ESPN And Univision Say Screw Fair Use: Your 6 Second Vine Videos Of World Cup Goals Must Be Taken Down
from the permission-society dept
Last year, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Prince sending DMCA takedowns over 6 second videos on Vine. Those seemed like a pretty clear fair use case. The very nature of Vine, in that it limits videos to 6 seconds seems tailor made for fair use, even if there is no magical time period that guarantees fair use. Either way, it should be no surprise that when it comes to a major sporting event, the powers that be don't believe in any fair use at all. Similar to the Olympics, nearly every time we write about the World Cup, it involves an aggressive abuse of claimed intellectual property rights to stifle perfectly legitimate communications and content.The latest, according to the Wall Street Journal, is that ESPN and Univision are rushing around taking down Vine clips of World Cup goals, even to the point that some major media properties have had their Vine accounts killed for being accused of infringement too often:
Since the start of the tournament Vox Media-owned sports site SB Nation, one of the chief purveyors of quick World Cup content, has had two accounts suspended on Vine, according to its managing editor Brian Floyd.Considering that fair use rules are explicitly designed for news reporting, it seems rather clear that these are fair use. It's unclear from the report if SB Nation has appealed the takedown notices or not, but it's rather unfortunate that Twitter just killed those accounts without bothering to recognize that they're clearly being used for fair use reporting on the World Cup.
SB Nation received suspension notices from Twitter, Mr. Floyd said, after a complaint from media-protection company Irdeto, which works on behalf of Univision.
“They don’t seem to mind people Vine-ing funny stuff like fans,” explained Clay Wendler, who quickly crafts Vines for SB Nation. But when it comes to goals — breathtaking moments of glory seemingly tailor-made for the six-second looping video format — rights-holders are more stringent, Mr. Wendler said.
Similarly, the article points to a recent Slate post which for a little while had a video showing all 136 goals scored in the group stage of the World Cup, spliced together in quick clips, but that video has since been removed after ESPN contacted Slate to claim it was infringement. Once again, this seems like a fairly clear cut case of fair use, using news reporting in a transformative manner which isn't going to impact the market for the original. But, of course, ESPN is owned by Disney, and Disney doesn't exactly have the best of reputations when it comes to understanding fair use in others (even if it's been getting better on that front lately).
It's really too bad that it appears that Slate and Vox/SB Nation appear to have more or less given in to these takedown requests rather than standing up for fair use.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 6 seconds, copyright, fair use, goals, takedowns, videos, vine, world cup
Companies: disney, espn, twitter, univision
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Though i cringe when i read 'certain carve outs for bona fide news purposes subject to a separate news license agreement.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But not from Univision, who should now be complete ashamed of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They probably got it from the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diligent professional to watch Vine videos and issue takedown notices. The individual should be a self-started and able to manage projects.
Candidates must be able to watch videos and stay awake.
Please submit your resumes to:
ESPN
Boring Jobs Division
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are ESPN doing this?
Are ESPN only targeting US websites? They have no right to decide whether the BBC for example can show goal clips to a UK audience. Hell, they have no right to decide whether I can show goal clips to a UK audience - that would be down to the local media company and laws whether it constitutes infringement etc.
Presumably it also depends on the source for the Vine clip. If it was recorded live then it's down to FIFA (since I think tickets tend to say that you assign the copyright on any recording you make to FIFA?) as it's not ESPN's copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, as every copyright maximalist will tell you, this is exploiting a loophole in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Why should SB nation be allowed to gain profit in lue of ESPN by just copying and hosting content that ESPN paid for the rights for and worked to produce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
The copyright isnt on the goal(s). Its on the entire MATCH.
if the highlight segment is only 6 seconds long, that must have been one boring ass match. I doubt ANY whole highlight segment is 6 seconds long. I bet they are closer to 15 to 20 or 30 seconds long.
I would think videos of goals would be quite clearly fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Networks dont have to request permission from ESPN to show the highlights on the 6 o'clock news. They usually just give attribution.
How, again, is it not fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Don't get distracted by duration as the definition of complete. No, the video feed is the complete expression of the work, The vines are not just taking the names of the player scoring the goal, expressing them in a different medium, and or just reporting the score. They're taking someone else's work pretty much as is and sourcing it themselves.
The copyright is on the broadcast and every single aspect or moment of it, whether its a goal, a throw in, a single frame or the audio track of the commentators.
No a complete highlight segment isn't 6 seconds long but it is made up of compilations of 6 sec clips, which is exactly what these collections of vines are.
All the broadcasters who carry footage provided courtesy of another source either pay for the rights to do so, or carry them under the conditions set forth by the rights holders. What makes these vine publishers exempt from these policies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Where are you getting your information from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
because they continue to work under these policies. For example NFL films stipulates that the broadcasters can use their work for highlight for only 2-3 days after the event.
"Where are you getting your information from?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television#NFL_Films
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
And the NFL can stipulate whatever the hell it wants, that doesnt make it copyright law. those are just their conditions which are only enforcable under contract. anyone in the world could use their footage and has a Fair Use defense against their claims of copyright infringement. Their contracts only mean something between the two parties that sign them, not the whole world.
You have consistently failed your arguments. Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
The only provision I am aware of for multiple complete works being considered a complete work is for collective works. But in collective works there is always a clear delimitation of the parts - a list of copyrighted works within the collective.
So, back to my original point: either there is a clear list of the delimited copyrighted works within each game, or you have fundamentally misunderstood how copyright is granted and your argument is void.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the only thing clear is this content isn't fair use
Facts aren't copyrightable to begin with. Fair use doesn't cover 'factual reporting' because it doesn't need to. It's safe to assume, therefore, that fair use must protect a greater use than just factual reporting.
And it is quite clearly undercutting the copy right holder's ability to exercise profit from the work as quite a large market is just interested in seeing the goals
Well, that might be worth mentioning in the fourth fair use factor. But it's not determinative.
Why should SB nation be allowed to gain profit in lue of ESPN by just copying and hosting content that ESPN paid for the rights for and worked to produce?
That ESPN paid for it and worked for it is irrelevant; that's sweat of the brow, and it is unconstitutional in the US.
That all said, I'd bear in mind Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises -- it's possible to have news reporting which only uses excerpts of a work but is nevertheless not fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports are entertainment - not news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sports are entertainment - not news
You know who should know this? Companies that have wrap up shows and highlight shows that discuss sporting events and show clips of what happened.
Hmm...can we think of an example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I hate this, I sincerely hope at least one of those "major media properties" is a strong supporter of the DMCA. Taste of their own medicine and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They file takedowns because they can
A video that's 6 seconds long isn't taking away revenue and these clips clearly fall under fair use and news-reporting.
But who cares about this- as long as people give in, the companies will keep filing takedowns.
These takedowns will only stop when people stand up to them... but not many people will since they don't want to risk losing their safe harbor protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]