AfterDawn: Tech news

Ruling against Universal in YouTube toddler video takedown case

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 01 Mar 2010 9:53 User comments (7)

Ruling against Universal in YouTube toddler video takedown case In 2007, Universal Music Group made a stir when it forced YouTube to remove a video of a toddler dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." YouTube complied with the video removal, leaving mother Stephanie Lenz shocked and angry. Lenz teamed up with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to prove that the use of the song in the video constituted fair use.
Lenz and the EFF decided to bring the issue to a judge where they wanted a declaration that the video was "fair use" and was protected under current copyright laws in the United States, and Lenz also sought damages against Universal for the "meritless takedown request". Disputed takedown requests are the subjects of many a rant on YouTube from regular users. In cases, DMCA takedowns have been issued against users as a way to silence them.

Universal didn't want to back down without a fight, saying that Lenz had bad faith and unclean hands in pursuing damages. Unfortunately for Universal, a California district court judge has rejected Universal's assertions and granted partial summary judgment to Lenz. The decision paves the way for Lenz to collect attorneys fees.

If Lenz could show that Universal knowingly misrepresented its initial claim, she could make a claim under a code that awards fees at the court's discretion, but even before that, this decision allows Lens to at least recover legal fees.

Previous Next  

7 user comments

11.3.2010 11:02

fair use needs to be expanded so cases like these(and other normal posting online type things) can never go to court....its ridiculous.

21.3.2010 11:37
RiaaScum
Inactive

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
fair use needs to be expanded so cases like these(and other normal posting online type things) can never go to court....its ridiculous.
per person per view/play is what they want as do all the members of the mopolistic MPAA & RIAA.

fyi warner own the rights to the "happy birthday to you" song and demand huge royalties for its use regardless that the ppl that created it have been long dead. i thought copywrite was to secure monies for the artists & composers not just allow huge media companies to legally steal monies from every bit of media created.

31.3.2010 11:51

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
fair use needs to be expanded so cases like these(and other normal posting online type things) can never go to court....its ridiculous.
per person per view/play is what they want as do all the members of the mopolistic MPAA & RIAA.

fyi warner own the rights to the "happy birthday to you" song and demand huge royalties for its use regardless that the ppl that created it have been long dead. i thought copywrite was to secure monies for the artists & composers not just allow huge media companies to legally steal monies from every bit of media created.
Not really think deeper they want absolute control over every instance of distribution and copying.If they control that they control profit.

In order to break that chain yet still allow for a healthy business system you have to focus more on profit, common posters are not profiting from others CP/IP and to think they the public can infringe on CP/IP in any effective way you might as well believe the 1:1 ratio myth for lost sales and downloading.....
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Mar 2010 @ 12:00

41.3.2010 12:15

Apparently, Universal Music Group also decided (a long time ago), "Let's Go Crazy" when it came to destroying the customers they DID have and when new customers decided to sample their wares through other means before buying them.

None of these companies (like UMG) seem to realize that there really doesn't have to be a music "business" just as some other companies don't seem to understand there doesn't have to be a movie "business" or sports "business" or whatever. These businesses exist but for the grace of their customers and you would think they would realize and respect that.

They're not utilities, they're not industries, and they can fade away without anyone really noticing--or caring. Anyone smart in these businesses will try to make peace with the reality of what is going on, count their blessings that they can still make an inordinately-grand living out of it, and go on about their business. Unfortunately, that seems to be the last thing that will happen, as our world careens towards groups of people with singular interests seeking total control over other groups at any cost.

51.3.2010 12:24

Originally posted by xminusone:
Apparently, Universal Music Group also decided (a long time ago), "Let's Go Crazy" when it came to destroying the customers they DID have and when new customers decided to sample their wares through other means before buying them.

None of these companies (like UMG) seem to realize that there really doesn't have to be a music "business" just as some other companies don't seem to understand there doesn't have to be a movie "business" or sports "business" or whatever. These businesses exist but for the grace of their customers and you would think they would realize and respect that.

They're not utilities, they're not industries, and they can fade away without anyone really noticing--or caring. Anyone smart in these businesses will try to make peace with the reality of what is going on, count their blessings that they can still make an inordinately-grand living out of it, and go on about their business. Unfortunately, that seems to be the last thing that will happen, as our world careens towards groups of people with singular interests seeking total control over other groups at any cost.
With the billions they bring in each year they are a industry but due to a top heavy monopolistic nature its become stagnate and really needs to die and something better raised from the ashes....

64.3.2010 13:55

I have a youtube channel and had 2 videos taken down due to copyright infringement which were simply parodies (one was for the Wii) that weren't anywhere on the site and seen no harm. YouTube list these under ContentID matches but its with my other videos - which are games - featuring the soundtracks so how is this fair. 1 more infringement and my videos, comments are all gone.

Unless you have written permission (highly unlikely) you stand no chance again these big corporations (which YouTube always sides with) incase they are sued. Lenz should take this the full course and stand up for common sense which is lacking in this case and pursue them for costs.

74.3.2010 14:43

Originally posted by champman:
I have a youtube channel and had 2 videos taken down due to copyright infringement which were simply parodies (one was for the Wii) that weren't anywhere on the site and seen no harm. YouTube list these under ContentID matches but its with my other videos - which are games - featuring the soundtracks so how is this fair. 1 more infringement and my videos, comments are all gone.

Unless you have written permission (highly unlikely) you stand no chance again these big corporations (which YouTube always sides with) incase they are sued. Lenz should take this the full course and stand up for common sense which is lacking in this case and pursue them for costs.
Ya they do not make it easy to count it either, you can but it annoying, I use to fight it but after 3 accounts I don;t really try it so much anymore.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive