Is it possible for an intellectual property dispute to stop an Olympic figure skater’s routine before it ever hits the ice? This was exactly the question faced by Tomas-Llorenc Guarino Sabate this past February.
Olympic athletes train their whole lives to be able to compete on the world’s largest stage. Sabate is no exception. Sabate has been the Spanish figure skating champion for the last six years. The twenty-six year old figure skater reached the top of his field when he qualified for the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics. Sabate is known for his colorful routines, and the season leading up to the Winter Olympics was no exception.
Part of this season’s routine involved dressing up as a “Minion” from the Despicable Me movie franchise and dancing to music also from the movies. Days before he was set to perform this routine in the Olympics, Sabate was told he could no longer perform his routine because of the use of copyrighted material, i.e. the Minion costume and song. He was on the cusp of greatness, yet a copyright dispute nearly prevented his performance from ever happening.
Fortunately for Sabate, the copyright dispute was settled, and his performance went forward as planned. But how could such a situation arise where a copyright dispute almost prevented an Olympian from competing? Read on for a discussion of what a copyright is, how it creates issues for Olympic performers, the current system that attempts to prevent these issues, and how that system is deficient.
Breaking the Ice: What is a Copyright?
A copyright is a form of intellectual property which protects the original works of authors. Copyrights protect works that are minimally creative. A copyright only exists when the work is fixed in a “tangible” medium. For instance, an artist that creates a drawing on a canvas has a copyright in that drawing. Copyrights protect many works other than drawings such as pictures, songs, books, blog posts, movies, etc. One example is the 2015 Minions movie which has a valid copyright that Universal Studios owns.
A copyright provides its author with a host of exclusive rights. These include the right to prevent others from reproducing the work, distributing unauthorized copies of the work, or, notably, creating a derivative work. When someone violates one of these rights, they infringe the copyright and can be sued for damages or injunctive relief. Injunctive relief allows the copyright owner to prevent the infringer from further unauthorized use.
A derivative work is a work that is based on the original copyrighted material. Sabate’s figure skating routine that incorporates the music and costumes from the Despicable Me movie franchise is an example of a derivative work. As such, his routine is at risk of copyright infringement.
Someone like Sabate can arguably avoid infringement of Universal’s copyright through a defense of fair use. However, the success of a fair use defense is unpredictable because it considers several factors to indicate whether the infringer’s use is allowed. One pertinent factor here is the impact on the market value of the copyrighted work. Normally, the figure skater would have to pay the copyright owner to use their music. When an infringer’s activity directly impacts a well-established market such as licensing music, the fair use defense is less likely to be successful. As such, a fair use defense is far from certain to work for figure skaters using a song in their routine.
Also, a fair use defense is only used during the course of time-consuming, and often expensive litigation. In Sabate’s case, Universal had not yet sued him so this defense is purely hypothetical. The lack of certainty and delay that come with raising this defense in litigation indicate that Sabate should (and did) take another path.
Thus, Sabate’s best bet was obtaining permission from the copyright owner, Universal Studios, to perform the derivative work at the Olympics. Sabate initially tried to get such permission from Universal. He was not able to get in contact with the copyright owners, yet performed his routine for six months prior to the Olympics with no issues. On the eve of the Olympic performance, Universal told Sabate that he did not have permission to use the song and costume. Despite the last minute controversy, Universal eventually agreed that Sabate could use the copyrighted material. The change in heart was due in part to social media uproar with the whole episode being dubbed “Minionsgate.”
The agreement between Universal and Sabate is an example of a copyright license. A license is a formal agreement that gives permission from the copyright owner for someone else to legally use the copyrighted material. Here, Universal Studios permitted Sabate to use music from Minions and dress up like the main character. So how do copyright licenses impact the Olympics, and why do disputes such as Sabate’s still occur?
Glacial Progress: Figure Skating and Copyright Issues
Historically, figure skating routines have been closely associated with classical music. This has helped prevent copyright issues from occurring in figure skating because a copyright term usually lasts for the life of the author plus seventy years. Accordingly, classical music, most of which was composed in the eighteenth century, has created little or no copyright issues for figure skaters. Any copyright that existed had expired at the time of the skaters’ performances.
This all changed in late 2014 when a rule change allowed use of songs with lyrics in any figure skating routine. Competitors started to use more contemporary songs with active copyrights.
Another difficulty with copyright issues in Olympic performances is the enforcement of copyrights in foreign countries. Skaters should know that even if they are using copyrighted material outside the United States, there are often parallel copyrights in other countries. For example, the Minions movie was created in the United States, but it is registered for protection in many other countries, including Italy. This helps IP owners by preventing unauthorized use of their creations but only adds to the confusion of athletes attempting to use the copyrighted material.
To avoid disputes with copyright holders, skaters must contact the rightsholders to seek permission to use a song or, in Sabate’s case, the costume as well. This issue is not novel to the 2026 Winter Olympics. In the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, a band, The Heavy Young Heathens, sued two US figure skaters for using the band’s rendition of “House of the Rising Sun” in their Olympic performance. The lawsuit was later settled for an undisclosed sum. This recurring issue emphasizes the need to seek permission from intellectual property owners.
However, this process can be quite arduous when dealing with artists and their labels. Prominent skaters such as Ilia Malinin have chimed in, noting this is something every skater must take into account when crafting their routine. The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) has also identified this problem and given guidance on seeking authorization from rightsholders. The guidance is not legal advice, but it’s meant to help athletes avoid potential disputes that may arise. The IOC encourages athletes to connect with rightsholders to proactively avoid disputes.
To help facilitate this connection, the International Skating Union (“ISU”)—a figure skating body which organizes multiple events a year and is recognized by the IOC—has long recommended the use of ClicknClear, though the ISU maintains it has no explicit contractual relationship with the platform. ClicknClear is a platform attempting to bridge the gap between intellectual property owners and those attempting to use the owners’ copyrighted works in performances. Rightsholders can use the platform to grant licenses to athletes who want to use their music. But, while the reach of this service is expanding, some artists still choose not to use such a platform. Prior to Sabate’s performance, he attempted to clear his use of the song and costume through the ClicknClear platform. Universal Studios however did not participate in the platform’s services, so it did not give explicit permission to Sabate. Without this explicit permission, there was no way for Sabate to know whether Universal Studios would seek to enforce their intellectual property rights. This uncertainty highlights an obvious limitation of the ClicknClear platform: there is a large amount of copyright owners that do not use this platform. As Sabate’s story illustrates, despite the existence of platforms like ClicknClear, athletes still encounter licensing issues.
The IOC Skating Over Licensing Issues
Copyright licensing disputes are not a new problem. This same issue has arisen in the context of cheerleaders using songs for their routines for years. Copyright owners also struggle to enforce their rights against business owners playing songs for customers, especially at hotels, bars, and restaurants. Also, social media platforms raise copyright issues of their own when users share content that contain copyrighted material. So what makes the Olympic context special? Why is this any different than the other disputes that come up?
The main difference between the Olympics and these other events is the heightened profile and time-sensitive nature of the Olympics. In the United States alone, the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics averaged over 24.1 million daily viewers. Across various social media platforms, Olympic content generated more than ten billion impressions. Also, the Games occur once every four years which only adds to the stature of the competition. The Winter Olympic Games is one of the few sporting events that has a truly global reach.
The IOC needs to take advantage of this influence to implement better controls to avoid copyright disputes. The ISU has already laid the groundwork by recommending use of ClicknClear, but, as Sabate’s story shows, athletes can still use the platform and not get a license via that method. The IOC therefore needs to take further steps. Specifically it should mandate copyright clearance steps to be completed by a specified time period before the games start. One obvious difficulty is to force rights owners to participate in this process. To help overcome this obstacle, it should initiate an official partnership with a clearance platform such as ClicknClear. While such a partnership would by no means guarantee participation from rightsholders, this partnership would be an important first step. The official nature of a partnership with the IOC would elevate the legitimacy of a clearance platform. This would catalyze the necessary conversations between rightsholders and athletes looking to use songs.
Taking these steps would help both athletes and IP owners. Athletes would be able to know ahead of time what songs they can or cannot use in their performances. IP owners would be able to clearly indicate whether they are willing to license their property to athletes. If they are, then an easy platform exists to facilitate a transaction. If they are not, athletes will know to avoid using music that might cause copyright infringement.
A Clean Finish
Copyright licensing disputes in athletics have been around for a long time, and they are not going anywhere soon. Even though there was a good outcome in this case, the IOC should take the story of Tomas-Llorenc Guarino Sabate as a cautionary tale. The committee can and should implement guardrails and incorporate programs that will prevent disruptive disputes from occurring on the eve of competition.
This dispute is another reminder of the cross-border implications of copyright law. The IOC can help maintain the integrity of the games by helping spectators focus on the Olympians’ performances, not their IP disputes. So, when you visit the French Alps in 2030 for the next Winter Olympics, hopefully you will not be put on the same roller coaster as figure skating fans were this year.
John Golden
Associate Blogger
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, J.D. 2027