Where would we be without GIFs?
The compact video picture file is a staple of the modern Internet, and the lifeblood of BuzzFeed. It’s also primarily how we watch highlights of sports online these days. People don’t even have time to watch the whole SportsCenter cut-up, which is still just a few plays a game. They only have time for single plays at a time; and since most sports plays last less than seven seconds, GIFs are a perfect way to keep up with many games.
All is not well in the wonderful land of short video clips, however. GIFs and GIFs of TV shows and movies have caught the ire of the networks that have created the original content. While SportsCenter, and Fox Sports Live pay a premium to the networks and leagues to use their footage, smaller sports news outlets exclusively use GIFs and now Vines to reference specific plays within games. SB Nation, Deadspin, or anything linked from Reddit uses GIFs instead of video highlights that they would have to pay for.
The NFL closely monitors what goes up on YouTube after every week of games. Highlights are available for only a few hours before they are taken down, as the NFL wants all the traffic to go through their website, where all the game clips are archived. Having GIFs scattered across mid-sized sports media outlets takes away some traffic; so, of course, the NFL would prefer them not exist, but how much legal clout do they have when requesting them be removed?
Smaller sports blogs rely on them way more than the large outlets, so they’re the primary target here. While they aren’t Sports Illustrated and Yahoo Sports big, they still technically make money off the use of another company’s content.
The GIF users are always going to claim fair use of the content, because GIFs and Vines are low in quality, may lack sound, and are only 3-10 seconds long. That might not seem like much, but when those 10 seconds are the 2013 Iron Bowl Kick Six, and it’s the only play that matters, CBS might get a little ticked. If a media outlet has to pay for a high quality clip from that game, then shouldn’t they pay a little less for the low quality version? At least, that’s what the networks and the leagues would want to claim.
This is murky legal territory, but it really just comes down to how much money the website generates. A direct competitor to CBS would have to pay for the whole highlight; and would be dumb to cheap out using GIFs knowing that CBS could come after them for using it. So smaller websites will continue to use GIFs and Vines because there it simply isn’t worth the time and money for the networks and sports leagues to pursue them.
Sports Management Professor Billy Hawkins from the University of Georgia adds: “I think it speaks to the issues of property and ownership, and in the case of the NCAA and its member institution, they claim to have ownership of the image and likeness of the product college athletes produce (the game, highlights, etc.). If these outlets that are playing these clips are using them in reporting a news story, then they should have a right to inform the public with the use of these clips. However, if they are using these GIFs and sport clips to generate revenue, it is problematic and becomes another layer of exploitation of the athlete.”
The top results for recent game highlights on YouTube are easy enough to take down for interns working at the league offices, but it’s impossible to police the blogosphere for every single quasi-illegal image. As long as your website doesn’t generate a ton of traffic and revenue, you’re probably not going to get a letter from a lawyer.