The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial

from the nicely-done dept

Ah, the bogus takedown. The latest is that apparently the NFL somehow and for some reason took down Chrysler’s Clint Eastwood Super Bowl commercial from YouTube. Pretty much every advertiser put up their commercials on YouTube, and it’s unclear why or how the NFL might claim any sort of copyright on any of those ads. But, for some time that’s exactly what happened, making Chrysler’s own website promoting the ad look pretty silly:

Considering how much Chrysler had to pay for that ad, you have to wonder if they now feel that the NFL owes them something for making it impossible for people to watch for a while…

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: chrysler, nfl

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

Bogus copyright claims and DCMA claims ought to be a crime. And content should not be taken down under DCMA until the person who posted has a reasonable opportunity to dispute the claim.

Leaving violations up for an extra day or two probably does little damage to the rights holder, but examples like this show how huge the damage can be to the person holding the video.

Re: Re:

Absolutely. I have a lot of problems with the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA, which are basically “guilty until proven innocent” (read: a violation of due process rights), but much of my objection could be alleviated if the supposedly infringing material came down only if and when the “infringer” failed to respond to the takedown notice.


Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Exactly – thank you! It’s the law that’s broken here, not YouTube.

Agreed, but it would be nice to see YouTube do something proactive about this. Something simple even, like x amount (or percentage or something) of successfully countered notices and the rights holder loses automatic take down privileges and has to file paper notices. They wouldn’t lose DMCA protection that way, would they?


Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Eh, I was mistaken. The counternotification procedures are to protect the service provider from liability to the user, not the person making the infringement.

Anyway, the safe harbors only require that the service provider “act expeditiously” after receiving the notice, so there at least ought to be time to contact the user, as opposed to just acting immediately.

At any rate, Chrysler probably has a claim for damages against the NFL here unless there’s some reason the NFL thought it had rights that were legitimately infringed.


Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Anyway, the safe harbors only require that the service provider “act expeditiously” after receiving the notice, so there at least ought to be time to contact the user, as opposed to just acting immediately.

There are substantial penalties for failing to act expeditiously, whatever that means. The penalty for acting too quickly is absolutely nothing. So you can see what the law causes service providers to do.


Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“There are substantial penalties for failing to act expeditiously, whatever that means.”

Not necessarily. I mean, if it’s not infringement in the first place, there’s no “penalty.” Even if it is infringement, the service provider might not be liable. However, they know they’re not liable if they act expeditiously to disable it.

You’re right, thought, that the incentives are in favor of disabling access, except for those service providers who feel there is a market advantage to developing a reputation for standing up to such notices.


Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

” if it’s not infringement in the first place, there’s no “penalty.”

You want your 15$ an hour worker who process DCMA claims making that call or are you going to have him take down whatever is requested and let the counterclaim department pass anything that looks interesting(if the defendant keeps calling foul after you tell him he is a thief) to the lawyers?


Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not lose DMCA protections. Get this ridiculous law overturned. Everyone saw this coming over a decade ago when this farce of a law was passed.

There are potentially huge compliance for not taking it down. There should be equally, if not significantly larger costs for a false DMCA claim.

The penalties for false DMCA takedowns need to have some serious teeth.


Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The penalties for false DMCA takedowns need to have some serious teeth.”

Agreed. And if I ran the world, once someone was found liable for a DMCA false takedown declaration, that entity would have all their current copyrights transferred to the public domain.

That would teach the bastards.


Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Excellent Point.

I have been a proponent of retrograde reform of copyright (Explicit registration and short terms) but even I am coming to the point where I am mad enough about all of this to just see copyright abolished completely.

Copyright no longer serves a purpose worth the “Lawyer Tax” that comes with it.


Re: Re: Re: Re:

notice and notice instead of notice and takedown. That is – give the person a chance to contest the takedown claim. If it is obviously infringing, the person would not generally contest the takedown. If the takedown is a mistake/ over-reach/ covered by fair use, that gives the person a chance to respond. Not perfect but an improvement certainly.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A site (eg YouTube) should have safe harbor protection as long as either of the following happen:
1. YouTube receives counter notice to keep the video up — at that point all liability for any actual infringement is now on the party giving the counter notice.
2. YouTube does not receive a counter notice within some specified time — at which point YouTube takes the video down to keep its safe harbor protection.

Either way:
1. The party who put up the video can contest the takedown and assume liability. (And also sue in the case of a false DMCA takedown.)
2. The party who put up the video does not contest, and the video goes down. (And the DMCA filer might sue the party who put up the video for infringement.)


Re: Re:

You see Youtube should make as easy to contest something as it is easy to complain about it and let people fight it in the courts, just put a form “this video has been contested do you wish to file a counter notice to have it up and running again?” and the step by step with warnings of what may happen, including the fact that if the guy can prove that somebody acted in bad faith they would be responsible for all his legal fees in court of course this only applies to people who don’t work a normal 8 to 5 job otherwise risking your job over a Youtube video seems ridiculous.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Bots! Damn bots!

This is the problem when the takedowns are automated. Now when a powerful player like Chrysler gets their rights infringed you can bet someone moves on it right away to correct the situation, but if it’s some powerless dweeb whose free speech is being taken away it’s just “oh well, guess you’re SOL…”

This is why the penalties for false takedown should be equal to the penalties for infringement.


Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!

You Tube does invite people, under their terms and services, to place videos on their site so if Chrysler followed them You Tube has an obligation to keep them up.

The NFL issed a DCMA takedown notice on a video they didn’t own the rights to. While You Tube did follow the rules one could say that Chrysler has grounds for an action against the NFL or at least the rights to get very, very pissed off at the NFL and the perfect right to tell them so as Chrysler owns the rights to the ad NOT the NFL.


make false take downs punishable with as big a fines as genuine ones and one of the huge corporations that have been threatened by and complied with the NFL, have the balls to take them on! they are as bad as the rest of the ‘entertainment industries’ (watching a match is entertainment, right?) and have probably been coached by them anyway


Too bad for those not watching the Super Bowl!

According to family and friends, this was the one commercial that was really good, too…

Seriously, NFL – you already GOT your paycheck for the runtime of this ad, so what the hell do you have to gain by issuing a takedown notice? The whole point of putting ads in the Super Bowl is so the product makers get more exposure!

Well, I could look it like this: Maybe Chrysler will rethink its relationship with the NFL.


video is back up. Now the blame game is playing out. NFL says they didn’t request the takedown – Google screwed up. Google says they only take down videos from a request but are not yet presenting the request.

YouTube expeditiously removes content when it receives a copyright notification from copyright owners, or from third party agencies operating on their behalf. We reinstate content when we receive a retraction from the party who originally submitted the notification. The video has been reinstated.

I replied to the spokesperson:

The NFL says they never filed a complaint about the video — even though the video screen said there was a complaint from NFL Properties LLC. Was it taken down due to some type of auto filtering technology that YouTube uses?

Your statement doesn’t really say what happened in this case. Thanks.

The YouTube spokesperson’s response:

No, a video comes down when we receive a copyright complaint about a specific video from the copyright holder, or from the third party agency that they designate to make such complaints on their behalf.

Then I ask back:

So did the NFL’s third party agency make the complaint? Because the NFL itself is telling me they didn’t complain.

(hope that’s not a copyright violation by quoting them…)



It’s back up now. And it’s a great ad. Not just for America as a country but for those who find themselves with their backs against the wall as individuals.

It’s great.

Whatever bot or idiot at the NFL filed the takedown should be taken out and given a really good talking to about publicity and what the Internet and You Tube can do for them.

This time around the Internet and You Tube are probably saying really, really nasty things. Like here.


Something here does not compute. The NFL is DMCA and copyright savvy, so it seems rather unlikely it would send a takedown notice to YouTube. Looking around at other reports, it seems pretty clear that none of the principals have a firm handle on how this happened, which is confirmed by everyone saying they are investigating what transpired.

Indignation leveled at copyright law and the DMCA may prove to be premature, and perhaps even wrong.


Re: Re:

…Indignation leveled at copyright law and the DMCA may prove to be premature, and perhaps even wrong.

Why? The reason this entire episode occurred was due to the DMCA as it is written. I actually hope Chrysler takes the NFL to court for tortuous interference with their business plan and that the NFL pay treble damages…


Re: Re:

What? Someone filed a false DMCA takedown notice as a ‘trusted third party’ without being a trusted third party????

Sounds like a case of fraud and theft of content (sure it’s back now… but they stole it and it was gone for a while there….)

… I would make a point, but why when I can make three … and imply ‘something’….

know what I mean?


Part of me wonders...

Apparently Karl Rove and other neo-conservative talking heads were out bashing the commercial today, saying it was too pro-Obama… Which it was pro-US automakers… (Chrystler in particular) So.. I kinda wonder if it was taken down by someone not in favor of that type of pro-US recovery message


Re: Re: Part of me wonders...

Personally I think Rove is upset at the big lie in the video

“Detroit almost lost everything. But we all pulled together and now Motor City is fighting again”

Dammit we all did NOT pull together. Rove and Romney and the rest of the GOP were AGAINST saving Detroit and millions of jobs.

They just want to make sure that is clear….oh wait ๐Ÿ˜‰

Franklin G Ryzzosays:

Re: Re: Penalty

The maximum statutory damage per non-commercial private infringement is $150,000… this should be the minimum penalty for a bogus takedown, especially one that is based on a commercial scale. Chrysler’s ad was in place for commercial gain and they were deprived of that commercial venture by the takedown.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalty

If you want to put penalties in this mess at least make sure it will apply equally to people with a billion dollars in the bank as the people who have nothing at all.

Do it as a percentage of earnings before tax not a fixed value, the more you earn the less it hurts and the more it hurts the majority of people.


Re: Re: Chevy's advert

The advertisement (the one I saw on the web at has a great many trademark “issues” from the direct reference to Ford to the Twinkies box.

It’s not a trademark issue to show or mention a brand name product in a commercial (or any other context) unless there’s likelihood of customer confusion. Trademark holders just want you to think it is.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow