RSSEFF Sues Universal Music Over Yanked Baby Dancing Video
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published July 25, 2007, 2:19 PM
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is defending a Pennsylvania mother whose YouTube video of her daughter dancing in her kitchen to a Prince song during the last Super Bowl halftime show, was yanked in response to a fair use complaint. Ms. Stephanie Lenz is suing Universal Music Group, with EFF's assistance, demanding reparations.
The basis of Lenz' suit, filed yesterday in US District Court for Northern California, is that her 29-second portrayal of her daughter dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" constituted "a self-evident non-infringing fair use under 17 U.S.C. [section] 107."
At stake are the potentially thousands of videos showing any number or manner of family members, large and small, including pets, who happen to be dancing to music that's been copyrighted. Last June 4, UMG protested to YouTube that the video's content infringed upon its copyright. As per its policy, it removed the video without question, and then informed Lenz it did so on June 6.
As the suit claims, Lenz then sent YouTube a counter-notification insisting the video be reinstated, though has yet to receive a response.
As US law explains, "fair use" constitutes those exceptions to copyright law where copying, in whole or in part, is permissible. Many scholars know the following language by heart: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."
That's one of four factors, the second of which is the nature of the copyrighted work itself, the third being the extent to which the work was excerpted (in this instance, less than half a minute), and the fourth the impact the excerpt would have on the market - in this case, whether seeing a little girl dancing to Prince would provoke people not to buy Prince music.
But that first factor is a significant test, because while Ms. Lenz evidently had no interest in profiting from her family video, she may not have intended it to be educational or academic - for teaching little girls to dance.
Although UMG has not issued a statement about this affair, it's foreseeable that it could actually use this "first factor test" in its defense. In which case, the academic or educational value of freely shared videos may need to be considered -- if UMG prevails -- in determining whether excerpts of copyrighted content they happen to contain can be considered "fair use."
It seems to me that everyone is assuming that a music company made the complaint. No where in this article does it say that. Only that there was a fair use complaint.
I guess that can be infered from the article, but did I miss it being clearly stated? Did EFF make this assumption, or do they have confirmation as to who made the complaint?
It could have very well been issued by the National Football League which clearly states that no broadcast can be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed written consent of the NFL.
So, technically one could say that she was violating the NFL's terms of use...
It is a stretch, but regardless, what type of "damages" does she claim?
Score: 0
|Last June 4, UMG protested to YouTube that the video's content infringed upon its copyright.
Can you read?
Score: 0
|What stupidity. Sheer madness. I expect to see this reversed.
Score: 0
|There goes a rediculous number of youtubes content right there. Maybe that is their goal, make youtube remove a whole lot of content so its not so popular?
I can understand if you don't want a 30 min episode of king of queens on there complete with edited commercials. But removing a video because a little girl is dancing to a song is just ridiculous. So anytime you hear some music in the back round while filming your buddy's hanging out and its posted on youtube will be taken off just the same?
It's madness, these people are turning into 5 year olds. That's mine! That's mine! That's mine! And this too! What next? I mean all this madness is doing nothing to help them make more sales, its hurting them very badly in every conceivable way not just the pocket book.
I mean the second these people are ready to file bankruptcy protection, they should be acting like this. They are still making a rediculous amount of money, the market is changing and they are trying to hold on to traditional ways by going against the current and poping a few holes in their boat in the process.
Score: 0
|If a video showing someone farting during 30 seconds. The noise of the farts sounds accidentally similar to Prince music. Would that constitute a copyright violation?
Score: 0
|Scott,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it up to the judge to determine whether it falls under fair use and that it does not have meet all four criteria?
AFAIK, it can meet just one of those criteria (mainly the "will it stop folks from buying the CD"), and be considered fair use. If I am not mistaken, that is the exact portion of the fair use exceptions used to defend backups.
{edit sued!=used} D'oh!
Score: 0
|Sounds right to me.
Score: 0
|Just reading this made me think of the 4H fair talent show I was at for my 6 year old neice, she played the violin but many other acts contained copywrited music, shouldnt the RIAA be going after all the little kids at 4H fairs doing talent shows that involve a song? That could be an extra income stream for them.
Score: 0
|Don't give them any more ideas! I am sure that is next on their list. They are currentl scouring youtube looking anything they can possibly go after. I mean they are probably paying some poor loser in India to watch you tube for 10 hours looking for anything with music in it they have the rights to.
Score: 0
|Okay, help me understand correctly, she's being sued by Prince cuz his music was being played in the background of this video clip? Damn, so does this mean, that I can't be driving around with my music out loud because I will be "broadcasting" to the public?...the world ends tomorrow or sometime soon...damn, damn, damn...
Score: 0
|it sounds like you didn't read the story.
she's NOT being sued by Prince.
she's suing Prince's publishing company for claiming copyright infringement where there is none.
as for playing music too loud in your car, yes it could actually be called copyright violation because you are doing public performance without prior permission.
Score: 0
|as for playing music too loud in your car, yes it could actually be called copyright violation because you are doing public performance without prior permission.
Only if there's an actual performance going on and that this 'public performance' in your car would draw people from the other. Otherwise, it would likely be seen as fair use as it's not going to have any impact on the market.
Score: 0
|So what about all the kids at school concerts who dance to thier favorite music and having thier schools make money off of it. I would think those fair use people wouldnt like that.
Score: 0
|Lol, damn the way this is going and by the way it sounds, makes me think that pretty soon they will implement a license to listen to music from now on, lol...which is stupid but anyway, I get it.
Score: 0
|Did you read the article?
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
Nonprofit doesn't mean they make no money. All public schools are "nonprofit" organizations.
Score: 0
|I think it's even worse than that. These companies don't want us to OWN anything, they want us to continue to pay for the "privilage". After all, residual income is a much better profit-model ... and if the MPAA and RIAA have proven anything, it's that people will go to extraordinary lengths for the sake of money.
Score: 0
|The Electronic Frontier Foundation is defending a Pennsylvania mother whose YouTube video of her daughter dancing in her kitchen to a Prince song during the last Super Bowl halftime show, was yanked in response to a fair use complaint. Ms. Stephanie Lenz is suing Universal Music Group, with EFF's assistance, demanding reparations.
"Defending?" More like "assisting in a wasteful lawsuit." Reparations for what, by the way? Nobody has an inherent right to post to YouTube.
I'm a huge supporter of the EFF, but it's time to be the bigger man. They rail on Big Music for suing 12-year-olds and such, so it seems like frivolous litigation would be beyond them.
Score: 0
|>Nobody has an inherent right to post to YouTube.
neither can corporations claim copyright on anything they wish.
copyright is not an absolute law. there are many exceptions that permit use of copyrighted content with permissions, and this is one of them.
this is a perfect case to show the power of FAIR USE clause in the copyright law.
she deserves to get multi-million $ judgement to bloody the nose of UMG, so that next time they would actually file proper copyright violation claims and not search youtube for "prince" and send takedown notices to every single result.
Score: 0
|People have probably looked at other landmark cases with similar disdain. After all, I'm sure that people scoffed at suit filed by the parents of Laura Brown.
Is this case going to be as significant as Brown vs. Board of Education? Probably not... But she has the right to have her case filed.
Score: 0
|Whoa,
only if she agrees to give me 50% of the multimillion dollar judgement.
Score: 0
|This is an important lawsuit, because it will mean people have the right to post music when someone is dancing, even when it has music in it they are dancing to that is copyrighted.
I mean when it comes down to it why can't these people just figure out what is completely rediculous and what isn't? This mother didn't give a crap about prince or whatever else, she was recording her daughter dancing. So if that is the focus why are they going to great lengths to do this crap? It's obvious.
Score: 0
|So if they got their way you'd basically have to make sure ANY time you're recording a video that there's NO copyrighted music playing in the background or you could potentially be sued or have your video yanked. How ridiculous is that?
Score: 0
|yes lets battle one ridiculous thing with another in court ...
what reparations does she hope to get? how exactly was she harmed by having her video removed?
Score: 0
|She probably doesn't care if she gets $.01. Courts don't hear cases where Party A doesn't like what Party B did. There has to be a consequence/reward to be heard in court.
Since she hired a lawyer (and he wants to make money), she is probably acting on her lawyer's advice.
Score: 0
|Sometimes you file a lawsuit because it's the right thing to do... clips are fair use, and while you can see why Universal would be protective of their assets, this was not appropriate for them to do.
Battling for Fair Use is hardly ridiculous. Letting go of your Fair Use rights is ridiculous.
Score: 0
|Precisely.
Score: 0
|