NASCAR Abuses DMCA To Try To Delete Fan Videos Of Daytona Crash

from the that's-now-how-copyright-works dept

Mon, Feb 25th 2013 5:39am — Mike Masnick

Joseph M. Durnal was the first of a whole bunch of you to send in a version of this story showing how NASCAR abused copyright to take down some videos. You may have heard that there was a big NASCAR crash at Daytona that sent debris flying into the stands. Well, a video from those same stands, which shows a wheel lying in the seats next to someone injured, was deleted from YouTube via NASCAR claiming copyright on it and issuing a takedown. Obviously, that's a bogus claim, because the copyright would belong to the guy who filmed it.

As the press started calling, NASCAR gave what might seem like a perfectly reasonable response:

The fan video of the wreck on the final lap of today’s NASCAR Nationwide Series race was blocked on YouTube out of respect for those injured in today’s accident. Information on the status of those fans was unclear and the decision was made to err on the side of caution with this very serious incident.—Steve Phelps, NASCAR Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer

Sounds great, except it's totally bogus. NASCAR may well be concerned about those injured by the crash, but that does not give them the right to automatically remove someone else's video, nor does it allow them to abuse the DMCA takedown process for that purpose. The DMCA only applies to copyright.

Of course, once again, we're seeing how when our laws make it easy to censor via copyright claims, many people seek to do exactly that. Thankfully, all of the attention on the takedown has resulted in YouTube doing what appears to have been an expedited review, and have put the video back:

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: censorship, crash, daytona, dmca, nascar, takedowns
Companies: google, nascar, youtube

108 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:29am

Streisand Effect any1?

Actually I do believe their intentions are true and honest and censorship was not in their minds. Much like a few "for the children" initiatives are perfectly honest. However this makes it quite clear that once the tools for censorship are in place they will be used. And that there will be wrongful "censoring" (or collateral damage).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:49am

There clearly needs to be some teeth for bogus takedowns. There is no way that they can claim that they "in good faith" thought they owned the copyright here. In fact, they admit that they didn't issue a takedown for that. If this isn't breaking the law, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:02am

Re:
Yup - that statement is proof that they *knew* their DMCA claim was bogus. Time for someone to get prosecuted for perjury, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:05am

Re:
If their are teeth put into the law for bogus takedowns, what will the poor politicians do when they want to remove anything that is damaging to their image from the Net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:07am

Re: Re:
We have to start at the top of the slope and this seems like a good enough place to start.
Once we get this ruled against, we can start making our way down the slipperiness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watchit (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:11am

Re: Re:
They'd have to do it the old fashioned way.

Ninja assassins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:13am

Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 5:29am
Their intention was to put out their own version of the story plain and simple. And the only way they can do it is to kill all evidence save their own. This is NASCAR looking out for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:13am

Re: Re: Re:
At your service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:18am

Fine Print
I thought the takedown request was initially being justified by the assignment of copyright on the ticket. I haven't seen the text, but by walking in the gate you assign all copyright in any video you take to NASCAR. Sort of like a EULA for taking your rights away in the physical world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charliebrown (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:18am

Awesome!
That was the most awesome crash I've seen in NASCAR in years. Pity people got injured in the process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rukidding (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:19am

Terms of entry
Don't the operators of these types of events either prohibit customers from taking and/or sharing photos and/or videos or require the customer to sign over their copyright of all photos & videos the customer takes at the event exactly for these cases?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:21am

Re: Re:
Not shoot themselves in the foot so much due to a failure to realize that there is no quicker way to draw attention to something than by attempting to cover it up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:28am

Re: Terms of entry
Yup.

In his rush to try and demonize DMCA notices, which are effective tools in combating his beloved piracy, Mike Masnick again forgot to do his homework.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:28am

Re:
NASCAR's intentions were not true and honest. Instead of abusing the DMCA, they could have contacted the poster of the video and asked him to remove it out of respect of the people injured.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:29am

Re: Fine Print
Is that even legal? Is it explicitly and availably written all over the racing circuits?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:31am

At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
"that does not give them the right to automatically remove someone else's video" -- OKAY, PIRATES, so now tell me how you're privileged to dispose of someone else's $100 movie by uploading it to Megaupload, Rapidshare, TPB, and other "file sharing" sites?

But of course Mega.co.nz Mike only uses uses notions as suit his immediate case, doesn't bother with consistency.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:32am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
Except that the videos were restored. Nice going with those DMCA notices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:33am

They may have acted in "good faith", as they claim, but that video wasn't theirs to do what they want to with it. I've got some sad news for them too...the world is full of violence, hate, abuse, people getting hurt, death, massive injuries...& anything else that national television doesn't want the public to see.

It wasn't their video, why did they claim copyright? Can we issue DCMA's to NASCAR & claim that we saw someone hitting another person over the head with a chair while the camera was panning out to show the entire field making the last turn? If they say no, can we claim that NASCAR is promoting violence since they won't take it down?

See how stupid this sounds? That video does not belong to us, so we can't issue a DCMA. But if a fan makes a video, it suddenly becomes theirs?

It is very clear that the owner of the video can take them to court for filing a false DCMA claim that "harmed" them for MILLIONS of dollars. Why not...THEY'LL do it to us in a heartbeat! And this case is clear abuse of the DCMA & a false claim which should have penalties by law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:38am

Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
By the way, I DO NOT SUPPORT notions of "terms of entry" or whatever printed on a ticket: it's a public accomodation like any other business, you don't lose or give away rights merely by entering, there's NO contract beyond the terms of common law as in all other venues and times.

NASCAR is a corporation with the monopoly on car racing, trying to exercise power here, that's all, and we need to quit letting corporations dictate "terms". But of course Mike doesn't go into the corporate aspects -- let alone is he anti-corporation -- just restricts to the narrow "copyright" area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:39am

Re:
I don't believe even in an instant that there's a modicum of attempted protection of the children. I do believe that the modicum of interest was wanting to protect supposed damage to the Nascar name. Also lawsuits.

Corporations don't care about people. If they do, don't you think they would invest more in better crowd safety to prevent situations like this? Instead we're stuck focusing on the censorship, mostly because it's blatant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
DMCA notices are as effective at combating piracy as a ping-pong ball is at puncturing a tank's armour.

No matter how many balls you fire, that tanks is just going to keep moving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:41am

Re: Terms of entry
Then where are all the DMCA takedowns for all the photos and videos taken at every single NASCAR-sanctioned event and posted online?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:43am

Re: Terms of entry
I don't think it's specifically for these cases. Usually they just don't want broadcasting from sources that are not the official cameras. But it makes little sense here since the footage is posted after all the broadcast. And even if the race itself is covered by copyrights and they had all these terms of service or whatever, this would probably fall under fair use protections.

In any case, it's a good thing Google/Youtube put it back online. At least when there's enough outrage they'll actually check what they take down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:45am

Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
You can't upload stuff to The Pirate Bay and Megaupload is dead.

You really need to update your list of daemons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
Why didn't NASCAR use that as their reasoning, then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:48am

Re: Re: Fine Print
not likely to be legal, at least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:48am

Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
Name someone here who supports piracy.

I'll wait.

Actually, I won't, because I don't have fucking forever waiting for you to not come up with an answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is your name Zuuma?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:50am

Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
"OKAY, PIRATES, so now tell me how you're privileged to dispose of someone else's $100 movie by uploading it to Megaupload, Rapidshare, TPB, and other "file sharing" sites?"

Mike has routinely written that piracy is against the law and he does not condone it. However, knowing something is wrong and knowing it's going to happen anyway and writing how one can make the best of a bad situation is something completely different. So it's not hard to see how you can conflate the issues and try and spin it to "Mike finally accepts you don't have the right to others property".

Poor Blue. Seems like your little vacation was definitely not spent getting a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
"Then where are all the DMCA takedowns for all the photos and videos taken at every single NASCAR-sanctioned event and posted online?"

This needs to repeated continuously until those who support Nascar in this takedown (and Nascar themselves) can answer this question in full. Until then, what they did is defacto censorship and image control. Selective enforcement won't wash with people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:59am

Re: Re: Fine Print
My husband has an old ticket from the Daytona 500 (probably about 8 years ago) and it does indeed have a disclaimer on the back of the ticket, but that disclaimer (the way I read it) doesn't mean you turn over your copyright to photos/videos you take, it simply means they can use your likeness (ie: a photo of your, or a video of your) in any way they choose. A quote from the back of a Daytona ticket:

[Holder irrevocably grants to Daytona International Speedway and its assigns, licensees, affiliates and successors the right to use Holder's image, likeness, voice, actions and/or statements in all forms and media including advertising, trade, or any commercial purpose throughout the world and in perpetuity. Holder hereby waives any and all claims that holder may have for libel, defamation, invasion of privacy or right of publicity, infringement of copyright or violation of any other right arising out of or relating to any utilization of Holder's image as described herein.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:01am

Re:
This isn't a. DMCA takedown though. YouTube has a partnering system so the real rules don't apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:04am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
And you might have a point if they didn't themselves claim they used the DMCA takedown process for a purpose that had nothing to do with copyright.

"was blocked on YouTube out of respect for those injured in today�s accident. "

That's not a copyright claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:06am

Re: Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
"just restricts to the narrow" abuse of "copyright area."

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:06am

Re: Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
"just restricts to the narrow" abuse of "copyright area."

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:07am

Re: Re: Re: Terms of entry
Actually I'd say the ping-pong balls would be more effective, as at least when they miss their target they wouldn't be as likely to end up taking out innocent bystanders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
saulgoode (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:12am

Re: Terms of entry
Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC �204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Rosenblatt, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:13am

The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
As a few commenters have pointed out, the video becomes the property of NASCAR by virtue of the contract terms on the ticket. This is long settled law and has nothing to do with the Internet, Google, or YouTube. Ergo NASCAR's issuance of a 512(a) takedown notice was proper.

However, the clip was clearly fair use by virtue of its news value. Google reinstated it quickly, without having waited the 10-day counternotice period mandated by the DMCA, because it was secure in the knowledge that the clip would pass the fair use sniff test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:15am

Re: Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
Out of the blue doesn't care much for facts and reality. He's perfectly fine in that weird bubble of his. He's rejected our reality, and tries to substitutes his own. Except he's not Adam Savage, and Ootb only brings forth myths instead of busting them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:15am

from the that's-now-how-copyright-works dept

not sure if typo, or sad truth :|
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:29am

Re: Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
There are commenters here who have admitted they pirate, and detail the reasons why. There are many other people here he and his type attacks as pirates (including Mike) who have repeatedly stated they do no such thing. Some people here seem to forget the latter group exists, or assume they're lying despite no evidence the doubt their words.

ootb may break out of his moronic fantasies long enough to correctly recall the identity of the self-admitted infringers who post here. However, he will neither provide any evidence to back up his claims about others, nor admit that reality is far more complicated than the "I'm the hero, everyone else is a pirate" fabrication that he and his trolling brethren require for any of their arguments to make any sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:33am

Minght not have been NASCAR (Directly)
This is going to sound a tad bizarre, but I hope people try to keep an open mind about what I am about to say.

NASCAR may not have been durectly responsible for the DMCA take-down request to the video in question in the first place. Their intent may have only to allow respect for the families of those injured. When called out for their DMCA abuse...they backed off and canceled the request.

I woke up early this morning to make breakfast for my wife before she headed off to teach. We were watching Good Morning America and that same video was featured there. Good morning America is a live show in the morning but each show is prepped weeks ahead of time. That had to have been clipped in after the take-down notice was "issued" by NASCAR. Then again the NHL doesn't even get that strict so who knows....

NASCAR did in fact mean it in their statement that they wanted the video taken down and Mike Mansick I commend you for at least admitting their intent was in the right place...I do however agree they went at it the wrong way.

I think this is the first time I heard of NASCAR ever really taking such DMCA measures against YouTube users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:38am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Awesome explanation - thanks for laying the situation out clearly. Sounds to me like NASCAR didn't do anything particularly wrong (legally), but they did do something particularly dumb (Streisandly).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:39am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
"However, the clip was clearly fair use by virtue of its news value."

According to most legal experts....the user that created the video at the event....owns the copyright to that footage. It was news worthy and technically fair use. But the person that shot the footage on their camera or phone as it happened will own that copyright. There was no reason for NASCAR to issue the takedown.

Even as far as saying that it was because "the person didn't have a press ticket", is a lame statement from NASCAR...which was their other excuse for the takedown request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:43am

Re:
In a way, we did get to see copyright in action protecting the person who shot that video and posted it on YouTube. Google has a very flawed system where a video is taken down without human review. All a person has to do is issue a DMCA request to YouTube and if it goes uncontested by the user, it stays down. The entirety of all internet press/media contested that as well as Google's own lawyers...so the video was immediately put back up because NASCAR did not shoot that footage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:50am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Until we see the back of a ticket from saturdays race you're just blowing smoke.

Whatever was "long settled" before Saturday doesn't mean anything, if the back of saturdays ticket doesn't include language about signing over copyrights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dpatac (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:52am

Another Avenue
So I am not sure what the right answer is here. Yes NASCAR did abuse the DMCA notice, however should there be a way for them to delay the posting of such videos out of respect for the injured and their families? In the on air broadcast they limited their replays to one angle from far away, not showing any of the debris that went into the stands. I am an avid NASCAR fan and they usually have many replay from many angles, so I would not doubt that they would have more footage, especially at the start finish line.

This particular video does not show much in the way of the people injured. There was another video posted that said - "Fan Killed in NASCAR Crash" that had a DMCA notice immediately following the crash - I did not see the video just the notice.

So the DMCA notice was bogus by NASCAR but should there not be an avenue for them to at least have a delay period before such videos are posted?

We recently had a teacher at my school post a number of videos in which it was clear to anyone who knew him that there was some type of break - he was clearly not himself. I worked with his wife to have the videos removed, there was an option to remove the video because it was harmful to others. She was just trying to stop all the negative attention she was getting because obviously he needed help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:01am

Re: Re:
How many people will know that they can challenge, and how to challenge a takedown. That is not copyright in action, but public interest protecting the copyright owner. If the video was not of such interest it would probably have stayed down.
We get to hear of the challenged takedowns, but how many takedowns go unchallenged even though they should not have happened?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:16am

Re: Another Avenue
.

"So I am not sure what the right answer is here. Yes NASCAR did abuse the DMCA notice, however should there be a way for them to delay the posting of such videos out of respect for the injured and their families?"

Precisely measured and stated, how does "respect for the injured and their families", a small number of people, outweigh the rights of the copyright holder to share his/her work detailing the reality of an important news event with millions and millions of others who have a legitimate right to know about what happened?

And while we're at it, what other ways would you prefer that we all self-censor ourselves?

.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:24am

Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
Except that the video was reinstated. No idea where the fuck you got the idea of "dispose" from because nothing was disposed.

Someone clearly ran away for months for a heaping helping of RIAA corporation jizz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re:
Most people who use YouTube and are not intending to make a living off of it will not pay much attention to such notices. your last question pretty much nails the issue in its own right.

The point is that the system is automated and it should not be. No matter what algorithm can be used to determine the legality of the video...automation has huge flaws when it comes to litigation.

The official web site where live streams of the Democratic National Convention were aired are a prime example of automated takedown notices being a failure.

The YouTube issue is automation and has been one since SOPA didn't pass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:40am

Re: Re:
Uh, I think it is. Unless youtube partnered with the person the MADE the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Terms of entry
Unfortunatly, this has nothing to do with piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:44am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
This is long settled law... probably a logical fallacy here.

but a common one for legal types.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:45am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
That's not how contract law works. Even if a vague, coercive, poorly-phrased "contract" like the ticket could hold up and restrict the fans, it would not mean they lose their copyright. It means that NASCAR and/or the venue can punish them for violating the contract, by confiscating their camera, throwing them out, or banning them from future events.

This isn't the same as rerecording a broadcast that NASCAR and the broadcaster co-created and own copyright on. You need permission to take video of the event without NASCAR waving that ticket language in your face, but failing to get permission does not make the copyright of a work belong to someone who didn't create the work.

Taking photos or video without permission on private property might fall into privacy law, which is even less permissive than copyright, but again, NASCAR is just throwing out whatever tools it has available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:45am

Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Ummm... except he clearly isn't an expert in the area:

Transfer of any copyright needs to be "in writing and signed by the owner of the rights" (17 USC �204). It can not be accomplished as a "term of entry". (quoted from earlier)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:50am

Re: Re: At last you've gotten to the concept of what belongs to others:
"By the way, I DO NOT SUPPORT notions of "terms of entry" or whatever printed on a ticket: it's a public accomodation like any other business, you don't lose or give away rights merely by entering, there's NO contract beyond the terms of common law as in all other venues and times."

The Ohio State University Marching Band had a video game review during a half-time show on September 8, 2012...filmed by hundreds of fans who posted it on youtube...not one of them were asked to take down the videos.......They bought standard tickets as those would in the NASCAR Stands would....and yes, the Ohio State University does in fact have press tickets....there are hundreds of videos on YouTube of the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAzzbrFgcUw

"NASCAR is a corporation with the monopoly on car racing, trying to exercise power here, that's all, and we need to quit letting corporations dictate "terms"."

NASCAR is not the only auto racing industry in the US. There are several other specialized Auto Racing industries such an NGTA (National Grand Touring Association)and Formula 1 Kart Racing to name a couple.

Now as far as corporate aspects...there was never any to deal with in the first place. The issue is purely copyright and DMCA abuse. There are many other journalists who had an issue with the same event. Mike Mansick is in fact writing about how they had no right to even issue a take-down notice. The focus is not narrowed it is rooted in the subject of copyright...I am no journalist myself but I can see that it is a copyright issue from the morning news paper I got......

The creator of the content was not in fact a NASCAR official but a fan, and had their footage taken down upon request via Google's completely flawed automatic take-down policy upon DMCA take-down requests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:53am

I want to see someone go to prison over this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:00am

Re: Another Avenue
"So the DMCA notice was bogus by NASCAR but should there not be an avenue for them to at least have a delay period before such videos are posted?"

The issue is more of ethics. I honestly think that in spite of the intent by NASCAR to take it down...they could have used an alternate avenue. They could have requested that the video be taken down directly to the person who uploaded it to YouTube out of reverence of those injured and dead.

So it really is hard to ask that and the real question is...Doesn't Google have other options for Take-Down requests outside of DMCA abuse??? Simply put it seems it does not in fact have other avenues for take-down requests other than copyright and DMCA.

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html

You know, now that I think about it Mike Mansick, maybe NASCAR showed genuine intent on its statement, but had no other avenue to go.

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its not just the automation that is worrying, the fact that the system is take down on demand, and relies on the affected party to challenge when they notice what has happened, if they know they can, and how to do this. This allows most fair use to be taken down, and leaves too many people believing that they were maybe in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:06am

What the hell gives NASCAR the right?
The fan video of the wreck on the final lap of today�s NASCAR Nationwide Series race was blocked on YouTube out of respect for those injured in today�s accident.

Even if they held the copyright... what gives them to stop all videos? This is obviously news worthy so first use would likely apply anyway.

The even bigger issue here is that they believe they have the right to censor free speech because they don't believe it to be right or fair or "respectful" to someone. That's bullshit and if we want to continue free speech, censorship of this kind must be punished.

Let me be clear on this: I don't care about the abuse of copyright directly. That's bad, but I care about the process outlined in our laws say that someone or a company has the right to censor without reprocussions. Censoring free speech (or taking away another American's rights) should be punishable and the loopholes or exceptions in whatever policy which allows them to do this should be fixed in the courts (cause Congress is busy not passing budgets).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:14am

Re: Another Avenue
should there be a way for them to delay the posting of such videos out of respect for the injured and their families?

The short answer is no.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press does not stop when it is disrespectful to someone. This situation would be even worse because NASCAR gets to decide what is respectful. Why would they become the ones to determine what is respectful and when?

Allowing an entity - government or otherwise - to decide when a video someone else created can be disseminated is a direct path to censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:15am

Re:
"censorship was not in their minds"

cen�sor�ship
/ˈsensərˌSHip/
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ByteMaster (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:34am

Nothing will happen.
Just like the "birds video": http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-gets-bogus-youtube-copyright-claim-birds-s inging-background.shtml

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!

So vent your frustration in forums, and with the stacked FPTP voting systems we have here (also the Grey Typewriters play a role) there's nothing you can do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:41am

Re: Another Avenue
should there be a way for them to delay the posting of such videos out of respect for the injured and their families?

No. They are not the Respect Cops, and should not have that power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:44am

Re: Re: Another Avenue
Except that even if that is the only means it is still just a corporate excuse. They do not want footage that they don't control in the wild where it can be used as evidence in litigation against them for negligence as a result of the tragic event. People got hurt at their event. There will likely be some of those that hire lawyers to scrutinize every piece of evidence out there to find anything that they can to turn this into a big payday. It's damage control. THAT is their sole purpose for taking it down. The "out of respect" comment is just an excuse to try to make themselves look better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am

Re: Fine Print
I thought the takedown request was initially being justified by the assignment of copyright on the ticket. I haven't seen the text, but by walking in the gate you assign all copyright in any video you take to NASCAR. Sort of like a EULA for taking your rights away in the physical world.

That's not a legal transfer of the copyright.

From the copyright office itself:

"Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any
subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the trans�fer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent"

Unless the ticket involve them explicitly signing something saying that they were assigning the copyrights to NASCAR, which seems unlikely...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:49am

Re: Terms of entry
Don't the operators of these types of events either prohibit customers from taking and/or sharing photos and/or videos or require the customer to sign over their copyright of all photos & videos the customer takes at the event exactly for these cases?

As noted above, you cannot assign copyrights by such a manner. You need the current copyright holder to physically sign the assignment. So any claim otherwise would not be a valid transfer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:51am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
As a few commenters have pointed out, the video becomes the property of NASCAR by virtue of the contract terms on the ticket. This is long settled law and has nothing to do with the Internet, Google, or YouTube. Ergo NASCAR's issuance of a 512(a) takedown notice was proper.

That's not a legal transfer or assignment of copyright.

However, the clip was clearly fair use by virtue of its news value.

That, however, is true, but I still disagree that NASCAR owned the copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Fine Print
I'm assuming signing a credit card reciept wouldn't count?

If NASCAR could prove you knew the terms when purchasing a ticket, that signature wouldn't be the same as accepting the terms because it's only the terms explicit in the reciept no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
As mike states in a couple of places, and as I thought of, correctly, after I wrote this, unless you sign something with your signature, NASCAR doesn't get to copyright anything by a term of entry.

You can't be made to agree to something just by buying it, where a law elsewhere states that it can only be done by signing an agreement to that end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:15am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
Yeah I'm going to go download 30 gigs today in honor of Nascar and you.

How do you feel that your words have directly lead to piracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
You do realise that the ONLY thing a company can do to enforce there "no photograph etc" rule is to remove that customer from the premises, since they have no legal right to remove the photograph from any device (that's assault for starters). If the customer refuses to leave then trespass laws might come into affect, but otherwise the 'rule' as a contract term is absolutely voidable under law.

As for the assignment of copyright... not even close. You really dont know anything to do with contract law, copyright, nor interference torts do you? And lets not forget criminal action that could be placed upon any agents of the organisation under the standard US color of law statutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:27am

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Please state with actual cases where there has been ANY type of allowing so called "ticket clauses' to be used and not declared voidable when you are giving up a legal right that can not be transferred without an actual direct and knowing transference.

I'll wait... Though I won't hold my breath since under contractual law it historically is in fact the absolute opposite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:41am

Isn't this how Hitler started? He was concerned for the well being of Germany's citizens. Then he gained complete control over the entire country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Fine Print
i have no doubt you are correct about this, *BUT* the one counter-example i saw someone come up with rings true:
try to take your phone/whatever and video an NFL game, and see how far you get with that...

*and* i am thinking the NFL won't give a shit whether it was for your own personal use, or if it was 'broadcast' in some manner (which i'm guessing is almost ANY manner of recording), they will *still* come down on you like a ton of bricks...

(which -for the record- yes, it hurts a lot more to get hit with a ton of bricks versus a ton of feathers...)

i have always wondered whether you could take the 'official' NFL (or whoever in Big Sports) broadcast, and overlay a snarky, mocking narration, and 're-broadcast' that as a parody ? ? ?

*somehow*, i doubt that -EVEN IF 100% 'legal'- anyone would be able to pull that off...

the point being, that EVEN 'LEGAL' uses of Big Media will NOT be suffered, as we are all learning to our peril...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:20am

Re: Re:
> If their are teeth put into the law for bogus takedowns,
> what will the poor politicians do when they want to remove
> anything that is damaging to their image from the Net.

They'll do it the old fashioned way. Which is usually far more entertaining.

Quietly threaten to sue. Claim the threatening letter is copyrighted and cannot be published. Claim national security is at stake. Throw the word terrorist around. Make claims of representing law enforcement. Make bold statements that are contrary to the way the law and the legal system work. Show you proof, in writing, that said politician has hired investigators to hack into your computers and have obtained personal information.

See? Isn't that a lot better than a bogus DMCA takedown? Therefore, why do we need the DMCA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Fine Print
> the trans�fer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer
> is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed

That's an excellent point. But, even if the videographer signed something transferring copyright (which they did not), there is still the issue of fair use.

Okay, NASCAR may now own the copyright, but wouldn't the videographer's use of the video to show something of great public interest, and comment on it, be fair use?

Oh wait . . . but what about that mythical "hot news" doctrine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Re: Terms of entry
> what they did is defacto censorship and image control.
> Selective enforcement won't wash with people.

What NASCAR did was perjury.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
Can you assign, in writing, the copyright of something that does not yet exist? (Probably, if you are contracting to create it.)

But what about on something that you may or may not create, and are not creating "in consideration" of a payment for that creative work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:36am

Re: Minght not have been NASCAR (Directly)
You're right! It might NOT have been NASCAR who filed the bogus DMCA takdeown. It might have been done by an Alan Cooper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Todd (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Thanks for the correction. Seems like a silly mistake in retrospect. I also am not an expert.

I really wish the topic of IP law was either much simpler, or much less necessary. If it is going to be necessary for everyone to understand this kind of stuff in depth just to carry out normal, everyday life, what hope do most people have of staying on the right side of the law?

I spend way too much time digging into this stuff and trying to understand it already, and still there are surprises and logical pretzels everywhere you look.

Uggh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Dirt, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re:
Give me a break!

While I don't think using DMCA like they did was in any way justified, to say they don't try to make the place as safe as possible is not true. They provide as much safety as possible while attempting to maintain an enjoyable experience for the fans.

Some people like to sit down front and get rubber flung in their face. Others like the top seats for a better view of the entire track. Until this crash, they believed they had a system that would prevent this very thing. They have modified the cars so they almost never flip like they used to just a scant 10 years ago, They added a SAFER barrier to protect the drivers, Hell, the car that was shorn in half, and the driver walked away!

If you want to stay safe from any possibility of danger, stop playing sports, stop driving or riding in a car, never fly, stay away from bars and other places where a crowd gathers, basically go hide in a cucoon, under a rock, and hope no other soul finds you. All of these are more dangerous than going to a race.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:27pm

Re:
Did you really have to invoke Godwin's Law already? I thought this discussion was still going places.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Another Avenue
But it never hurts to ask politely :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Another Avenue
YouTube's take-down system is solely DMCA based. NASCAR could have flagged it...but then again that only pertains to inappropriateness and copyright issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Minght not have been NASCAR (Directly)
Or some guy looking like Garry Cooper at the Ritz!!!!

This I can inwardly laugh at :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
Ticket Clauses do not apply one iota so you may be waiting a long time for that....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Avenue
Of course. I agree the only MEANS they have is to abuse the DMCA to take it down. I was speaking to WHY they felt compelled to do so. The assertion of "out of respect" is a thinly veiled excuse on top of a damage control CYA attempt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Terms of entry
The "In Consideration" is out the window. No matter what clause or TOS or paper signing you do in purchasing a ticket....If you create the footage....you own it. The creation clauses in copyright can be exploited (just ask the RIAA and the MPAA) but they are also fairly strong and they override any "do not make videos while watching any sporting event live" clauses in the process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:37pm

Re: Terms of entry
Would have to be in writing. YOu can't just state that you give up your copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Another Avenue
Absolutely true! I would not have faulted nascar one bit if they simply asked people to refrain from posting the videos out of respect to the victims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re: Terms of entry
And since we fans of NASCAR typically do not sign tickets..they are scanned to confirm entry...no matter what writing appears on that ticket, we are not legally obligated to follow said writings on the ticket....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brandon Rinebold (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re:
And how do you propose stopping large chunks of debris moving at 200mph without obstructing line of sight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Avenue
The only options for flagging a YouTube video are Copyright, and siting adult content in the video....Maybe it was the only avenue they could think up quickly enough to deal with the reverence of the situation...NASCAR just didn't think they could issue a public statement asking not to yet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joseph M. Durnal, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:36pm

That's Me
It was a long night last night and a long busy day at the office so I haven't read all of the comments. When I see this happen, I think of techdirt.

I had a couple of thoughts:

1. There is probably a clause when you buy or use the ticket, OK, sure, you probably do, but...

2. The mobile videos aren't offering some alternative to viewing the official telecast.

3. The mobile videos are offering something that the network cameras couldn't.

NASCAR cares a lot about its image, I'm not a huge fan but I enjoy catching a few races per season, especially the big ones, and even I know that NASCAR cares a lot about its image. I think they take safety seriously, as seriously as you can when your entertainment involves high powered automobiles circling a track at nearly 200 miles per hour. As a semi-fan, I'll have to face it, things happen, it is dangerous. How many of us have actually watched someone die? I did, Dale Earnhardt #3, sure, he was in a car, but millions watched a man die on live TV, and on endless replays. As fans and semi-fans and even non-fans, we don't want to see people get hurt, not drivers, crew, officials, or fans, etc. but when it happens, we don't want NASCAR to cover it up, even if behind the scenes we know that NASCAR is trying to figure out what went wrong and how they could prevent it in the future, while of course, preserving what makes their sport (or non sport depending on your point of view) what it is, an exciting exhibition of engineering, speed, endurance, and all that good stuff.

Thanks for the shout out. This comment was a little rambley, but I wanted to get it in before I crashed for the night.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:00pm

Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
"This is long settled law..."

Then you should have no problem presenting caselaw to back up your claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:14pm

Re: Another Avenue
"...should there be a way for them to delay the posting of such videos out of respect for the injured and their families?"

There was absolutely nothing in the video that was taken down that a reasonable person would consider disrespectful to the injured and their families. It was a lame excuse by NASCAR, who were doing it purely for image control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Fine Print
I have taken video footage at an NFL footballing contest. No black helicopters followed me home or anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:01pm

Re: Re:
You should look up the term perjury. This is NOT a court of law. People CAN lie. Typical fucking "Merican." No wonder your jails are full and lawyers are on speed dial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:03pm

Re: Re: Another Avenue
Titties and cock will get taken down quicker n dick's hatband. Violence of an indiscriminate sort too but it must be excessive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:34pm

DMCA should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:51pm

Re: Re:
Perjury is a lie committed under oath. Not applicable in this scenario.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evan, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:46pm

DCMA
This is really youtubes fault. They need to setup a process to check dcma requests are legitimate. It's very obvious this video was recorded by a fan, its all too often you hear about dcma requests being abused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave R, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:01pm

Um, what?
In the process of purchasing the tickets, there was very likely a release signed (digitally or otherwise) whereby the fans agreed that they were forbidden from taking any photos/video of the event or that any such photos/video would be property of NASCAR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sneeje (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 5:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: The copyright does belong to NASCAR, but it was fair use.
I cannot agree with you more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:22am

Re: Re: Terms of entry
"Effective tools"? Well, we Brits call an idiotic person a tool and I think we all know who is the biggest tool around these parts. Obviously our old "friend" (I use the word VERY loosely) OOTB in disguise again. Wrap up and keep warm. Sounds like you need a bit of TLC for your sad life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Fine Print
There's a difference between what's legal/illegal and what you can/can't do without having to hire an expensive lawyer, which is an example of what's wrong with copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]