Feeds

Dancing Baby v. Universal: Baby wins!

Assess fair use first, US court warns copyright holders

The Essential Guide to IT Transformation

Copyright holders must assess whether material has been used fairly before they demand that it be taken off the internet, a US court has ruled. The case involved a YouTube video clip of a baby dancing to a Prince song.

Rights holders who demand that material be taken offline without such an assessment risk paying out damages and costs to whoever published the material, the court said.

Copyright law is designed to make sure that producers of work retain control of their work and benefit from its use, but there are situations in which it does not apply. In US law 'fair use' of material is allowed without payment to or permission from copyright owners. In the UK, the equivalent principle is called 'fair dealing'.

When copyright holders see unlicensed use of material on the internet they can issue takedown notices to whoever is publishing the work. Material is usually taken down immediately and the issue solved later.

A US court has ruled that it is the duty of copyright holders to make a basic assessment of whether fair use is being made of material or not. If they do not then whoever published the material can sue them.

The ruling came in a closely-watched dispute between a woman and Universal Music over the use of a song by Prince in the background of a YouTube-published video. The woman's 13-month-old son is dancing to the song Let's Go Crazy, which can be heard playing in the room in which the baby and another child are being filmed.

Universal demanded that YouTube take the video down, which it did, informing the woman, Stephanie Lenz, of its decision. Lenz said that her use of the song in the video was fair use and demanded the reinstatement of the video. It was republished six weeks later and can still be seen on YouTube.

Counterblast

Lenz has now sued Universal for misrepresentation and interference with her contract with YouTube. She is suing under section 512(f) of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which says that:

Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section

  1. that material or activity is infringing,
  2. that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
  3. shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it."

Lenz argued that companies such as Universal which wanted to remove material such as her video were obliged to assess whether or not material came under the fair use exclusions to copyright law. According to the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Universal disagreed.

"Universal suggests that copyright owners may lose the ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements if they are required to evaluate fair use prior to issuing takedown notices," said judge Jeremy Fogel in his ruling. "Universal also points out that the question of whether a particular use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use is a fact-intensive inquiry, and that it is difficult for copyright owners to predict whether a court eventually may rule in their favor."

Not fair

Fogel disagreed with Universal's view. "While these concerns are understandable, their actual impact likely is overstated," he said. "Although there may be cases in which such considerations will arise, there are likely to be few in which a copyright owner’s determination that a particular use is not fair use will meet the requisite standard of subjective bad faith required to prevail in an action for misrepresentation."

Judge Fogel noted that the issue of whether or not copyright owners had to make a judgment on fair use had never been directly decided in the courts. He said that copyright owners must decide if fair use exemptions apply before taking action.

"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," he said.

"An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Such an interpretation of the DMCA furthers both the purposes of the DMCA itself and copyright law in general," he said.

Judge Fogel said that the damages available to Lenz might be small, but that damage had been done. "Though damages may be nominal and their exact nature is yet to be determined, the Court concludes that Lenz adequately has alleged cognizable injury under the DMCA," he said.

See:

Copyright © 2008, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Build a business case: developing custom apps

More from The Register

next story
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
'Blow it up': Plods pop round for chat with Commonwealth Games tweeter
You'd better not be talking about the council's housing plans
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Seven Steps to Software Security
Seven practical steps you can begin to take today to secure your applications and prevent the damages a successful cyber-attack can cause.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.