A new complaint, filed with the US Copyright Complaint Board, accuses sports network ESPN of using a viral video without permission. The clip, in which Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti shared chewing gum with a fan, should have been authorized instead. A second complaint accuses sports broadcaster beIN of the same thing, both demanding a relatively modest amount of damages.
Viral videos are big business. So it's no surprise that specialized companies sprang up to help a lucky few monetize their viral content.
These companies usually handle licensing and legal issues. This is also the case for videoshatwhich uses the 'catchy' slogan "Rights = Money".
Unfortunately, however, getting paid isn't always easy. When a video goes viral, thousands of copies are made without permission, including by major media outlets, other licensing companies, and some of the world's largest copyright companies.
viral gum video
This is also what Youssef Abu Bakr noticed when he uploaded a TikTik video of Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti sharing one of his 'trademark' chewing gums. This gesture generated millions of views on TikTok and was reposted thousands of times without permission.
Bakr licenses his videos through Videohat, and the latter discovered that royalties don't always equate to money, not directly. In addition to thousands of smaller accounts, major companies including ESPN also copied the clip, as shown above.
Hoping to be rewarded, Videohat approached ESPN with a licensing deal, but it didn't get the desired result. This eventually led to the company filing a formal case with the US government. Copyright Complaint Board (CCB) which was released last year to deal with these types of minor disputes.
ESPN hit with copyright claim
According the claim, ESPN is a reputable network that should be fairly familiar with copyright law and licensing requirements. Despite this, ESPN was reportedly uncooperative when approached by Videohat.
The alleged irregularity is not limited to TikTok video either. Similar posts appeared on ESPN's Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts. The last pair had been removed at the time of writing this article.
Rather than agree to license the video or contact the original creator, Videohat says that ESPN continues to show the clip without permission to this day. How would ESPN act if the tables were turned, the licensing team wonders.
โThe question is: if we or one of our clients has uploaded a sporting event owned by ESPN, would that be okay? Of course not. The same should apply to ESPN that distributes our content without permission."
โWe are asking for relief of $1,500 per license per URL. (Total of 4500USD)โ, adds Videohat's claim.
beIN complaint
ESPN wasn't the only sports network affected by a copyright claim, beIN received the same treatment. In an almost identical complaint, Videohat accuses the US branch of beIN of copying the video without permission and posting it on Facebook and YouTube.
Interestingly, Videohat demands a higher damage figure from beIn, namely $2,500 per URL for a total of $5,000. At the time of writing, the Facebook post is still online.
At this time, it is unknown if the Copyright Complaints Board will rule on the matter. The board provides a relatively inexpensive option for resolving copyright disputes, but it is not mandatory; the accused party has the right to opt out of the proceeding. If that happens, Videohat can still choose to go to federal court.
Progress of copyright claims?
So far, the copyright complaint board has not led to a wave of rulings. By contrast, of the 383 cases filed, only one resulted in a full decision.
Plagiarism Today reports that in this groundbreaking case, the board awarded $1,000 to a photographer who discovered their work was used on the website of a California-based law practice. This is significantly lower than the $30,000 initially requested.
More than half of CCB cases (198) have been closed for other reasons. This often happens when a complaint is filed. not fully supported and, unsurprisingly, there is also a significant percentage of defendants who opt out.
