To set this up, note that the "Bird's Nest" is the colloquial name for Beijing's new Olympic stadium. The name is self-explanatory – check out the image on China Rises (use the link below).

Tim Johnson blogs on China Rises that on a press tour of Olympic sites, journalists were prohibited from taking photos. As he explains:

Once we arrived at the “bird’s nest” National Stadium, tour guides from the Beijing Olympics Committee warned us not to take photographs once we were inside.

I found that curious. So I sidled up to Jeff Ruffolo, one of the rare foreigners working for the Beijing Olympics office, and asked him why.

He immediately cited the “wow factor.” Beijing wants to maintain an element of mystery around the sites until the opening ceremony to heighten the impact of  the Games.

Coincidentally, I was checking out this article from Legal Daily just the day before (the translation is a bit rough, sorry):

Recently, relevant principal from the Legal Affairs Department of the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad (BOCOG) talked on the litigation by the National Stadium Limited on the image infringement. The principal said that the National Stadium ("Bird's Nest") is the main venue of Beijing Olympic Games.

With its original and significant image, Bird's Nest has become a symbol of the 2008 Olympic Games as well as the "New Beijing, Great Olympics" logo. As the legal owner of "Bird's Nest", the National Stadium Limited took the legal measures to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. It is also conducive to safeguarding the international image of Beijing Olympic Games, guaranteeing the order of Olympic IPR management and protecting the Olympic landscape management and market development.

According to "Olympic Charter" and "Olympic Host City Contract", all the Olympic related works, including the image of the Olympic venues, fall under the Olympic intellectual property protection and management. [my emphasis]

The issue here is image protection for the Bird's Nest, and the litigation referenced is this suit brought by stadium owners against 10 companies that are using the image in their advertising without authorization. This is commercial litigation – the owners are alleging economic losses of RMB 40 million.

This interested me quite a bit since I know that image protection for buildings is generally not protected under China's copyright law. The Copyright Law, Article 3(7), includes for protection: "Engineering design drawings, product design drawings, maps, sketches, and other pictorial and graphic works and model works." Blueprints-yes, photos of a building-no. As long as the photos are obtained properly, no problem.

I was thus considerably vexed by the Bird's Nest litigation and had a colleague call a contact at BOCOG to try and find out why this was an exception to normal copyright rules. The response was not all that forthcoming (no surprise), but we were initially told that image protection of venues was included in the Olympic contract entered into by Beijing when it was awarded the 2008 games. Before you ask, the contract is not public, and no, I don't have a copy. Always nice when important law is kept secret, don't you think?

Another wrinkle: the Olympic Charter, mentioned specifically in that Legal Daily article, does not refer to venues specifically. Article 7(2) of the Charter states that:

The Olympic symbol, flag, motto, anthem, identifications (including but not limited to “Olympic Games” and “Games of the Olympiad”), designations, emblems, flame and torches, as defined in Rules 8-14 below, shall be collectively or individually referred to as “Olympic properties”.

(I have since verified through other sources that none of this comes from the IOC, although they are aware of the issue.)

Back to our contact at BOCOG, who now says that such venue image protection was not included in the city contract but is rather protected by China's copyright law. Sorry, buddy, but I don't think so!!!

So this brings us back to Tim Johnson's experience up at the Olympic sites. In addition to  the explanation he received from Mr. Ruffolo, it would not surprise me to learn that photos are being prohibited because of this image protection issue.

The last thing that BOCOG and the Beijing government want is a proliferation of lawsuits over image rights connected to Olympic sites. Kind of looks bad in a harmonious society.