Louis Vuitton/Annie Leibovitz
Ads featuring Olympian leaked online before Aug. 16th release
The agent for history's most decorated Olympian Michael Phelps says his client is not as risk of losing his Olympic medals from this summer's London Games after photos for a new Louis Vuitton ad campaign leaked early. Athletes were barred from plugging goods for companies that are not Olympic sponsors from July 18 until August 15.
These ads for luxury designer Louis Vuitton leaked online before their August 16 release date while the games were still ongoing. The wording of the International Olympic Committee rule was laid out by the San Francisco Chronicle:
Rule 40 states ”a competitor or a team may lose the benefit of any ranking obtained in relation to other events at the Olympic Games at which he or it was disqualified or excluded; in such case the medals and diplomas won by him or it shall be returned to the IOC.” In other words, Phelps could theoretically be stripped of his medals from London.
The Washington Post has the response Phelps' agent gave to the speculation that his client could lose his medals for this:
“He didn’t violate Rule 40, it’s as simple as that,” Carlisle said in a telephone interview. “All that matters is whether the athlete permitted that use. That’s all he can control. In this case, Michael did not authorize that use. The images hadn’t even been reviewed, much less approved. It’s as simple as that. An athlete can’t control unauthorized uses any more than you can guarantee someone isn’t going to break into your house.”
Louis Vuitton/Annie Leibovitz
Leave a Comment:
It's as simple as this: I agree with his agent.
I suspect this blog's female and a goodly percentage of it left wing gay supporting male readers would rather Phelps be stripped of something else other than his medals. LOL!
Keith, that was such a brilliant statement. Thank you for displaying your cognitive disconnect. We await your next non sequitur or ad hominum.
Keith saw the photo, didn't he?
In that case...better move the sheep to the outer pasture.
Seems to me that in the closet Larry O'Donnel was the one who chose this bit of beefcake to decorate his Last Work blog...I didn't have anything to do with it other than mock it, Eyes Wide Shut!
We have much more important matters to discuss, such as after the hundreds of millions of dollars Obama has poured into attacks on the character of his opponent, and nary a word trying to defend his past 4 years in office and the sorry shape we have been left in economically and with our nations fiscal situation, and nary a word on how and what he would do to try to reverse the course we are on.
But O'Donnel is looking for any distraction that would amuse his following of left wingnuts, and so a little beefcake porn came to his sick mind! Live with it...he is not quite on the level.
And you in turn were mocked for your response, but after the majority of your posts, you should be used to that by now...now, now...be careful...you have a "history" there, you know. When one finds oneself in a deep hole, most people would quit digging...but you...not so much.
Yet you felt compelled to comment on the picture of Phelps, inserting your own bias, without any reference to any of those "more important matters" in your #2 post, didn't you?
Despite all your bluster to the contrary, it's evident you haven't been listening to many of the Romney/Ryan speeches or ads, have you? Silly me...I thought that was religiously required of all you GOP trolls. Mucho Republican dinero has been spent doing the very thing you accuse Obama of, but I'm sure you'll give them a freebie because they're Republican...right?
As has been proven lately, almost on a daily basis, Obama's criticisms of his opponent seem to be far more accurate than the other way around. YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP...THE R'S WILL DO IT ALL FOR YOU ANYWAY!!!!
Say...how's the weather today in that town of yours that also begins with a "W"?
So he didn't pose for the photo?
So he did not notice, the brand of his luggage matching the association of the sponsor and the photographer?
So he did not think it strange to be in a bath tub with a speedo and goggles?
This in "legal terms" might mean he had a contract for the photo session that included provisions to protect the act of posing, to be places in a "setting", to prevent the prerelease of any material gathered, and the ability to deny that had to have taken place ahead of time?
So from a "legal" perspective, nothing happened, very odd, but with "legalism" you can indict a ham sandwich, or can free it from become stale.
It cannot go without saying that such an extraordinary effort, over such an extraordinary time, with such extraordinary dedication, etc. should come with it just rewards. The achievement is unbelievable in so many ways, and nothing "legal" owe any due at all.
The "rules", and "laws", and "contacts" are much like thin transparent pretenses that can change meaning with casual use, then it is the after the fact judgment of their meaning that we sometimes need for the "pretense". If rules etc., are like water then every different use of water determines the meaning of that water, pools of water or bathtubs of water depend on their use to define their meaning. Laws as well change according to application of judgment.
Here the judgment is the greater good, rules, laws matter less.
There are rules and laws that when applied produce no such thing as the "greater good". Capitalism, advertisement, sponsorship, support for heroic athleticism, promotion, sales, profit are always promising "greater good", but only in a fantasy world to not see the failures, the waste, and the collateral damage. We can judge, but we cannot claim high and holy ground.
If we take the hero out of the system, we have a hero but no system.
I cannot fathom why some of the above contributors spout such jibberish. None of it makes any sense to rational thinking individuals. How did politics and the mention of President Obama enter into this conversation, anyway? Doesn't anyone know how to stay on one subject---the unauthorized release of this photo?