Universal Says It Can Ignore Fair Use In DMCA Takedowns
from the and-it-might-be-right dept
Last year, we wrote about the case where Universal Music sent a takedown notice to YouTube when a woman posted a short (29-second) video of her toddler running around with a Prince song (barely audible) in the background. Universal backed down when challenged on the takedown notice, but the woman (with the help of the EFF) hit back and have sued Universal Music for a false takedown.The DMCA has provisions for a copyright holder to assert ownership, at which point the service provider needs to takedown the content. Whoever posted the content can protest that the content was legally posted -- which is exactly what happened in this case. However, the DMCA also says that filing a false DMCA notice opens one up to damages from those whose content was taken down. This was in an effort to discourage false DMCA notices. This provision was used last year against Viacom for its false takedowns on satirical clips of the Colbert Report.
The question then, is whether or not filing a takedown notice on content that is used in a way consistent with "fair use" is a misuse or not. Universal Music's claim is that it is not reasonable for the copyright holder to take fair use into consideration before sending a takedown notice. At a first pass, it sounds like the judge agrees.
As ridiculous as this whole situation is, the judge and Universal Music may be correct under the existing law. There isn't anything in the law that says the copyright holder needs to take into account the user's defenses. It just says they need to be the legitimate copyright holder (which Universal Music is).
The real problem, then, in this story isn't Universal Music's actions (though Universal was acting in a rather heavy handed manner in getting the video taken down), but with the DMCA itself that forces a takedown before the user gets to respond with a defense. It's this "notice and takedown" provision that's a problem. If, instead, we had a "notice and notice" provision that allowed the user to respond before the takedown occurred, it would be a lot more reasonable and would avoid ridiculous situations such as this one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, prince, takedown notice
Companies: eff, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thank you, you're the first site I've read about this issue that got it right. I find it highly doubtful that a court will impose a duty on a copyright holder to consider the infringer's possible defenses prior to filing a DMCA take-down request. It just won't happen, and I'm shocked that the EFF will hand Universal this easy victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA and Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA and Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA and Fair Use
Heavy handed, you bet, but by your definition, it's reasonable.
This is why due process needs to be involved. The above used to be fiction, but now is the 'law' of the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they psycho?
A sense of Extreme Entitlement and Grandiose sense of self-worth seem to be displayed by Universal.
Makes perfect sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they psycho?
The answer (as I recall, it's been a few years since I watched): a psychopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... (1) that material or activity is infringing..[shall be liable]"
Arguably, if a copyright owner sends takedown notices en masse (in response to all results for "prince") it probably doesnt "knowingly misrepresent" that the material is infringing. I think that gets Universal or any other copyright owner off the hook for the first takedown notice, and which is a noted flaw with the DMCA takedown procedure.
The user then sends a counternotice if they think their activity is covered by fair use, or if the party sending the takedown has no right to claim copyright infringement. Mike, here's your notice and notice provision, though it occurs after the content has been taken down.
At this point, the material is back up and the copyright owner now has notice of the user's claim. If the copyright owner wishes to take further steps against the user, believing it is right and the user is wrong, this is where liability for a false claim comes into play. Activity covered by fair use is not "infringing" (a legal determination), so claiming that something obviously covered by fair use is infringing opens the door for liability.
The article is not absolutely clear, but it appears the woman sued before Universal ever sent a second notice. As such, it's probably tough to say that Universal "knowingly misrepresented" that the clip infringed on its rights (unless you could show they had no rights at all to the music involved). I love the work the EFF does, but based on what I'm looking at here, this one may not work out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section... (1) that material or activity is infringing..[shall be liable]"
Arguably, if a copyright owner sends takedown notices en masse (in response to all results for "prince") it probably doesnt "knowingly misrepresent" that the material is infringing. I think that gets Universal or any other copyright owner off the hook for the first takedown notice, and which is a noted flaw with the DMCA takedown procedure.
The user then sends a counternotice if they think their activity is covered by fair use, or if the party sending the takedown has no right to claim copyright infringement. Mike, here's your notice and notice provision, though it occurs after the content has been taken down.
At this point, the material is back up and the copyright owner now has notice of the user's claim. If the copyright owner wishes to take further steps against the user, believing it is right and the user is wrong, this is where liability for a false claim comes into play. Activity covered by fair use is not "infringing" (a legal determination), so claiming that something obviously covered by fair use is infringing opens the door for liability.
The article is not absolutely clear, but it appears the woman sued before Universal ever sent a second notice. As such, it's probably tough to say that Universal "knowingly misrepresented" that the clip infringed on its rights (unless you could show they had no rights at all to the music involved). I love the work the EFF does, but based on what I'm looking at here, this one may not work out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excessive and punitive punishments like this only breed deeper contempt for laws, not more respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's a problem with the dmca? inconceivable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be simple
Post the whole song, video, or movie and it's without permission and it's copyright infringement, post a portion of a song, video, or movie without permission and it's Fair Use as long as no profits are derived from it's usage.
Simple right? Or is it just totally ludicrous thinking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMMMM sounds like VERO on ebay
Rights owner protests = Auction taken down = Seller looses listing fees.
This happend to me a couple times trying to sell a Crawford car alarm. Crawford protested saying they were the owner of the trademark and my auction (for an alarm I legally owned and had in hand) was a infringement.
Clearly me owning the device wasn't the problem. Unloading it on ebay was, since they claimed that they didn't allow sales by non-authorized re-sellers and didn't allow sales on the internet.
After two failed attempst to list the item I finally decided to list it after 5pm on a FRIDAY... as a two day auction. They never saw it because the auction police at Crawford never saw it until atleast monday-- all off work for the weekend. And by the time they would have, it was sold and paid for.
BOOOOYAH, Crawford! BOOOOYAH, Ebay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HMMMM sounds like VERO on ebay
You know that they wanted to make sure that you didn't profit off their product even though you fully paid for it in the first place. They wanted to make sure that if they couldn't get their cut of the profits no one would.
Personally once you pay for something and unless it's a service that item(s) should become yours. So that you may be able to do with it as you see fit with out, out side sources such as this to interfere. Which is what people have been saying all along with the whole copy rights crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HMMMM sounds like VERO on ebay
In this case, it was. This is a physical good, to which right of first sale clearly applies. Jerry, you could make a lot more money off of your security system by now turning around and suing Crawford. The Tiffany case sets the precedent squarely on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Willful Blindness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such thing as fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, Universal and the judge are both wrong
A poor analogy (haven't had my coffee yet): It is illegal to drink alcohol out of doors in most locations, except on private property or restaurants with outdoor seating. A police officer sees someone with a bottle of beer. He would be right to write a ticket if the person is walking down the street. If the person is standing in the outdoor seating area of a restaurant or on the lawn of a private house then he may ask them questions, but probably not even that. This is because he sees the context of the incident.
The judge has a point, the law isn't written very well. Universal has a minor point, they don't have a crystal ball and can't "discern the intent" of someone. However, that is not germane in this case. 'Innocent until proven guilty' applies here as well. DMCA notices should be sent only in cases where there is no *obvious* reason the material might be infringing.
There are several ways in which a video with a portion of a song would not be infringing. Therefore a video with a song playing in the background of a clip about a baby is not infringing, so they were wrong to send the notice in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogus VERO Takedowns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]