International Olympics Committee Only Wants You to Share Content It Approves

[Len]

Social media corporations are being pressured to censor content, regardless of intellectual property rights.

Every two years, the world turns its attention to the Olympics, a sporting event with huge draw given the truly international aspect and breadth of sports involved. And, in today’s world of social media, it seems like the Olympics also make headlines in the IP world. So, while this is not an entirely new story, we might as well cover it once again — and continue to do so until the International Olympic Committee (IOC) comes to its senses.

IOC is notoriously aggressive when it comes to enforcing its intellectual property rights. Much of it has to do with protecting its name as well as its trademarked symbol of the five interlocking rings of blue, yellow, black, green, and red. IOC has brought suit against numerous organizations that have tried to use the name “Olympic” or the interlocking rings symbol. There’s even an international treaty, the Nairobi Treaty, obliging governments to protect the symbol.

During the last Olympics — summer of 2016 — IOC made headlines when it banned GIFs: “…the use of Olympic Material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs (i.e., GIFV), GFY, WebM, or short video formats such as Vines and others, is expressly prohibited” in an attempt to limit and control the Olympic content that may be shared. Let’s be very clear, this is the IOC trying to censor speech and ensure that whatever videos are shared, they’re limited to whatever they approve.

Today, news, including sports highlights, is routinely shared on social media. GIFs are great for sports, focusing in on a single, spectacular moment like a Stephen Curry circus shot or Julian Edelman’s ridiculous catch in Super Bowl LI. Even aside from the highlight reel, sports figures make some great memes. Who can forget Tom Brady left hanging when he tries to get a high-five? Or Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney not impressed with her silver medal on vault? GIFs are short, totally digestible moments from sporting events, even for those who don’t regularly follow sports. GIFs are shared on Twitter and Facebook, emailed to friends, and contribute to our culture. While I enjoy many sports, the Winter Olympics aren’t really my thing, but I do enjoy catching up on the highlights via social media.

There are no shortage of GIF-worthy moments in the Olympics, like Mirai Nagasu being the first woman from the United States to land a triple axel in the Olympics, or Chloe Kim’s spectacular — and historic — halfpipe tricks which earned her a gold medal, or a photo finish in speed skating. But IOC doesn’t want you to create them, or even see ones that aren’t made by an exclusive licensee. Of course, as many pointed out in 2016, it would be extremely difficult for IOC to police its rule, at least for user-generated content, given how quickly content is created, posted, and reposted online.

Enter the assistance of social media platforms, doing the bidding of IOC. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) acknowledges that IOC “has put in place a series of measures to protect its own IP rights and those of rights-holding broadcasters, from online piracy . . . the IOC also uses advanced anti-piracy technology to prevent, track and take action against the upload of unauthorized Olympic content, in cooperation with major video-sharing websites and the relevant authorities in Games host countries.” What exactly does this mean?

Well, for one, Twitter is taking down content that doesn’t actually infringe copyright. A recent Techdirt article covered Washington Post reporter Ann Fifield’s complaints that Twitter removed her video of a unified Korean team after IOC claimed that it infringed its copyright. Of course, Fifield noted that the video was hers, not NBC’s, the IOC’s, or anyone else. Any copyright would therefore belong to Fifield. To be clear, given IOC’s fight, Fifield likely violated an IOC rule in filming the video and posting it (IOC’s social media rules note that “Participants and Other Accredited Persons cannot post any video and/or audio of the events, competitions or any other activities which occur at Olympic Venues (including the Olympic Villages). Such video and/or audio must only be taken for personal use and in particular must not be uploaded and/or shared to a posting, blog or tweet on any social media platforms, or to a website.”), but that would be some contractual rule and not a copyright violation. IOC could revoke Fifield’s credentials or pursue some other course of action, but claiming copyright infringement here is not the solution.

Facebook is taking things a step further, not even waiting for a bogus takedown notice before acting. Apparently, when Fifield tried to upload the video to Facebook, she was met with the following notice: “International Olympic Committee Rights Management blocked your video because it may contain content they own.”

Apparently when IOC claims to be working “in cooperation with major video-sharing websites” to prevent copyright infringement, it really means pressuring social media corporations to censor content, regardless of intellectual property rights.