YouTube User Wins Copyright Spat

Judge Declines To Toss Claim Universal Music Abused Law In Battle Over Baby Dancing To Prince Song

(CNET)  A federal judge on Wednesday gave more weight to the concept of "fair use" when he threw a lifeline to a Pennsylvania mother's lawsuit against Universal Music.

The judge refused to dismiss Stephanie Lenz's suit claiming that Universal abused the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it issued a takedown notice to YouTube over a 30-second video of Lenz's baby dancing to a Prince song.

In the first ruling of its kind, Judge Jeremy Fogel held that copyright owners must consider fair use before sending DCMA takedown notices.

"Fair use is a lawful use of a copyright," the judge wrote. "Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with 'a good-faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,' the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright."

Lenz first filed suit in October 2007, after Universal requested that her video be taken down, and YouTube kept it off its site for more than a month. Lenz argues that the Prince song is barely audible in the short clip and clearly represents fair use, which allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without permission. In order to protect First Amendment rights, the DMCA allows for targets of illegitimate takedown notices to seek damages against the copyright holder.

The suit was initially thrown out of the federal court in April of this year, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing Lenz, filed a second complaint just 10 days later.

Corynne McSherry, an attorney for EFF, called the ruling "a major victory for free speech and fair use on the Internet" that will "help protect everyone who creates content for the Web."

Although Fogel refused to throw out the case a second time, he expressed doubt that Lenz would win. "The Court has considerable doubt that Lenz will be able to prove that Universal acted with the subjective bad faith," he wrote.

[no2zeebas]

prince should be dancing with joy that anyone listens to that *** he-she calls music...

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by no2zeebas

Enough people disagree with your opinion to have made Prince a very rich person.

Having said that, the DCMA should be abolished, as it has not served any other purpose than to allow private groups to sue downloaders, even pre-teens for more than half a billion dollars in the case of the RIAA, while they have yet to pay any of that money to the artists whose royalties they claim to be recovering.

DCMA doesn''t protect the creators of material, it simply codifies into law a shakedown racket.

Copyright law should be redesigned to make it impossible for anyone who is not the creator of the material, and/or the creators own designated beneficiaries, to own a copyright. After a certain time, if there are no designated beneficiaries, the material should pass into the public domain.

[rf35]

Sounds like some lawyers have too much time on their hands. What damages does this lady claim to have suffered due to the removal of the video? Yes, it was a petty move by Universal, but why perpetuate the pettiness? As for RIAA, my heart bleeds for all those poor, starving musicians they represent. I%u2019m sure Prince is on the verge of homelessness because of people like Lenz.

[gatofeo]

As a writer and photographer I''m very touchy about copyright infringement.
I once wrote a long instructional article, which I clearly marked "copyright - no use without permission," and posted it in a message board.
It was stolen, someone else put their name on it, and HE received praise meant for me.
I contacted the thief and the owner of the site with proof of its copyright. It was immediately taken down.
If I''d received credit for my work, I wouldn''t have made an issue of it.
The problem with Fair Use is that it has always been a gray area, and often a last-minute refuge of thieves and assorted scoundrels who use it to unfair advantage.
I was a journalist for 12 years and occasionally used excerpts under Fair Use in my reporting.
Professional writers, journalists and students should be protected under (limited) Fair Use. The general public should not enjoy the same level of protection.
What''s the harm in having a Prince tune accompanying a dancing baby?
Surer than Hell, someone will create a polished video using Prince''s same song. And when confronted, they''ll use the dancing baby as a defense.
Sadly, we live in a world of precedents and gray areas. Give one person a break and everyone will not only want the same break, but even more.
The doctrine of Fair Use needs to be tightened.
Until you''ve had your copyright violated, it doesn''t seem like a big deal.
But once someone uses your work for their own benefit, believe me it changes your attitude quickly.