told civilsociety.co.uk. “If they had just said something like, ‘you must not pass yourself off as an official sponsor or claim to be economically connected to the Olympics when you are not’, that would have been fine.

But instead, he said, the Act provides a list of examples of infringements that is not prescriptive, enabling Locog to interpret the law however it sees fit.

“It’s worked a treat for them,” Healey said. “I am not aware of any other charities that have broken the rules because I suspect what has happened is that Locog have managed to scare everyone by doing such a good job of publicising these minor cases, like the florist.

“Everyone knows that you can’t do anything Olympic-related," Healey said.

“So much for the Games being inclusive and improving access to sport and benefiting local communities and local businesses – it’s had the exact opposite effect.”

Directory: Bates Wells & Braithwaite

Place a comment

Bryn Price
Director
Kent Peoples Trust
16 Jul 2012

I thought that we were all "Major Sponsors" as we are shareholders in our movement who have sponsored the games with millions of our money. As the government is not a Limited Liability Company, we are all jointly responsible for its finances.
Doubt that it will stand up in law but it would be fun to try it against LOCOG

[Reply]

Michael Hodgson
13 Jul 2012

Apologies, I had a link removed, which pointed to an article about NIKE as mentioned.

[Reply]

Michael Hodgson
13 Jul 2012

Not even the excessive powers grated to LOCOG will actually help them or sponsors if they haven't dealt with their sponsorship properly. True sponsorship is a lot more than advertising, or sticking your logo on something, but in the heat of the latest games it seems that creating valuable sponsorship opportunities has been passed over in favour of attempts to create blanket advertising.

Despite all of this, and the resulting senseless prevention of charities, community groups, and small businesses from building on and adding to the buzz of the Olympic competition, I predict we'll see at least one successful 'ambush marketing' campaign around the Olympics.

And I'm not even counting NIKE, who in Feb were the brand 'most associated' with the Olympics, despite NOT being a sponsor.

**content removed refer to community standards**

[Reply]

BeardedDalek
11 Jul 2012

While it's easy to pretend a charity somehow deserves to flaunt the law, it takes away all incentive to sponsor something if anyone can throw up their logo without compensating the owners. It may be a not-for-profit organization, but as an organization it is using the Olympic logo for financial gain.

There is confusion here between "fair use" which allows a person to use the Olympic name and logo for commentary or parody, with the warm fuzzy feelings they have for charities and small business. Just because the Olympics is big, doesn't mean your favorite small business or charity has the right to be a parasite leaching off of it.

[Reply]

Garry Wilkinson
Director of Fundraising & Marketing
Kirkwood Hospice
11 Jul 2012

As a charity we were looking forward to "theming" our events around the olympics. However, the upshot of LOCOG is that we are not doing a thing even remotely related to the olympics.

It is ironic that in the year that the olympics finally comes to Britain we will not be doing anything, whereas when the olympics is half way around the world charities and community groups throughout the country hold all manner of olympic themed events. I am sure not one person would mistake the Hospice as an official sponsor of the games - we certainly have nowhere near the budget of any of the official sponsors.

It is a shame that LOCOG and their solicitors didn't see the benefits of the olympics being associated with local charities and community organisations. Instead of which they choose to exclude and alienate many of the people they expect to attend their events.

The result of their overbearing attitude is I frankly couldn't care less about the olympics and will be looking forward to the next games in 4 years time!

[Reply]

Jay Kennedy
Head of Policy
Directory of Social Change
11 Jul 2012

Totally ridiculous, but sadly predictable given the absurd powers granted to LOCOG / IOC as a result of winning the bid. And an opportunity to invigorate volunteering and giving through a major national event lost -- an event which is being paid for, lets not forget, primarily with public money, including OUR lottery funds. Cynical corporate brand-control, not civil society, is the winner of the bright shiny yellow circular thingy in this race (can't mention you know what or the thought police might make me retract my remarks).

[Reply]

Stephen Noble
11 Jul 2012

I recently helped my 7-year-old daughter with her Olympics-themed homework. As we painstakingly drew the Olympic rings together, mindful that she may be required to present her work to the entire class, I paused to reflect on the unlawful nature of what we were doing. And this after she had already received a certificate featuring said rings for her achievements in an 'Olympic Challenge' spelling test! As this latter example is presumably another clear breach of copyright I assume the school - which is brilliant - can expect to hear any time soon from the nice people at LOCOG.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.