Getting shirty: Murray sidesteps the Olympic marketing ban
New London Architecture chairman Peter Murray has taken his seemingly one-man campaign against the draconian Olympic anti-marketing protocol onto a new battlefield armed with a hard-hitting new weapon
On Monday (30 July) at the Global Business Summit on Creative Services at Lancaster House, the vocal critic of the ban imposed by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the names of all the architects (and some engineers) working on the Games.
Among those attending the summit were Richard Rogers, Angela Brady, Thomas Heatherwick and Apple designer Jonathan Ive. Minister of culture Ed Vaizey was snapped in the pamphlo-garment (pictured) but removed it shortly after, declaring it was ‘a bit too tight’.
Minister Ed Vaizey in Olympic protest t-shirt
Later today (3 August) Brady, also ‘armed’ with a special dress, will unveil her own guerrilla tactic to give credit to the architects handcuffed by the marketing gag order.
At noon the RIBA president will unfurl a ‘name drop’ banner down the side of the institute’s Portland Place headquarters ‘to name check those who can not name themselves’.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Access over 100 years of projects
Readers' comments (6)
Arnold Root | 5-Aug-2012 11:31 am
Where can we get the t-shirts?!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Chris Rogers | 6-Aug-2012 10:17 am
Excellent. Were you also responsible for the strands of coloured cable threaded through the fence of a building site I passed last week in such a way as to form the 5 interlinked Olympic Rings??
Unsuitable or offensive?
Etain Fitzpatrick | 6-Aug-2012 12:31 pm
Awesome idea, I want one!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Rick Armiger | 8-Aug-2012 12:06 pm
fabTAStic idea.
No question. Brilliant.
I like the primary strapline 'Getting shirty' too.
Topical too: http://www.networkmodelmakers.com/book.html
This country does so many things well, so any things right... Let's HEAR about it!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Ian Salisbury | 17-Aug-2012 10:16 am
One of the less known provisions of the Copyright Act, which I fought hard to get included in the moral rights section (Chapter IV), is the following:
77.-(4) The author of an artistic work has the right to be identified whenever ... in the case of a work of architecture in the form of a building or a model for a building ... copies of a graphioc work representing it, or of a photograph of it, are issued to the public.
-(5) The author of a work of architecture in the form of a building also has the right to be identified on the building as constructed ...
The key to asserting these rights is to simply to assert them "by instrument in writing signed by the author ..."
I would be interested to know whether there is any reason why these assertions cannot be made retrospectively, and effectively. These are not contract obligations, they are statutory rights.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Industry Professional | 28-Aug-2012 12:16 pm
Atkins paid a significant sum (£m's) to be an official sponsor and therefore have been able/ allowed to use (and aggressively have been) the Olympics in marketing materials. Why are they therefore included in this protest? In fact, by being included Atkins are surely promoting the loss of their partial exclusivity? Surely Atkins and the RIBA were aware of this seeming conflict?
Unsuitable or offensive?