Judge Dismisses DMCA-Abuse Lawsuit Over Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince
from the too-bad dept
Last summer, we wrote about the EFF suing Universal Music for sending a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube over a 30-second home video of a baby dancing to some barely audible music by Prince. The EFF claimed that this was an abuse of the DMCA, as the use of the music was clearly fair use. Unfortunately, though, a judge has dismissed the case (update: to be more specific, he dismissed portions with leave to amend), arguing that the EFF did not make a case as to why this was self-evident fair use, and noting differences compared to other abuses of the DMCA. The EFF had also asked for a clear ruling stating that the video did not infringe on Universal's copyright, but the judge declined to do so, noting that Universal Music hasn't indicated any plans to actually sue (it just sent the takedown notice). The EFF has already refiled a new complaint to make the claims clearer, but so far, this case hasn't gone all that well. However, the video itself is back online:Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, home video, prince
Companies: eff, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
argh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puhlease
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, a music company can order your content to be taken offline by your service provider for no good reason, and there's no legal recourse if they don't first threaten you personally?
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Whether a use does or does not amount to a fair use is never 'self-evident,' but is reached only after a defendant first affirmatively pleads it and then proves it after an intense equitable balancing of multiple factors."
People say the exercise of fair use rights is not supposed to require the permission of rights holders, but according to this statement, Universal basically tells us they can ultimately require that we get their permission any time we exercise these rights just by dragging us into court, or emailing a takedown notice leaving us no recourse but to sue them in court, where we must then affirmatively defend our rights against them. I suppose that could be the way it is, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as self-evident fair use. Aside from the factors Universal mentioned, the law also explicitly lists a number of specific uses which are "not an infringement of copyright." I think those count as self-evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]