Chrysler Super Bowl ad mistakenly yanked from YouTube
Chrysler hoped that its Halftime in America commercial, featuring an inspirational voice-over from Clint Eastwood, would help America unite one post at a time. But its lofty ambitions were thwarted when the ad disappeared from YouTube shortly after the game, supposedly owing to a copyright claim filed by the National...
February 08, 2012 at 07:40 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Chrysler hoped that its “Halftime in America” commercial, featuring an inspirational voice-over from Clint Eastwood, would help America “unite one post at a time.” But its lofty ambitions were thwarted when the ad disappeared from YouTube shortly after the game, supposedly owing to a copyright claim filed by the National Football League (NFL).
The mystery began when the NFL denied filing a copyright claim (the ad remained posted on the league's own website). According to Google, which owns YouTube, it removed the ad after receiving a take-down notice from an unnamed third-party organization that handles copyright and trademark protection for the NFL. The vendor had apparently misidentified the commercial as halftime content, which is owned by the NFL.
Viewers could not watch the ad on Chrysler's own website, as the automaker linked to the YouTube video. Post-game viewing of the ad was especially important to the company, which was one of the only major advertisers that did not release its commercial prior to the game, according to the Wall Street Journal. Google eventually reinstated the ad after receiving a request from the NFL.
The mix-up has led some to criticize Google for overzealous enforcement of its copyright infringement policy. Under the policy, anyone filing an infringement claim must identify which copyrighted work has been infringed upon, but it is unclear what the justification for removal was in this case.
Chrysler hoped that its “Halftime in America” commercial, featuring an inspirational voice-over from Clint Eastwood, would help America “unite one post at a time.” But its lofty ambitions were thwarted when the ad disappeared from YouTube shortly after the game, supposedly owing to a copyright claim filed by the National Football League (NFL).
The mystery began when the NFL denied filing a copyright claim (the ad remained posted on the league's own website). According to
Viewers could not watch the ad on Chrysler's own website, as the automaker linked to the YouTube video. Post-game viewing of the ad was especially important to the company, which was one of the only major advertisers that did not release its commercial prior to the game, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The mix-up has led some to criticize
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute read
How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute read
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
