Is NASCAR YouTube about to change forever? 

And that’s something I don’t disagree with. While it’s a massive gray area, I’d be a bit more understanding if NASCAR had communicated that they were going to start cracking down on this a bit more clearly rather than simply mass claiming them virtually overnight. Been watching your videos for years my man! Keep up the good work (at least as much as that’s possible going forward) and #FlyEaglesFly

Reaction videos have always been a gray area, but if it's part of a larger purge like this without any warning or set guidelines...the lack of communication is honestly the most frustrating thing here.

It’s wild. It’s far too widespread to just be a coincidence…

@@bcschneider53 Demise90 said he even got pinged by NASCAR for non-NASCAR motorsports content, like one of his Indy 500 vids.

Is that you Matt? Appreciate the support! I share your concerns 100%

@@bcschneider53 Yes it is! Happy to support, I appreciate that you thought to include my view in your video.

Eh, I still think it's a net win overall. Someone else brought up NASCAR Classics, which may be part of it, but my hypothesis is still on the production studio. But who knows for sure at this point...

Your points have some validity to them for sure. But I'd take slight issue with the "riding NASCAR's coattails" accusation. Again, this isn't an issue of RU-vidrs re-uploading full, unedited broadcasts and trying to claim monetization rights on them. In the vast majority of circumstances, they're only using *small excerpts* from those broadcasts to supplement and illustrate their own original content. Are some creators more, well, creative than others? No doubt. But for those that are pouring their heart and soul into the work that they're producing, I think it would at least be nice to have some communication as to where the line is being drawn.

@@bcschneider53 While I empathize with creators' passion, I think the line has been made very clear. Fair use is NOT the only factor that qualifies for monetization. Fair use I protects your video's EXISTENCE on the internet. Using the likeness of any teams' sponsors, cars, or NASCAR's broadcasts at all can disqualify anyone from monetization if you're not employed by NASCAR, because they are all trademarked. Anyone can USE their likeness for fair use, but not anyone can make MONEY off their likeness. I believe the difference here is very clear. Most RU-vidrs have Patreon or other means to accept donations anyways, so I dont see a reason why this is big deal unless the sole purpose of creating videos is to make money.

@@RU-vidAuditor1 Hey, fair enough. Your ability to agree to disagree without being disrespectful does not go unnoticed. I truly appreciate it. The events of recent days have sparked quite a discussion, and I'm happy the conversation is being had.

@@bcschneider53 Conversing respectfully and professionally is the only way to change someone's perspective. I duly recognize your passion for the NASCAR RU-vid community, and whole heartedly share the same sentiment. I also believe creators deserve to have their productions funded 100%, because videos take ridiculous amounts of time to record, edit, review, render, and upload. Theres plenty of documentaries and shows that are fantastically put together by folks who aren't employed by NASCAR. It's a great means of exposure to topics and events that otherwise go ignored. I do think NASCAR and it's partners are going about this the wrong way, by shrinking their rate of exposure instead of helping to expand it, because without reimbursement, there's no incentive. They've profited more than enough already. However, a lot of folks from the inside started out doing volunteer work before making a real career out of it. There's no reason why RU-vidrs can't do the same. I wish NASCAR would partner with social media influencers more to create incentives for reporting, so they don't have to do their own PR, because right now it just isn't working. Nobody really wants to go to nascars website to hear them toot their own horn. There's clearly a market for licensing RU-vidrs to create documentaries, podcasts, and other digital endeavors, because otherwise they wouldn't claim your videos. The Internet is still relatively young in the world, so perhaps in the future we could see monetization policies change with a Supreme Court ruling, but for now it doesnt look to be headed that way with NASCARs newfound investment into internet streaming platforms. Go to your local short tracks, buy pit passes, document your experiences digitally, and try to interview teams and drivers. You might find someone who knows someone, and end up licensing your footage for real money or find something else really cool you might like doing like working for the track, or even managing social media for one of the teams.

That’s where fair use comes in. No one is asking to monetize reuploads of full races without transforming the content through original commentary. The broadcasted content is meant to illustrate and supplement the videos, not replace and infringe upon the copyright of the original. And even then, non-monetized channels have been uploading full races without issue for years. If a new line is being created, I’d at least like it to be made clear where exactly it’s being drawn.

​@@bcschneider53 It's a gray area for fair use, because while the videos are typically based on commentary and criticism, does the point of the video benefit from the footage being shown? Like if I was pointing out flaws in the NASCAR Overtime system and I showed 5 examples of where it went wrong, I feel like that's in fair use, but just showing random racing footage for background I don't believe is protected in the fair use portion. Obviously, there's no straight guidelines to the fair use doctrine, and I'm absolutely not a lawyer, but I feel like if this was taken to a court of law, NASCAR would likely win against a fair few NASCAR RU-vidrs, but there would be some that may use it in a way to better convey their commentary or criticisms that would win. All about how they use the footage, not if they use it.

@@mistertheking Oh no doubt, your first example is 100% what I was referring to. Your second example would be much harder to defend (which is why I used video game footage in the background where I didn't have screenshots in this very video). It's a tough thing to define, but as I said, it's not like that definition has changed since this latest round of demonetization started happening either.

@@bcschneider53 You're absolutely right, and that's down to NASCAR finally putting their foot down on the footage they own. Is it the right thing to do? Perhaps morally no, but at the same time they're well within their rights to do it. Hopefully this means more NASCAR produced content on RU-vid and more NASCAR races are uploaded to their NASCAR Classics website. NASCAR RU-vidrs will make it work I feel, just a matter of changing how they've made videos in the past to conform with stricter guidelines.

​@@misterthekingNASCAR will not produce anywhere near the interesting content currently offered by people like Brock and Slapshoes. It's just gonna be more "rah rah NASCAR is great" and "let's profile Chase Elliott 6 different ways" stuff. Anything about important subjects or rarely told stories will never happen.

since the comment i got 3 more strikes

Lol it's all good here right now. It's actually straight from another video on my own channel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WWq8hdQFTZU.html

They’re within their right for copyright so gross probably isn’t the right word- but it’s a gray area in terms of fair use.

It is sad, though

…sir, this is a Wendy’s

I wouldn't quite go *that* far, but the frustration is certainly getting to a breaking point.

“Fare” use?

That’s bullcrap…..

Again, this isn't an issue of RU-vidrs re-uploading full, unedited broadcasts and trying to claim monetization rights on them. In the vast majority of circumstances, they're only using *small excerpts* from those broadcasts to supplement and illustrate their own original productions. I would call that "fair use," not "profiting off of NASCAR's own content."

Who says people will profitting off of them?

I think you’ve completely missed the point of “fair use.” Also, “going to the races” was a reference to working in the media center to create more content, whether it be for their own channel or for another outlet, which is not exactly something fans are doing…

I’d argue that, especially in the era we currently face regarding Nascar within the public eye. Content creators are crucial, for the newcomers and the longtime fans. Coverage means everything, especially if there’s a story to tell. From the teams that finish in the back to the frontrunners who are a threat to win. Without the Content Creator, these story’s could never see the light of day and captivate someone’s interest into becoming a fan. There’s also the issue where Nascar Media Group is copyrighting Gameplay footage. But that’s can of worms that’s to be opened later

@@fakeboi_ false

So we can't voice our concerns about what's happening on this platform just because we're not taken by surprise by it?

@bcschneider53 you can voice all the concerns you want. I'm just pointing out the fact that Nascar has no leadership and they could not care less about you or your concerns.

@@jamesmelissawhite4807 ...they literally addressed it on social media: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nldsMXpRTJw.html

That's...not nearly as simple or easy as it sounds...

What part of "Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for FAIR USE for purpose such a as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statues that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of FAIR USE" is so difficult to understand?

You should not profit off someone else’s intellectual property. You guys would be the first to strike someone’s video if they used your content.

@@TarHeelsKenny No, we would strike someone if they reuploaded our content without ANY sort of modification or transformation to supplement their own. I’d have no problem with anyone using my words provided they use it to help illustrate their own point in their own context. Ripping the entire video and reuploading it as their own to monetize is a completely different issue. Again, “fair use” is a thing.

That’s bs and you know it.

That’s bs and you know it.

Nepotism