Dancing baby wins again
Posted by: Bruce in DMCA, Uncategorized, copyrights, fair use, tags: copyright, Dancing baby video, digital millenium copyright act, EFF, Lenz, Universal MusicCrank up the music! Turn on the camcorder! And turn your kids loose on the dance floor! YouTube is safe again for you to post those simply adorable videos of your child stumbling his or her way through Purple Rain. Yes, Universal Music, the same company that made you afraid to go in the water with “Jaws” and set out to make YouTube a scary place too, has been given a second dope slap by the Electronic Freedom Foundation and District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel.
The case started a couple of years ago when Universal, trolling the internet, uncovered a significant violation of their copyright in a 29 second video of Stephanie Lenz’s baby “dancing” to a Prince song. Swinging into action immediately to fight this threat, Universal relied on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to sent a take down order to YouTube.
Luckily the EFF took up Ms Lenz’s case. According to Zusha Elinson on Law.com,
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Universal on behalf of Lenz in 2008, arguing that the music company’s lawyers should have taken a moment to consider whether Lenz had a fair-use right to post the clip before firing off a takedown notice to YouTube. YouTube removed the video, but restored it six weeks later when Lenz filed a counternotice.
In the most recent action, Judge Fogel ruled that Ms Lenz can recover some level of damages. Quite reasonably, the EFF asked for damages to make real a deterrent for copyright holders who abuse the takedown process of the DMCA. Universal, of course, argued that Ms Lenz should only be allowed to recover financial damages caused by their overzealous application of copyright (which of course are essentially zero) rather than to receive compensation for the violation of her right to post the video. The judge agreed, writing;
Requiring a plaintiff who can make such a showing to demonstrate in addition not only that she suffered damages but also that those damages were economic and substantial would vitiate the deterrent effect of the statute.
Now we wait to see what damages are assessed. But in the meantime, it’s safe to go back in the water.

Entries (RSS)