by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
censorship, crash, daytona, dmca, nascar, takedowns

google, nascar, youtube

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

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

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:

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.