Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Lenz v. Universal Music Corp)
Jump to: navigation, search
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
US DC NorCal.svg
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Date decided Aug. 20, 2008
Citations 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150
Judge sitting Jeremy D. Fogel
Case holding
Copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.
Keywords
Fair use, Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.[1] Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a home video of her children dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."[2] Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claiming that Lenz's video violated their copyright in the "Let's Go Crazy" song. Lenz claimed fair use of the copyrighted material and sued Universal for misrepresentation of a DMCA claim. In a decision rejecting a motion to dismiss the claim, the district court held that Universal must consider fair use when filing a take down notice, but noted that to prevail a plaintiff would need to show bad faith by a rights holder.[3]

Facts[edit]

In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a twenty-nine second clip of her children dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." The audio was of poor quality, and the song was audible for approximately twenty seconds of the twenty-nine seconds.[3] In June 2007, Universal, the copyright holder for "Let's Go Crazy", sent YouTube a takedown notice in compliance with DMCA requirements, claiming the video was a copyright violation. YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz of the removal and the alleged infringement. In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing.[4] According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.[5]

In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet."[6] In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.[3]

Decision[edit]

Based on Prince's and Universal's statements, Lenz argued that Universal was issuing takedown notices in bad faith, as they attempted to remove all Prince-related content rather than considering whether each posting violated copyright, and in particular was a non-infringing "fair use." Universal expressed concerns over the fact-intensive investigation and subjective results of determining whether a potentially infringing use falls under the general "fair use" doctrine.

The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law. The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.[3]

On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages, though the court did suggest that at that stage in the proceedings, Lenz' damages seemed nominal.[7]

In January 2013, Judge Fogel denied both parties' motions for summary judgement.[8] Both parties have cross-appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and as of August 2013 the appeals remain pending,[9] Briefing is due in the fourth quarter of 2013.[10]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Court Docket - Lenz v. Universal Music Group Inc. et al". 
  2. ^ Let's Go Crazy YouTube video
  3. ^ a b c d Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
  4. ^ 17 U.S.C. § 512, see (f).
  5. ^ 17 U.S.C. § 512, see (c)(3)(A)(v).
  6. ^ Reuters, Prince to sue YouTube, eBay over music use (Sep. 13, 2007).
  7. ^ "http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Lenz.2.25.order.pdf"
  8. ^ Lenz v. Universal, Order Denying Motions for Summary Judgment, Jan. 14. 2013.
  9. ^ Gardner, Eriq (August 23, 2013). "Lawrence Lessig Sues Over Takedown of YouTube Video Featuring Phoenix Song". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 27, 2013. 
  10. ^ Lenz v. Universal, Ninth Circuit docket report. "First cross appeal brief due 10/09/2013 for Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing Group Inc. and Universal Music Publishing Inc.. Second brief on cross appeal due 11/06/2013 for Stephanie Lenz. Third brief on cross appeal due 12/09/2013 for Universal Music Corp., Universal Music Publishing Group Inc. and Universal Music Publishing Inc.. The optional reply brief is due 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief."

External links[edit]