just in case anyone wants to know about "fair use" issue, here's is a link:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Also, I wonder if Betanews got permission to show the clip on this site? to Answer to this one has to be according to "fair use", betanews can use the clip.

Have a nice day:)

Anyone want to party like it is 1999?

..a geez... I think I might have been over the fair-use on that statement?

..nope, never mind, it's cool, just scared myself a little there.

I belive you all skipped an important detail:
The video is exactly 30 seconds.

It is the common believe that a clip of at much 30 seconds, is under fair use, when distributed as part of something else, and not as the clip itself

As a concrete example, song clips of such duration are often used in a specific public audio forum to share about problems found in lossy codecs.
In that case, what interests is not the clip itself, but the problems (or absence of them) that it causes.

In the context of this videoclip, it is pretty trivial to see that it's a home recording, and what matters is the boy, not the song, even if he's actually dancing to that song.

It's fair use to make a parody of something, to quote some part of some book, even if it is in public press.
That's why i see the suing out of place, and the Judge decision as just common sense and application of the law.
Fair use precisely exists to protect the people against this.

It is the common believe that a clip of at much 30 seconds, is under fair use, when distributed as part of something else, and not as the clip itself


Common Belief does not a law make.

As a concrete example, song clips of such duration are often used in a specific public audio forum to share about problems found in lossy codecs.

You mean, for research and educational purposes? Of course. Such is provided for under Fair Use.

Fair use precisely exists to protect the people against this.

You've utterly failed to connect the dots. Fair Use allows infringement in certain instances. Public posting on Youtube is *not* one of them.

Perhaps you need to take another gander at what the criteria are for Fair Use arguments to apply?

Nothing in the copyright law or the clause related to fair use specifies a time frame or number of words etc...

Taking from the link that tscar13 posted:

"There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission."

But yet, it's the 3rd point to take in consideration:

"3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

So while it is not written in stone, the 30 second mark most often than not is fair use.

Of course, that alone doesn't make it fair (just think about ringtones for cell phones, which usually are just cut down versions, but which of course have to pay copyrights).

The article again, says:

"incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

Since it is implied that YouTube is a broadcast, I believe that it still fits in the above description.

True about the 3Rd point in the link. But 30 seconds of a song that last app. 2- 2.5 minutes does constitute a probable violation of point 3.

Also, Braodcast, in other rulings relates to TV or radio and not the internet so the last point wouldn't save YouTubby but that's just my opinion and , frankly, I think it smells of someone wanting to make money.

Have a nice day:)

If the work appeared as background noise, or unintentionally, that might be the case.

The work was central. The kid was dancing to the song.

Look, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that this is determinately not a clear cut issue.

Fair Use is purposefully vague and unclear and is judged on a case by case basis, not by precedent or some set-in-stone set of circumstances.

well, now the question is if website like this one can take down/remove comments posted against articles or adverse recommendations of a product or services, simply because it is convenient.

Read the terms of use - or is that an infringement upon YOUR rights too?

Oh right, we forgot you can't read.
And even if you could, if it is inconvenient for you, you simply ignore the terms and declare them greedy SOBs.

Go find your rock and crawl back under it.

Calm down sweetie pie.

Nice to see the labels are in here posting, because anyone with a clear thought in their head wouldn't have posted that tripe. Nice try though. "If you could read" lololololololololololmmm

You missed his completely non sequitur response where he erroneously analyzed his own fantasy position based upon his assumptions rather than on an actual reading of what was stated.

Kisses snookums.

don't be such a projectionist, troll.

don't you know that take down notifications are in the terms of the agreement.

glad someone pointed that out.

You missed the boat. Posting here has nothing to do with copyright law unless what you have posted violates said law.

Now if someone talks about certain aspects of a product they have tried offered on this site, that would be covered by "fair use".

Have a nice day:)

ok..I'll bite..where is Betanews' TOS? I know they will delete things at any time for any reasons (it says so in their question section of Help) but I can't find a TOS.

I will say that "fair use" applies to the mother but I wonder if it really applies, in this case, to the forum YouTubby- sorry about the spelling but who cares, "fair use" covers parody even if the parody is not that good. YouTubby is a forum that is based on a profit model if I am not mistaken and I wonder if "fair use" really does apply to them. Afterall, they did receive a notice of takedown as did the mother.

Finally, I think the following is a bit of the stretch of the law but never underestimate a good attorney to know how to stretch the meaning of legalities as long as they get paid.

"Her legal theory was tortious interference with her (unwritten) contract with YouTube: specifically, that UMG was using the law (tort) as a weapon against her right to post whatever YouTube believes she has a right to post."

The law determines what is copyright material and can be posted. It is the job of forums to make sure the law is followed. Finally, to the best of my knowledge, there is no unwritten contract implied in a public forum - only the forums rules which can be challenged and the law which also can be challenged. I am still trying to figure this one out "Simply issuing an unnecessary takedown notice, according to Lenz' argument noted by the judge, can cause injury to the recipient because of the controversial nature of takedown notices themselves. Notice, for instance, that Stephanie Lenz and her little boy (we called him a girl in our original story, we're sorry) are now public figures, if only in a minor sense. UMG should have taken that into account before it started all this, the judge stated. As a result, the music rights holder may now actually owe Lenz damages, the amount of which (the judge warns it could be "nominal") is yet to be determined" ah, the sweet smell of greenbacks.

Have a nice day:)

the tos issue was presented by the troll.

however, people forget that the first amendment of the u.s. constitution is one of the foundation of our laws.

many entities that beleive to be above federal law also believe they have a right to suppress freedom of speech.

As my Grand Father used to tell me

A HOG IS A FUNNY ANIMAL!

I think Prince should sue UMG for making him look like an ass.

It didn't take this to make him look like an ass. He had achieved that way before this.

Go figure, he seems like a very conceeded artist. I just dont understand why he would do this to a mother with a 2yr old child having fun to the music. I see nothing wrong with this at all. Prince has and always had horrible music. I certianly hope the RIAA and prince learn from this that they are pathetic.

What's laughable is that Prince, or the symbol, or the artist formally known as normal, doesn't use any of his more "colorful" music in concert anymore because it's DIRTY. Funny,funny,funny, since he was the biggest dog on the planet. There wasn't a white chick alive that he didn't get his "mits" on. Talk to Sheena Easton. she's probably still screwed up.

For good measure I just queued Prince's entire library with Isohunt. I wouldn't feel right if I didn't boost his entire catalog and seed it for the rest of the the world.

...and I suppose because you haven't deprived anyone of physical property...it's all good, right?

Yeah...such a Hero...

I knew she would win. That prince(ss) UMG or whoever thought of the idea of suing are idiots and were foolish to think it was wrong. Tomorrow what if i decide to click my picture in public and by accident some jack a** celebrity gets caught in it and he starts suing me for clicking his pic. I would counter sue him for disturbing my picture.
To be frank i hate that guys music , i often flicked to other channels when they played his sick numbers.

Just because of this story, I am going to go download five first run movies and a few gigs of mp3s.

This story is 100% typical of the thug tactics the RIAA/MPAA use. Nothing but pure thugs.... the modern day Mafia. Literally.

"Prince" or whatever his name is, should be grateful for the publicity of this his lousy song, of which there are far too many. Universal should be ashamed of themselves.

OK Foxfyre, whats next for you? Sheet music? Anyone playing sheet music for their own entertainment and not for any profit what so ever, they are guilty of your brand of piracy as well?

OK Put a bullet in them for playing the piano with your precious little copyrighted product.

A Movie director is making a product FOR PROFIT. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND YOU DAM WELL KNOW IT.

True Piracy is the loss from right of First sale from the content owners. When there is no profit there is no loss of sale and thus no piracy. That has been copyright law and fair use for decades, and DMCA Fed it all up and now everyone accuses everyone of everything so No one is happy. Thats why the DMCA was so poorly made and has yet to be corrected. No one knows how to get this ball stopped yet, and thats what has to happen before a Digital Consumers Rights act can be made law. As had to happen with Betamax and other similar cases when copyright laws were last truly tested. Next thing you know people will be suing god for creation.

Thing is the Industry is so fearful of another betamax type ruling they will not allow it to go to the high courts as it should have years ago. They know full well what they are doing is not in the consumers interest, and that is what laws are there to do. Protect the PUBLIC, not the Corporations poorly calculated bottom line.

You know what is amazing about you? You don't let anything actually said deter you from your wacko fantasy.

I have said that the party who is guilty here is UMG, the company posting the material.

They refused the request from Prince's publishing folks to remove the copyrighted material, and they have now rendered the woman as an actionable party.

THEY are the ones who should be held culpable.

Prince has a right to control how his material is disseminated in the public without compensation - regardless of what you may think of him or his music. And the woman, unless she has sought some financial return from the material is certainly entitled to her personal movie for HER PERSONAL use, but publishing it is another matter! It is no longer personal use! DUH!!! At this point, the request of Prince's agnts for removal of the material is prudent if they so decide.

What is amazing is that idiots like you refuse (or, more likely you are simply unable) to read for meaning and simply jump to the PRESS's inflation of the story to state that Prince is going after some mom.

And this 'true piracy being the loss of first sale? LOL! OK, so if I make one identical digital copy, and then duplicate this a million times, I am 'guilty' of making one copy. Your head is so far up you @ss you can't see where you are going.

I will have to remember this if I become a counterfeiter. The Secret Service - you know - that heinous bunch of folks who are simply money grubbing bandits when it comes to duplicating money and redistributing it for profit, will enjoy the laugh.

Try you asinine logic with counterfeiting money! Here, we'll help you out fool: You can even use the 'but money really isn't money but simply a symbol of something else of real value' BS line.

SO get a clue D F.

I am not one for bashing anyone's comments, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. What you do say in fact here is true. However, for someone prying on others posts by trying to sound intelligent, you have terrible spelling and grammar skills.

The entire point of this article is to show how ridiculous Universal is being over something that is clearly still under the fair use amendment. There are 30 seconds of sampling allowed by law without monetary gain to be projected to the public (ie: any music download service allows you a 30 second preview free, as do other websites that offer music downloads). Universal has the majority of rights to the music, not Prince. Record labels steal that privilege away from artists when they get signed, they have limited rights (if any) to what they can and cannot do with their own music. Prince cannot really be blamed here. The sheer fact Universal even acknowledged this video as copyright infringement seems like such a waste of time and money they should be using to harvest more artists which will make them more profits in the long run. Universal has been making a lot of bad choices these days, look at their strong endorsement for HD-DVD... that technology went over like a sack of bricks. I think they still may be sore over that decision, trying to make it up in other areas of their company. I respect the judge for not giving into this ridiculous mockery people try to make out of the judicial system for their own ridiculous fraudulent gains. They're no worse then the issues they pretend to be fighting against.

So, say, a movie director need not worry about paying artist royalties if, instead of directly employing a song in a soundtrack, they simply shoot a scene where the song is playing on the radio in the background.

Requests for playlists should skyrocket.

Fascinating.

Why do I get the feeling that if this asinine video is used in a commercial venture, that this same ditz won't want a piece of that action?

Are you actually saying she's in the wrong by videoing her kid dancing to something that's on the TV?

And why not?
It is free publicity to the song if only a small part song passes in the movie.
People should think on start working and stop trying to live from others work, like parasites.
This is how i view all "music companies" and patent companies, that invent stuff and wait years until someone has same idea, to suck some money.

This is how i also view some American companies... parasites... and i don't want to start talking about oil...

What?

Did you even read the post?

The property owner has the right to decide if they want that publicity. It is their material and they should be consulted and compensated if such material is used in another's work.

This decision not only degates that initial right, but provides grounds for compensation of a dweeb who uses it without permission!

Wow, I should make a series of YouTube spots using other's songs and then submit a bill to them for advertising! And if I put a BMW in them, I wonder if I can demand a BMW be provided as compensation from BMW? Or, why stop there...I see a Bentley in my future!

If the music owner objects, they have rights over the use of their material - especially if there is a commercial motive.

YouTube, like it or not, is not personal use.

I don't see how this is the same thing....the movie director is presumably making a movie for money and (from what you describe), the radio music is not being used for commentary or criticism purposes (another kind of fair use), rather it's integral to the scene. Thus royalties would be required.

In particular, if that video was used in a commercial venture, the (why is she a) "ditz" could reasonable be entitled to a piece of the action but there would be costs as well.

What's the problem?

------------------------
So, say, a movie director need not worry about paying artist royalties if, instead of directly employing a song in a soundtrack, they simply shoot a scene where the song is playing on the radio in the background.

The music owner (or indeed any content owner) cannot object in general to "fair use" --- it's part of copyright law.

Indeed, even if there's commercial motive, perhaps a documentary is being made, fair use is still applicable.

I agree however that the waters get murky in the case where the originator of the video posted it just to share for fun but posted it to a site (YouTube) that is interested in making money by having people view advertisements. In other words, one could argue that YouTube should have some liability in general, but the person who uploaded that baby video does not.

The music owner (or indeed any content owner) cannot object in general to "fair use" --- it's part of copyright law.

In other words, one could argue that YouTube should have some liability in general, but the person who uploaded that baby video does not.

Eh? How is posting a clip of a song to a public forum "Fair Use"?

Foxy,
Let's expand upon it "Mother and Child Reunion", that qualifies as a bust!
Ya wanna job?
Just "google my name". I like the way you think!
Dan

Tool, these self-entitled idiots just make it up as they go, absolving themselves of all responsibility and blaming everyone else who has actually produced something (other than a bunch of illogical hot air) as greedy for objecting to others declaring themselves entitled to it...

I will get back to you, as I am about to entitle myself to the use of their car. And I am sure none will object.

That is incorrect. The movie director would be selling the movie for monetary gain, for which he would need permission for any trademarked or copyrighted material regardless of how it is displayed.

The difference with the video in the article is that there is no monetary gain being made off of the copyrighted material (while still abiding by the fair-use laws).

This is not to say that you can do whatever you want with copyrighted material if there is no money exchanged, but if the usage is withing the policy of fair-use, it will be fine. having monetary gain from someone else's work is against the fair-use policy. Regardless of how long, how much, or how it is broadcast.

You are correct in part of that comment, however, the mother was not using it for any commercial usage. There was no money being exchanged, it was completely within the fair-use policy. The policy was created so when things like this happen, artists cannot go sue crazy and demand money for something that is innocent. The video was presented to a generalized population for public viewing while abiding by what the fair-use policy states as allowed for public viewing. She did nothing wrong. Read the fair-use policy... it's extremely clear.

Absolutely correct. The woman has done nothing wrong. It within fair-use.

Now, IF YouTube has received any monetary gain, off of this video, THEY are in a potential violation of the policy. What YouTube needs to do for cases like these (and maybe they do), is state in THEIR policy that users cannot post this type of material because THEY make profit off of it. In which case, the woman WOULD be in violation of YouTube's policy, and if said policy states users of uploaded content that cause copyright issues for YouTube are accountable, than the issue gets a little more muddy.

it is fair-use because:

1) there is no monetary gain (at least for the woman)
2) the work is only being shown in partial, not entirety.
3) the work is not the center of attention, nor the focus of the video.

no no, intellectual property is not the same as physical property.

Taking a car is theft.

Taking a song is infringement.

There is a huge difference.

Concerning fair use:

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "

- http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Sounds like it could be considered fair use, eh?

Arguable at best. A flat out pipe-dream at worst.

The kid is dancing to the song. Both could easily be considered the "focus".

What a sick society we live in. This is like reading something from a science fiction book. While I'm pleased to see the judge make a sensible decision, it's sick in the way how far this case had come.

What did Universal expect to accomplish? They target a mother and her son for what? A 26 second clip? Sorry, but the DMCA is riddled with immoral flaws and should be taken out along with the wig-wearing loonies it came with. This is utterly disgusting!

So you think it was about chasing housewives. LOL!

Are you aware that copyright law also states that such rights must be pursued aggressively, and that the failure to pursue the even someone using the material casually is grounds for dismissal of the copyright if actions are subsequently taken against a more egregious violator?

Oh.

But congrats for definitely being in touch with your feelings.

And to make the decision even more absurd, the person who uses another's property in a production without permission or compensation "as a result, (now)the music rights holder may now actually owe Lenz damages."

THAT IS THE UTTERLY ASININE PART!

Given that if this take down notice was not observed that UMG would have sought damages from Lenz, then by your logic such compensation would be utterly asinine. Lets get realistic here, this was nothing about lenz, she had her name dragged through the courts purely because Publishers/Copyright owners will not come to an agreement with Youtube about advertising royalties.

Hopefully a few more rulings like this will finally force the publishers to step away from such pointless legal actions and actually move into the 21st Century where these things are settled in share deals and revenue.

No! The PRESS has made it about her!

The initial claim with the publisher was correct. The terms of the copyright law make such actions necessary to satisfy all instances be acted 'against'. The fact that the publisher failed to act makes them culpable!

It is s red herring by the press to posit Prince against the housewife. His people moved against those responsible for publishing/posting it - just as the law requires. And how much do you want to bet that Prince may not have even been directly involved, but that his publishing entity was responsible - as they should be.

Any damages should be shouldered by the publisher who should know the legalities of posting others copyrighted material.

video was 30 seconds ;)

Prince is a hasbeen.

And Prince has become much like Yogi Berra, who has devoted his life to suing everyone and everything until he's in the coffin. Once you do the super bowl, you're next gig is Dancing with the has-beens!

So I guess the answer is simple. Don't use their stuff without their permission.

...it's funny....

I don't ever recall the RIAA or MPAA suing families in the 70's and 80's because someone filmed their child dancing to music....

This was not about commercial profit.... it was a mother being proud about her child.

Copyright law needs to take into account intent... there was no malice involved.

Get a grip.

Families 20-30 years ago also weren't on the Internet distributing said content globally on a medium that profits from the advertising surrounding the content.

Not saying UMG is right in this case. Just saying that your analogy makes no sense.

I understand and appreciate your comment... I was just trying to illustrate that people have been distributing this type of content for years... perhaps not by internet and it has never bothered anyone before.

Our opinions may differ in that I don't believe that 26 seconds can be considered distribution in this case.

I don't ever recall the RIAA or MPAA suing families in the 70's and 80's because someone filmed their child dancing to music....

I would imagine it has something to do with the fact it was not then posted to a medium viewable by millions.

Take that video from the 70's and post it on Youtube. Let us know how that works out for ya.

Things have changed. Go figure.

I understand and appreciate your comment... I was just trying to illustrate that people have been distributing this type of content for years... perhaps not by internet and it has never bothered anyone before.

Not by the internet...and not in anywhere *near* the quantities it is now.

I believe the "not written in stone" fair use limit is 30 seconds, but that is for purposes of research, education, and such... It doesn't really apply to the Youtube/MySpace bit.

Seriously. I liked him better when he was formerly known as Prince.

*cough* 30 second video *cough*

What about previewing 30 second clips before purchasing (or not purchasing) digital music off of places like iTunes or Amazon? That is a public forum where millions can sample the music with no intention of purchasing it.

It's also licensed, genius.

*laughing*