by Andrew on Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:19 pm
We're seeing more of this with content creators, or at least those who create content that offers commentary and critique while making use of footage and assets that fall under fair use (especially when they've actually been provided by the entity in question, such as a sports league or video game developer). YouTube's policies about fair use are all over the place to begin with, and it's a system that can be abused, making it another weapon for companies who want to strong arm content creators who are critical of their product.
It's unfortunate because it ends up putting the kibosh on creators who have put in the time and effort to build their audience on the platform and make it into a viable career, over picky and petty reasons. It also sanitises opinions and reduces content creators who want to foster a relationship with these companies/entities and do things by the book to basically being marketers. The term "influencers" is thrown around a lot these days, but if you want to keep that good relationship, get the perks, and be allowed to produce your content with all the bells and whistles, and without any trouble, you're going to have the influence that the company wants you to have.
In fairness to the NBA, if they are granting the use of their footage, it's within their rights to set parameters for its use, and they may be concerned about conflicting sponsorships and the like. There are going to be brands they don't want to be associated with their brand (even indirectly) because it conflicts with one of their partnerships or is otherwise inappropriate. However, it's also a convenient way of controlling content creators, and a fallback excuse if they want to shut someone down because of their opinions ("Oh no, it's totally not that, it's the sponsorships/some other technicality!).