What’s going on?
For those that keep an eye on the Formula 1 content creator economy, you will have seen various industry-leading creators have removed ‘F1’ from their usernames. This isn’t because they’ve decided to expand their content beyond Formula 1, but rather because of a recent crackdown by Formula One Management on the use of their intellectual property, trademarks and copyrighted materials.
While the creator economy in F1 has boomed in recent years due to Drive to Survive and the growth in popularity with younger audiences, this is not a novel approach that Formula 1 have taken this past week. Those involved in the creator economy before 2020 will know many occasions where Formula 1 have stamped down, possibly as a hangover of the Bernie Ecclestone era where media rights were kept behind a blast-proof vault door.
But it’s important to note the Formula 1 media landscape has changed, and the value of user-generated content cannot be underestimated. So what does a world look like where content creators can freely share their love for the sport without restrictions? Well, of course for legal reasons it’s a lot harder than it may seem, but it’s crucial to be having the discussion.
There are two sides…
Many creators across all major social media platforms have received emails from Formula 1 directly on a variety of issues. Whether it be the use of trademarks such as ‘F1’ and ‘FORMULA 1’ in branding, F1 intellectual property in selling merchandise, or copyrighted media in content, Formula 1’s approach to this has been measured and respectful. They understand that all creators want to do is share their love for Formula 1, and that there is no malice involved.
But it is a tricky tightrope to navigate for Formula 1. The likes of F1 Arcade, F1 Exhibition and F1 Authentics all compensate Formula 1 for a licence to use such trademarks, and Formula 1 must honour that agreement. A very similar example would be Formula 1’s multi-million dollar deals with TV broadcasters for the rights to use F1’s world feed. If Formula 1 didn’t crack down on unlicensed use of their intellectual property, they would find themselves in even hotter water.
For the creator however, you can understand why this is upsetting. They are providing Formula 1 with free publicity, and it’s not far-fetched to say that content creators played a significant role in growing the sport among younger audiences. These frustrations are certainly reflected among those affected. The incredible F1 communities garnered by content creators are a gold mine for Formula 1, spreading passion, love and excitement for the sport. If Formula 1 stamp down too hard on those that foster these communities, they may risk losing them altogether.
Where do we go from here?
So what can be done moving forward to allow content creators freedom to do what they do best, but also protect Formula 1’s important commercial agreements with other third parties? It’s a complicated question that requires a complicated solution – but it’s not impossible.
Firstly, the solution certainly isn’t to attack Formula 1 directly or to double down on the very actions that landed those in hot water. All this will do is simply worsen the problem, and alienate the possibility of finding a mutually beneficial solution. For those affected, our advice would be to follow the rules and maturely and respectfully communicate your concerns – as demonstrated brilliantly by WTF Talent’s own Caroline’s Corner.
The way this moves forward is by having open discussions and understanding the motives for each other’s standpoint. However, for progress in this matter, Formula 1 will need to be the ones to change their approach as they are the gatekeepers to such intellectual property and they decide how it can be used. If Formula 1 were to reconsider their management of intellectual property, there are some avenues that could lead to a solution.
Firstly, a creator accreditation could be conceived. This would act much like a traditional media accreditation, but would be catered specifically for the needs of content creators – primarily the ability to film on-site and use trademarks within their content and possibly branding. A creator would need to apply for this accreditation and pass certain parameters, such as following size, engagement and lack of censored content. Of course, for commercial reasons a fee could be charged to receive accreditation as an acknowledgement of those third parties that pay for a licence already as previously mentioned. This would give Formula 1 piece of mind in regards to use of content, and sets clear guidelines for content creators.
Perhaps another avenue could be a subscription model where the content creator would pay a certain amount per month for the right to use certain agreed Formula 1 intellectual property. This would work similar to a creator accreditation, but instead creators could gain access to a dashboard of F1-supplied copyright-free material and trademarks. This would make Formula 1’s life much easier when it comes to monitoring those that aren’t following the rules. Of course, there are complications around what content can be supplied, and this would need to be ironed out, but it’s a step in the right direction.
These are just two examples of how Formula 1 can embrace the value of content creators without neglecting those that pay big money for the right to use their intellectual property. While we do have new and progressive owners that have taken Formula 1 out of the stone age, there are still certain areas that are in need of modernisation. Content creation is certainly one of them.
We look forward to seeing how this space evolves and hope that change can be implemented to allow creators in this space to demonstrate their love for the sport without prosecution.
