Korea Gets Its Own Dancing Baby Copyright Fight; Says Free Expression Trumps Copyright Concern
from the go-free-expression dept
If you follow copyright issues online, by now you've undoubtedly heard of the famous Lenz case, involving Universal Music issuing a takedown to YouTube on a 29-second home video a mother took of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song. While Universal didn't protest the counternotice, the EFF sued, pointing out that it should have taken fair use into account.Wonil Chung, an intellectual property lawyer in South Korea alerted us to a blog post he wrote about a case that is almost identical to the Lenz case in the US. It involved a father filming his toddler daughter dancing and singing to a Korean pop star. Again, a takedown notice was issued, and the guy sued in response. Of course, it's worth noting that South Korean copyright law can be much stricter than US copyright law (in part due to lobbying pressure from -- you guessed it -- US entertainment industry lobbyists as part of a "free trade agreement" the US signed with South Korea). It's also worth noting that South Korea's concept of fair use is extremely narrow.
However, thankfully, the court sided with the father, pointing out that the video itself was not a substitute for the song, it had a non-commercial purpose, and only 15-seconds of the song were used. Perhaps most importantly, it noted:
"If this kind of UCC [User Created Content] is barred from uploading online, it results in a unnecessarily excessive restraint on the free expression."Even beyond that, unlike the court in the Lenz case, the Korean court ordered the copyright holder to pay the father for "mental damages suffered from the takedown." This is nice to see, and Chung's summary of the ruling pretty much wraps it up:
Another interesting part of this ruling is that the court clearly found that the free expression under the constitution of South Korea must be considered fully and fairly in determining whether there exists a copyright infringement or not. Although the Korean Copyright Act has a fair-use-like clause, the clause is stated relatively narrowly so there has been a certain criticism that Korean court is not active in holding up a fair use defense. But this ruling held that the constitutional right of free expression has the equal value as a copyright stated in the Copyright Act which is a subordinate law to the constitution. That's why I welcome this ruling and expect to see the balance between the free expression and copyright with more fair use defences accepted in the Korean court in the future.His full post has more details and quotes from the ruling.
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, dancing baby, fair use, korea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Ugh, really? Why is it nice to see courts assigning monetary penalties to the "mental damages" caused by someone taking down a video? I'm all for the copyright holder paying for the guy's legal bills and time associated with a frivelous suit, but mental damage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
I remember years ago, when at University, a law student telling me that , yes you could get damages for "shock and distress".
I told him that if he continued to wear his current pair of trousers (a particularly loud check pattern) - he was risking a lawsuit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
I know my time and money - and mental health, such as it is - are valuable to me. I'd want a pound of flesh from someone who wasted it so pointlessly, who put me through unnecessary travail, if only that they or someone like them might think twice in the future about being so dickish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Ugh, really? Why is it nice to see courts assigning monetary penalties to the "mental damages" caused by someone taking down a video? I'm all for the copyright holder paying for the guy's legal bills and time associated with a frivelous suit, but mental damage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
You can loose your job for something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]