Posted on 08/21/2008 11:09:10 AM PDT by steve-b
A judge's ruling today is a major victory for free speech and fair use on the Internet, and will help protect everyone who creates content for the Web. In Lenz v. Universal (aka the "dancing baby" case), Judge Jeremy Fogel held that content owners must consider fair use before sending takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
Universal Music Corporation ("Universal") had sent a takedown notice targeting a 29-second home movie of a toddler dancing in a kitchen to a Prince song, "Let's Go Crazy," which is heard playing in the background. Because her use of the song was obviously a fair use and, therefore, non-infringing, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA. Universal moved to dismiss the case, claiming, among other things, that it had no obligation to consider whether Lenz's use was fair before sending its notice. The judge firmly rejected Universal's theory....
(Excerpt) Read more at eff.org ...
**AA vs. fair use ping.
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
</sarcasm>
I love Universals argument
“Its too hard for us to do a good faith evaluation of material to see if its fair use”
So let me get this straight, you have time to dig up a 29 seconds clip on youtube of a dancing baby but you *dont* have time to actually look at it before you send a takedown?
is that you Barry?
This will have some far reaching implications. Perhaps even including the AP’s “payment up front for fair use” policy.
Let's hope it becomes an epidemic. It's probably too much to hope it could turn into a pandemic.
Does this apply to AP?
In a rational world any lawyer making this argument in front of a Judge would be automatically disbarred and then publicly horsewhipped.
"Yer Honer, we have no obligation to learn whether or not this person actually stole our property before we threatened to sue her.."
Disbarred.
Horsewhipped.
In that order.
I hope the Judge dismisses this case with Prejudice and orders Universal to pay all legal fees, plus damages.
L
Yep. To those lawyers, there’s zero difference between a street vendor selling bootlegged cd’s and a grandmother playing a dubbed version of “Happy Birthday To You” at a grandchild’s birthday party. Both are equally vile criminals who need to be “made an example of”. (Clarification- in the lawyer’s opinion, NOT mine)
"Copyright abuse can shut down online artists, political analysts, or -- as in this case -- ordinary families who simply want to share snippets of their day-to-day lives," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Universal must stop making groundless infringement claims that trample on fair use and free speech."This wasn't a judge dismissing a lawsuit FROM Universal Music -- it was the judge finding for the plaintiff in a lawsuit AGAINST Universal Music over UM sending a takedown orderThe lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment that Lenz's home video does not infringe any Universal copyright, as well as damages and injunctive relief restraining Universal from bringing further copyright claims in connection with the video.
This lawsuit is part of EFF's ongoing work to protect online free speech in the face of bogus copyright claims. EFF is currently working with Stanford's Fair Use Project to develop a set of "best practices" for proper takedowns under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In other words, if a copyright holder sends a frivolous takedown order against somebody engaged in legitimate Fair Use, the copyright holder may be sued for damages
The inherent dangers of double bladed axes...
Thank you, Judge Fogel. Your ruling stands to law and reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.