20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Andrew Fare

8 Years Ago

More Legal Copyright Info

From Yahoo News

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - Copyright holders must consider "fair use" before demanding the removal of videos that people post online, including on Google Inc's (GOOGL.O) YouTube, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday.

In a closely followed case over a home video of a toddler dancing to the Prince hit "Let's Go Crazy," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco made it tougher for content providers such as Vivendi SA's (VIV.PA) Universal Music Group to force Internet service providers to remove material.

"Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider - in

good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification - whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use," Circuit Judge Richard Tallman wrote for a 3-0 panel.

The decision could make it harder for copyright holders to remove alleged infringing content from the Internet by invoking the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 law intended to curb movie and music piracy online. Critics say abusive takedown notices can suppress free speech.

Stephanie Lenz of Gallitzin, Pennsylvania had in February 2007 uploaded to YouTube a blurry 29-second clip of her 13-month-old son Holden happily bobbing up and down to "Let's Go Crazy," a 1984 song by Prince and The Revolution that played in the background.

Lenz said she thought her family and friends would enjoy seeing the toddler, who had just learned to walk, dance as well.

But Universal, which enforced Prince's copyrights, persuaded YouTube to remove Lenz's video, citing a good faith belief that the video was unauthorized.

Lenz had the video restored, and sued Universal over the takedown notice, seeking damages.

In January 2013, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Francisco said copyright holders must consider fair use, but denied Lenz's misrepresentation claim.

Upholding that ruling, Tallman said there can be liability if a copyright holder "knowingly misrepresented" in a takedown notice that it had a good faith belief that a video "did not constitute fair use."

But he also said courts should defer to a copyright holder who has a "subjective good faith belief" to the contrary.

The 9th Circuit said Lenz failed to overcome this hurdle, and instead may seek nominal damages for the "unquantifiable harm" she suffered.

Universal spokesman Andy Fixmer declined immediate comment.

Corynne McSherry, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation representing Lenz, said the decision "sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech."

The case is Lenz v Universal Music Corp et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-16106, 13-16107.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Christian Plumb)
@YahooFinanceCA on Twitter

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Joshua House

8 Years Ago

Does an entire article fall under "Fair Use"?

 

Charles Kozierok

8 Years Ago

There are no clear-cut rules about what constitutes "fair use". It is one of the messiest rules of law, where the answer nearly always seems to be "talk to a lawyer".

I've had various altercations over the years and it always boils down to that.

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

said the decision "sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech."

STANDING OVATION. Champagne for everybody.



Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

Here is the video in question. 29 seconds. Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that Universal Music Group was WAY out of line when they filed a DMCA takedown notice for copyright infringement?




Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

"There are no clear-cut rules about what constitutes "fair use". It is one of the messiest rules of law, where the answer nearly always seems to be "talk to a lawyer". "

Yup, and then cross your fingers that if and when any judge that hears the case does not make that lawyer look stupid.


"STANDING OVATION. Champagne for everybody. '

Yup again! Pop! Here's mud in your eye, Dan!



 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

Why are Floyd and I having champagne? Because this case sets a legal precedent. It's officially in the books as a done deal.

Courts place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained.

Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

JC Findley

8 Years Ago

Incorrect Dan.

It only sets precedent in the 9th U.S. Circuit. Unless/until it is heard by SCOTUS it is not binding precedence anywhere but the 9th Circuit.

 

Majula Warmoth

8 Years Ago

Thanks for posting this...interesting...

 

Dan Turner

8 Years Ago

Federal courts of appeals were created in 1891 to relieve the caseload burden in the Supreme Court. The 9th circuit is by far the largest of the 13 courts of appeals, with 29 active judgeships.

The chances of a case like we're discussing going beyond the 9th circuit -- or any circuit court, especially after the 9th has already set the precedent -- is minuscule and would need to be decidedly different.

Have some champagne.

Oh, almost forgot: We are not lawyers :-)



Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Dan,

The issue is only fair use. The music is barely clear for 29 seconds in the background. I would give the Lenz's this decision.

Of course it is fair use. The posting up top of the entire article is not fair use. It is proscribed under the fair use concept that only
one to three paragraphs should be generally used.

This decision regardless of the press reporter does not have the courts loosening copyright authority. This is a specific case where it was fair use.

Dave

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Dan,

I have to add if you want to take 10 to 20% of one of my images and plaster it on FB or Twitter that is fair use. Good luck not looking
stupid doing it. Unfortunately if you show an image you usually need to show all of it. That is not fair use.

Dave

 

Floyd Snyder

8 Years Ago

The only real "law" or "justice" is what the politicians and the decision makers (judges) say it is on a case by case bases, as needed.

Case law such as this, regardless of rather it is precedence setting or in the right jurisdiction, will influence those decision makers if they want it to.

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

Frankly the reporter is probably taking the judge's words out of context. This was a straightforward case about fair use. The broader language
being used by the reporter is out of context.

Reporters do that all the time to sell soap.

Dave

 

Joy McKenzie

8 Years Ago

This morning the San Francisco news said this is now going to a jury trial:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/arts/youtube-video-of-baby-dancing-to-prince-track-sparks-trial-over-copyright-1.3228580

 

David Bridburg

8 Years Ago

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said the ruling has ramifications beyond Lenz's case.

What a line of it. Since when do they matter? They do not.

Dave

 

This discussion is closed.