Last week the 2024 Olympic Games wrapped up after several memeable moments took place throughout the Paris-based event. As with most things in our modern society, folks wanted to share these memeable moments with others and so they took to social media.

However, posts that contained footage of the games didn’t last very long on the internet because the International Olympic Committee moves quickly to remove content it holds the copyright to. This meant that video of Rachel “RayGun” Gunn flopping around on stage posted to sites like X without the IOC’s permission, lasted as long as breaking did at the Games.

Is Gunn having these videos removed? We very much doubt that as removing content comes right out of the IOC’s playbook.

The IOC had clear rules in place about sharing content from the Paris 2024 games on social media and unfortunately, unless you were competing in the games, there were seemingly no provisions for fans sharing content. Even accredited organisations and individuals had to tow the IOC’s line when it came to content sharing. Hell, athletes couldn’t even post more than one thank you to sponsors which weren’t partnered with the Olympic Games.

“A single thank-you message to each personal Non-Olympic Partner during the Games Period can be posted to multiple platforms (posting a single identical message to multiple platforms must take place at the same time),” read the IOC’s guidelines.

However, this year the organisers embraced social media a bit more. The aforementioned policy gave athletes guidelines on what they could share online and so we as fans got a bit of a better look behind the scenes. Granted, we didn’t get to see Raygun posting her own performance to social media but that’s just how the chips fell.

With this in mind, there’s really little wonder why videos of Ray Gun were taken down as soon as they were posted even now after the games have concluded.

While there is fresh controversy surround the break dancer, the removal of the videos seems to have little, if anything, to do with the dancer herself and more to do with the IOC flexing its copyright ownership. Indeed, there are still several memes featuring Gunn online, many of which don’t actually feature footage from the event and instead use a cropped video of the dancer, likely evading the IOC’s detection, for now.

Not just the IOC

Global sporting events are a massive conversation starter and its clear that the organisers of these events are aware of that.

Last year at the conclusion of the Rugby World Cup, content creators making videos about the tournament were reportedly hit with copyright strikes. This drew criticism from fans – especially those who like me who were hungry for more content about the sport.

Some creators will and have argued that their work is transformative and as such, falls under fair use. The trouble with that is that in order to prove that, one has to go through the courts and we very much doubt that a YouTuber can match the legal counsel the likes of World Rugby or the IOC has on retainer.

Yes, it can be argued that sporting bodies lean a bit too heavily on the copyright strike button but considering how much these events cost, it makes sense that they’re so protective of their copyright. Events such as the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup depend heavily on sponsors. Sure, host cities cover most of the bills, but not all of the bills and so, organisers turn to brands to sponsor the events.

These brands need a return on their investment and so, the organisers promise them a certain amount of coverage, coverage that is threatened by content creators who may not highlight the sponsors or even name them.

Right now there is a fracas with Liberty Media and creators who centre their content around Formula 1. According to several reports, creators using the term “F1” in their name are being asked to remove this term from their name as its owned by Liberty Media. This has kicked up some dust as some slam the copyright holder for suddenly enforcing the rules, but that’s Liberty’s prerogative, no matter how much we disagree with it.

At this point, the assumption one should have is that if you want to share content from a major sporting event that you don’t have permission to share, don’t post it online.