Publications
European IP Bulletin, Issue 24, July - Copyright
Copyright
3. Olympic Struggle
Bob Beamon, US long jump Olympic gold medallist of 1968, protested against the use of his image in the London 2012 brochure by Lord Coe, stating it implied his support for London’s bid. A London 2012 spokesperson said: “The use of the photograph was in no way meant to imply support for the London bid but rather to celebrate great Olympic moments which are recognised across the globe”. This raises interesting potential problems of appropriation of personal image. For example, did Lord Coe use in a commercial context the name, voice or likeness of Bob Beamon without his consent? If so, to what extent does Mr Beamon have a remedy to prevent such an unauthorised exploitation?
The central problem lays in reconciling economic and privacy/dignity aspects of personality “rights” within a cause of action. Mr Beamon’s accusations seem to cover both interests. “This is not just a discourtesy but a fundamental breach of an Olympian’s right to determine how his or her name and image is used for promotional purposes”, he said, noting that the IOC prohibits bids from including the images of IOC members from countries other than in their own bid promotion.
British courts have always been sceptical about creating monopoly rights in nebulous concepts such as names, likenesses or personal images. There is no right to publicity, per se. However, in order to maximise potential income, a personality needs to be able to control how his/her image is used. This is an important consideration for the personality and contractual partners where an endorsement contract for a particular product is already in existence. Unauthorised exploitation of that personality by third parties may jeopardise another contractual obligation of the personality. Unfortunately, the personality seeking to protect and exploit such rights must work within the constraints of existing intellectual property law, most commonly in an action for passing off. The perceived wisdom is that unless the claimant and defendant are in the same field of trade there is unlikely to be no confusion - and therefore a passing off case will fail. This view, however, does not always reflect the commercial realities of merchandising.
4. AOL and Google: Search For Video-On-Demand
AOL has recently released a provisional version of its Video Hub, which will operate as a central point for searching for video content. The Video Hub is based on “Singing Fish” technology. New searching techniques will offer the possibility to direct the research not only by title or general video topic, but also from details contained within the body of the video itself. Video-on-demand services complete the range of AOL’s business portfolio which is necessary to make it a proper portal, with a uniform interface for the acquisition of the videos and music.
The current version of the Video Hub is only compatible with Microsoft software, which some deem to be a limitation of the product. However, many videos are already available for playback, such as the entire Live 8 event. In addition, AOL provides a direct link to the Time Warner repertoire, accessible thanks to a subsidiary relationship. The growth in video-on-demand services is likely to require corresponding changes in the field of advertising formats and rate structures as well as the development of further specific price strategies relating to the strategies provided.
Google has already set up its beta version search engine, Google Video, which also includes a viewer browser designed for playback. More than 20 TV stations have been made available on the Web, using Google Video. Although it is functional, the beta service is limited in scope and does not yet offer the full range of options.
The launch of these video‑on‑demand search engines and players is the result of the increasing investment being made in order to improve the availability of legal multimedia contents on the internet. From a commercial perspective, content providers who until now have seen revenue streams eroded by piracy, are seeking to provide consumers with a faster experience in the hope of converting this to a bookable sales. Unlike television broadcasting, the ability to provide content on demand by the result of a specific and detailed search is of great appeal to content providers.
The popularity of video‑on‑demand being made available on the internet is likely to cause a problem for the collection societies that currently oversee the collection and payment of copyright and video royalties. It will be interesting to see what the societies propose as the system for revenue collection.
If video‑on‑demand over the internet does become a killer application, further consolidation of content providers, technology operators and revenue collectors is likely.
Click here to return to the Summary page, or on any of the headings below to see the full case notes
for that topic:
