Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Dancing Baby Fair Use Case
from the hmmm dept
The copyright case involving Stephanie Lenz and her dancing baby is one that may finally be nearing a conclusion after many, many years -- but it's not over yet. As you may recall, Lenz posted a very brief clip of her then toddler, dancing along to a few seconds of a barely audible Prince song. This was almost a decade ago.Both EFF and Universal Music asked the Supreme Court to hear different questions about the messy 9th circuit ruling, and lots of other folks weighed in with amicus briefs, including internet companies and the RIAA (not on the same side, as you might imagine). The general consensus seemed to be that it was a long shot that the Supreme Court would bother with the case, even as it was kind of a mess, but the Supreme Court this morning kept things alive by asking the White House Solicitor General to weigh in (on page 2 of the document).
LENZ, STEPHANIE V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., ET AL.So... now everyone gets to sit and wonder what the hell the Solicitor General is going to say. The fact that former MPAA lawyer Donald Verrilli is no longer the Solicitor General is at least mildly encouraging, since his views on copyright appeared to be positively draconian. But it's anybody's guess how the acting Solicitor General, Ian Gershengorn, and his staff will respond to the request. I don't think Gershengorn has much experience with copyright issues, but prior to jumping into the Obama administration, he did work at Jenner & Block, which was where Verrilli worked as well. And others on the staff have been shown to have some wacky ideas about copyright in the past.
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
But, for now, we'll have to wait and see -- but it also means that the case is still alive. With any luck, it'll be over before Lenz's "dancing baby" graduates high school.
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, donald verrilli, fair use, ian gershengorn, solicitor general, stephanie lenz, supreme court
Companies: eff, universal music
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Simple Question
SCOTUS is corrupt, they have already bent knee to the Executive branch and its DoJ thugs more than once.made the First Word by audiomagi
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what would a "win" look like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait, what???
There isn't even a requirement to have copyright (or patents or trademark) which would obviate the whole need for a fair use defense, it is just allowed by the constitution, not required. And some joker is going to stand up and tell the Supreme's (not the musical group) what we, a very divers group of people, think as a whole?
Methinks the court is reaching a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wait, what???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what would a "win" look like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Simple Question
The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So what would a "win" look like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wait, what???
Congress has largely abdicated their responsibilities. The Executive branch and the courts are doing a fucking fantastic job in their stead!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Simple Question
Even better question: Considering that the Solicitor General is part of the executive branch, why do you seem to think the top executive is based in the White House?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple Question
Checking the political correctness winds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Hurry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wait, what???
Kind of like the original status of slavery in the US. Slavery was finally abolished. The same thing needs to happen to copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Hurry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Hurry
Nah. If copyright is allowed to continue, they'll retroactively extend it long before then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geez, Hollywood is evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wait, what???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, what???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what would a "win" look like?
The big question in this case is if she is entitled to any damages compensation seeing that there was no obvious monetary loss. Most people think think they should pay a fine for the trouble they caused but there is nothing obvious in the law supporting it.
Keep in mind that the Supreme Court is one key court in the USA that has the power to create new law where none has existed before. The RIAA are obviously concerned that the Supreme Court may impose fixed damages or a fine for non-commercial false take-downs. That is the one thing Internet supporters hope for to end the era of DMCA bots firing notices at any smells alike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple Question
Changing the fundamentals of copyright enforcement is a big matter meaning they desire political backup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wait, what???
Even now though it is not quite over when modern people still work the same fields as the slaves once did. The big difference is that they need to be classed as a prisoner first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So what would a "win" look like?
They already are lawfully required to consider fair use prior issuing a DMCA takedown request, not that they always do even now.
Theoretically yes, for all intents and purposes not even close, for the reason that your very last line touched on: Bots cannot consider fair use, yet it is still considered perfectly acceptable and legal to use them to generate and file DMCA notices despite this fact.
A requirement that can be blatantly ignored is not a requirement, it's a 'suggestion' at best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jenner & Block
FYI, if the name Jenner & Block sounds familiar to you, that is because they are the legal firm that was hired by the MPAA to write CIDs for Jim Hood.
Yes, the same CID's that Judge Wingate ruled unconstitutional (PDF).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait, what???
[ link to this | view in thread ]