Universal Claiming Dancing Baby Video Not An Obvious Case Of Fair Use
from the oh-really-now? dept
We had just been discussing a lawsuit in South Korea that appeared to be quite similar to the infamous Lenz case, in the US. If you don't recall, that case involved Universal Music issuing a DMCA takedown after a mother posted a 29-second video of her toddler dancing to the radio where a Prince song was playing. While Universal Music did not contest the counternotice of the woman, the woman (with the help of the EFF) sued Universal, claiming that it violated the DMCA in issuing a takedown on a video that was obviously fair use.Universal claimed that since fair use is "just a defense" under the law, and not (technically) a "right," that it had no obligation to consider fair use before issuing a takedown. Thankfully, the judge disagreed. That wasn't everything, though, as this case has dragged on and on for years since then, as the EFF and Lenz sought to make Universal actually liable for damages for filing a bogus DMCA takedown. Earlier this year, the court ruled that damages were available, but quite limited.
The latest part of the case is that both sides have filed for summary judgment, with Lenz arguing that the takedown violated the law, since Universal did not believe in good faith that the video was infringing (as required by the law). Universal's motion, on the other hand, makes the argument that the 29-second video is not an obvious case of fair use. It still argues that there's no requirement to check for fair use first, but says that even if it's supposed to, this video was not obviously fair use.
Now, before we get into the reasons that Universal gives, it's worth looking at the video itself, so here you go:
From there, though, Universal goes on to make the argument that it did consider it, and it still doesn't seem to think the video is fair use. But its analysis here is really weak. It claims that this was a "commercial use," because it was posted on YouTube, a commercial site. But that's blaming the wrong party. It was not a commercial use for the person actually uploading the video, Ms. Lenz. Universal then argues that the video is not transformative, but again that doesn't make much sense to me. It's not as if this video's purpose is anything like the purpose of the original song. In terms of "the nature of the work," Universal says that because it's music, it's protected -- but that's only a part of the analysis. The video has the song in it, but it's not "the song." So it should be the nature of video that's analyzed, not the nature of the song. And the nature of the video is that it was a silly home video, obviously for personal, non-commercial use. As for "the amount of the work," again, Universal shifts what it looks at. It says since the song appears in the whole video, then it weighs against fair use. But, again, it's looking at the wrong thing. Here, the question is the amount of the original work, and in this case it's 29 seconds of a much longer song (something Universal ignores). Finally, the big one: the commercial impact of the video, much of Universal's reasoning is redacted, but it appears its argument is that Universal/Prince could sell the right to use the song in videos. That seems pretty weak. No one is going to pay for a song in a video like this.
Just the fact that we need to have a big legal fight over whether or not the video above is fair use is really sad. Any copyright law that doesn't immediately consider that kind of use fair use is broken. In the meantime, I'm curious if someone at Universal Music could enlighten us to what would be considered fair use in its mind?
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, lenz
Companies: eff, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
As I'm sure you must be painfully aware by now, there is no such thing as fair use.
Sincerely,
Universal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
As you will become painfully aware in the not too distant future, there is such a thing as fair use, and you will then gain a true appreciation of what the word "painfully" can actually mean. You know nothing of pain now, but you will learn a very deep and lasting lesson soon.
Regards,
The General Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was just noise
I can barely hear the music. Oh I can hear noise, but the sound quality is so abysmally low, that it doesn't register in my brain that what I'm hearing is music, much less that my brain can process that it's a Prince song. So, someone tell me, is the only indicator that it's a Prince song somewhere in the video description e.g. "Here's my baby dancing to a Prince song"
So again, someone tell me, is it copyright infringement if the "copy" is of abysmal quality, so bad that you can't tell its supposed to be the same as the source material?
Did Universel just read the video description? What if the description said "Hot Incest banned porn video"? Neither of the two descriptions "Dancing to Prince" or "Hot Incest" show what I'm seeing. I see a baby walking around, but I can't tell about the sound I'm hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was just noise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was just noise
I think they should spend more time finding great artists and less time watching home videos on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was just noise
Well, Bluebeat got sued for that same crap and lost.
So it's funny how a major corporation can't tell personal use from commercial here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Objection!
Obviously?
What part of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" did Universal miss when ordering the take down notice?
While I'm not in favor of Universal's action, I'm at a loss why people believe Fair Use is so broad as to cover this video.
The last thing I heard, from a copyright lawyer, was that no use is fair until a judge orders it so.
No statement has even been more true when related to copyright.
Even with the "4 factors" as outlined by Section 107, it is not "obvious".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
Clearly the commercial interests of the plaintiff have been sabotaged by a rouge soccer... er, stroller Mom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
"The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes"
The dancing baby video is not of a commercial nature. Applicable? Check.
"The nature of the copyrighted work"
The copyrighted work is a song. The dancing baby video is a video which only contains a very garbled version of the song. Applicable? Check.
"The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"
Only 29 seconds of the song is used in the video and for most of it, you can't even really tell what song it is. Applicable? Check.
"The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
If anything, this would increase the market for the song. Applicable? Check.
Also, just to clarify, are you saying that you don't think it legally satisfies the requirement for fair use or that you don't think it should?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Objection!
No, I don't believe the video meets the legal definition of fair use and neither did the copyright lawyers of Universal, hence the take down notice.
This young lady may be opening up a can of worms she's not prepared to deal with.
As for your other post, I most certainly see a problem with this, and that's the issue.
Fair use is not "obvious" in this regard, and this article stated it was. That's simply not true and no amount of word-twisting is going to change this.
I hope the young woman wins, just for the record. ;) If she does, maybe the judge will state why it's fair use.
Though even is s/he does, it still doesn't set a precedence in copyright disputes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Objection!
Of course you're under no obligation to do so, but can you link to a citation of this? I've done some searches and can't find anything that makes this particular point.
Fair use is not "obvious" in this regard, and this article stated it was. That's simply not true and no amount of word-twisting is going to change this.
Well, to be fair, I think that the label of "obvious" has a lot to do with whether the four factors are meant to be applied independently of the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line or as additional qualifiers thereof.
Perhaps a better question would be is this a fair use rather than does it qualify legally as "fair use"? One of the problems with this situation is that, in my estimation, a huge majority of people would say it is a fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Objection!
"such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —'
The words "such as" leave it wide open for other fair uses that are not explicity stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Objection!
The "Such as" actually defends my point in that the use is not obvious and, as we can see, will now take a judge to decide.
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but offer my opinion on the matter in regard to copyright.
If anyone here feels the use of another's works is "fair use", by all means, knock yourself out.
However, don't be too surprised if you find yourself in this same situation.
The bottom line here is: make your own stuff. Don't use anyone else's because it's just not worth it anymore, even if the "owners" say it's okay.
You'd be foolish not to anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Objection!
Hold on a second. Regardless of the overall point you're trying to make, you appear to be backtracking after being caught out in a contradiction. My original post started off like this...
As I understand it, the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" line are examples of fair use, not an exclusive list.
You replied with this...
Husler, the checks only apply after the content meets the "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" definition.
What you're basically saying in the above reply is "Yes, I know that I was wrong in saying that the 'criticism...' line only refers to examples and that the four criteria really are independent of the four criteria, but that's not important because my overall point is..."
I should have looked up the actual wording myself at the time of my post because if I did, I would have seen that your post was indeed not acccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
And you don't see a problem with this? I think I know what your lawyer friend would say, but are you really suggesting that it's a good thing that we need to involve copyright lawyers in something that almost every non-lawyer on the planet would say is a fair use of copyrighted material?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
"incidental inclusion"
"# Typical free uses of work include:
* Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.
# What is incidental inclusion?
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
No statement has even been more true when related to copyright.
Warning - Lawyer disconnect with real world ALERT!
Once something goes to court of course even obvious things go on hold until the court decides - BUT - in order for the rest of us to even function most of the time we have to make reasonable assumptions about such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objection!
I have heard the same thing, hence why they say it is a defense and not a right. My question (open to everyone) is thus:
If it takes a judge to determine if a use is "fair use", then doesn't that mean it takes a judge to determine that it's *not* fair use? Before I know if my action carries a $750,000 penalty I have to carry out that action? How does *anyone* support this law?
Why isn't there a stronger punishment for something being taken down when it was found to be fair use? As it is, under the law, this woman can be fined $750,000 for this. If it is determined to be fair use, is Universal fined for being wrong, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Objection!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Objection!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Objection!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, they can't see themselves in the mirror at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nature of the Copyrighted Work
The "nature of the copyrighted work" factor has come into play in at least two circumstances:
(1) When the copyrighted work is mostly factual in nature, this weighs in favor of fair use. The idea is that you can't copyright facts, so any "creative" presentation of those facts gets a "thin" copyright at best.
(2) When the copyrighted work is unpublished, this weighs against fair use. The idea here is that there's some special harm when something is published before the author deems it ready for publication. I could see circumstances where there is reversed though (e.g. the author has no intention of ever publishing, or is dead).
That said, this factor isn't a huge deal these days. If the other three go one way, most courts would probably say its fair use. Not sure if it's "obvious", but it's at least highly likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
I think people need to read up on how courts apply the four factors before they go trying to apply them. It's a little more complicated than people are making it.
As far as this use of Prince's song goes... I'm inclined to agree it's fair use, but I don't think it's obviously so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
So, are you splitting hairs and saying that the intent of the use has to be to make money, not that any money is actually made? Because I'm not sure how else you could define commercial use but in one of these two ways. The woman who took this video did not do so with the intent to make money. Nor do I think that she uploaded the video to YouTube with the intent to make money. And I certainly don't think that she actually made any money from this video. So, how is this not obviously non-commercial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
My point is that those factors may not mean what people think they mean. You should research and see how courts interpret and apply the factors before you try and do it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Wow, just WOW. AJ think about what you just said - doesn't that say something about US (so called) democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Commercial use means use in the course of a business or trade and democracy is not supposed to be about business.
The reason commercial use definitions are sometimes extended to include activities that don't make a direct financial reward is to prevent sneaky lawyers and accountants like you from disguising commercial activity as something else.
To qualify as commercial use the gain must be either direct commercial gain or something that can be regarded as a direct substitute for it - not just anything that benefits you.
Elected office is supposed to be about serving the public - not enriching yourself. Had you forgotten that point?
I'm really surprised that you don't see this as a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
I'd be interested in some evidence to back up such a broad interpretation. 'something to gain' does pretty much include every conceivable scenario. Of course, if you want to claim that there is no such thing as non commercial use then go ahead. Otherwise I would suggest clarifying your statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
There is, of course, noncommercial use. My point is that the difference between commercial and noncommercial may not be what people think it is.
Before people go applying the four factors, they should learn how the factors are applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
and my point is that the fact that political campaigning is regarded as commercial use says somethign about the current US attitude to democracy.
I'm not disagreeing with you about how the courts actually interpret commercial use. Rather I'm saying that the fact that the courts ome to such a conclusion is an indictment against current US legal and political culture.
Please raise you head from your legal books for a minute and look at the bigger picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
It is exactly what people think it is - it the courts think differently then that is their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
It would seem the decision in that case was based on the notion that there did not have to be direct monetary gain, but all the examples in the case were about linking the infringement to monetary gain. You had stated that the requirement was for any gain, monetary or otherwise, which is not backed up by that case. Going by your statement, had someone directly gained votes for no purpose other than to have more votes then that would be considered commercial.
In this case the defendant quite clearly made no money but did possibly gain something on personal level, such as pride, which by your words would be commercial use. You can call me out for nitpicking but you do keep telling us how things supposedly are, so I expect you to at least make it plain what you mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
That sounds odd - I always thought it was supposed to work the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
As others have pointed out, this seems to indicate a fundamental disconnect between what the legal definition and reality. I have no reason to doubt that Henley v. Devore indicates that gaining the support of voters is commercial use. There's just one small problem. It isn't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Un-Believable
Man someone at Universal has too much time on their hands.
How much money has been spent in court over this?.
Defo someone needs the sack!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never Ending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is why my family is boycotting the music industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal Music definition of 'Fair Use'
Someone tries to use something we made out of your stuff in their own product, that's copyright infringement, not fair use...
Seems simple from their perspective. Typical, "Do as we say, not as we do" corporate attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extraneous words in sentence in blog post.
Let's clean that up a bit, shall we?
Ah, much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube's broadcasting of the video is the issue
Universal going after the creator of the video is perhaps unfair but on the other hand Google/YouTube have been absolutely hands-off regarding copyright infringement on their channels and have made it the responsibility of the copyright holder to police the usage of their copyrights. So the copyright holder really has so recourse except to issue a DMCA takedown to the poster. It's not in YouTube's interest to police copyright infringement so they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]