Slashdot Mirror
Mom Sues Music Company Over Baby Video Removal
penguin_dance writes "A Pennsylvania mom is fighting back, suing Universal Music Publishing Group for having a home movie taken down off of YouTube. The movie, featuring her 18-month old bouncing to Prince's song, 'Let's Go Crazy,' was cited for removal by the Group for copyright infringement. Mom Stephanie Lenz was first afraid they'd come after her — then she got angry. She got YouTube to put the video back up, she's enlisted the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and she's filed a civil lawsuit (pdf). 'I thought even though I didn't do anything wrong that they might want to file some kind of suit against me, take my house, come after me. And I didn't like feeling afraid ... I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
Nothing is better than seeing the average person stand up to the injustice of big corporation.
622677120
fair use.
FTFA:
Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?Hey, maybe he'll have to change his name again to avoid being known as the Bozo formerly known as Prince ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
". I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
It's an example of how outdated our copyright and patent system is in the digital age. They need to be modified to accept that people are going to make fan stuff with them and see it as free advertising for that matter.
Printable version: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3777651
A well-placed source directly involved in the situation confirmed to ABC News that Prince was directly involved in seeking the takedown of Lenz's video.
Anyone know how true is this? It seems like he might have better things to do... such as serving us pancakes.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
An American acting like one. You go girl!
> "Talk to a lawyer before going head-over-heels suing someone like the *AA for taking your video off a site that doesn't even belong to you, ma-am"
If you had bothered to read the article, or even the SUMMARY, you would have known that she did talk to a lawyer. > "Unlike the *AA, you do not have the money, expertise, or political connections to be able to pull something like that."
The EFF is doing the suing for her, because of the principles at stake. Not everything is about money.
If people held the **AAFIA's feet to the fire more often, maybe we would have fewer frivolous takedown notices, and a bit more respect all around.
Kevin Smith on Prince
FTA:
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the opinion that this has never been proven conclusively and that what "has devastated a once-booming music industry" is the industry itself.
Also, for the grammar pedantic, should that be "illegal downloading of music"?
To knee jerk reaction guy who didn't read the links:
1. She talked to a lawyer.
2. That lawyer is the EFF.
3. They're pretty experienced in this matter, and they intend to collect when she does.
4. Seeking a declaratory judgment is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
5. Universal doesn't get to trample over fair use just because they're a big company.
6. A company that knowingly tramples your rights should pay a fine.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I have to wonder who thought sending Youtube a take-down notice over this video would be a good idea. There are only a few things that almost all online viewers can find amusing or endearing, and one of them is babies doing cute things. The whole idea behind this is so ludicrous that you almost have to think someone sent it to expose the idiocy behind the methods used by the music labels...The only way this could have been a more boneheaded move from a PR standpoint would to have been asking someone to remove a video of a baby playing with a puppy and kitten while creating lolcat pictures while listening to music in the background.
:)
Now, if someone wants to sue the mother for letting her young child dance to Prince, then I am all for that
All the while I am keeping my daughter informed of progress on this, so that when she grows to the point where she will be making choices regarding intellectual property, she will develop an appropriate respect for how the music publishers handle these things.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
You can have a suit filed against you anytime, it doesn't matter if you filed first. You can have a first suit filed against you without doing anything, or have a second suit or a counterclaim filed if you file first. Prince didn't sue her because she's got no money. What would be the point? In fact, you generally want to file suit first, you get to pick the venue. Is 9th circuit (CA) or 2nd Circuit (NY) is friendlier to fair use?
You can file a suit without even having a takedown notice. If you have reason to believe that someone will sue you for infringement, you can initiate a suit for declaratory judgment, where you get to pick the venue and circumstances.
She went to the EFF because they'll handle her case for free. Yeah, she's doing it to make a point, but the EFF can get legal fees out of the copyright holders if they win, and she may get damages. The RIAA may pay her off just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years.
And yes, I am an IP/patent attorney.
Nirvana is closer to punk than what passes as punk these days.
>"just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years."
Maybe she should try to copyright the precedent so it will last her lifetime + 50 (or whatever it is nowadays)
(for the humor-impaired ... its a JOKE!!!)
Kevin Smith on Prince
Because nobody has asked.
"How can u upload my music?
How can u pirate my song? (Yeah *my* song!)
Maybe I'm just 2 demanding,
Maybe the clip's only 30 seconds long,
Maybe u're just that kid's mother
He's never satisfied (Now he likes Nevermind)
Why do we takedown each other?
This is what it sounds like
When suits fly."
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
My middle finger is waving at you. You got to be fucking kidding me. Don't you ass holes have something better to do? Like oh I don't know, publish better music? How many more company's am I NOT going to buy music CD's and DVD's from. But, just like normal you have to send bull shit take down notices for things that are clearly FAIR USE family videos. Get a FUCKING clue would you, because these 'take down notices' for irreverent things are getting way beyond old.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
she did use a copyrighted work without authorization. We can argue over and over about whether that law is right, but it is what it is.
It doesn't matter - it takes money to defend from lawsuits, and that is less money the publisher has to START lawsuits. It's her dime, but more people should be doing this.
Also, the situation is ridiculous. OK yes if we stick to the letter of the law, it's not "fair use". But make sure you keep your car windows rolled up because if anyone hears the music you are playing from the sidewalk that's a "public performance" and you will owe royalties. Don't hum any catchy tunes, either. Copyright law is too vague and covers/prohibits too much. More sensible countries have a clause in there that specifically prohibits commercial gain and everything else is fine. Which is as it should be.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Weather or not this is covered under fair use, at least someone, even if its just a few, are firing back at the MAFIAA.
Even though this case might not matter, the PR from it might just wake up a few congress critters that just taking the money from the MIFIAA might not be a good idea to stay elected if enough angrey moms vote then out.
"I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect"
The link you point to says otherwise:
This whole thing is de minimus,or at least it shold have been, if Prince didn't spend his days surfing the net looking for such minor "infringements". And yes, the article makes it clear that it was Prince who found the clip, and who was the one pushing for the DMCA notice.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Does that mean you can go right in and hold em up for cash?
Actually, as a matter of fact, it does. Else the EFF wouldn't have taken the case. The EFF may not be perfect, but they damn sure aren't going around wasting cash.
P.S.: Seriously, RTFA.
EFF Victories
With their pretty long list of cases listed here perhaps you could go through and point out out the hundreds listed, which ones they lost. If they have a track record of losing, I'm sure it won't take long to point out a few dozen cases the lost out of the hundred+ listed. I'd love to be more informed, but I suspect you probably have a couple headlines stuck in your head and are overgeneralizing.
I wish there was a fscking blue pill
She ought to write "slave" on one cheek and "owned by big biz" on the other until this is resolved. And maybe hang out around prince's multi-million dollar residence for a few days, collecting publicity photos. That should harsh his mellow a bit. Talk about hypocrisy!? WTF! This must be a new low.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
There ain't any, none. Them harassing her is crap. Radio stations all over play 30 second and under bumper music clips for *free*. Been like that for a long long time. She got a 29 second clip, she can tell them to go pound sand. The judge will, too. I certainly hope they file notice with those bozo lawyer's bar association, she might have some serious damages coming and they could even be disbarred, because if IP law is their specialty, they will have known this in advance. She's gonna pwn them greedsters.
could someone explain to me what right she had to use the song in the video?
I have to suspect you as a troll, but since you phrased it so politely...
The song played in the backround. In Real Life. The baby danced to it. The whole sickening glurge-factor aside (I agree, "for the kids" has no more meaning for "us" than it does for "them"), "documentary" falls well within the bounds of "fair use". And even if it didn't, the scene still happened. You can argue with the law, you can't argue with reality.
So, what right does she have to the song? The same right you or I or anyone has to their own lives, to our own culture, and to hell with the law if someone can twist it to say otherwise. I can tell you my day sucked, and Hoover can go pound sand.
If you really think that phrase is grammatically correct English, I'd love to know if English is your native language and if so, where you come from. Seriously. I'm interested in syntactic variation and change and I've never encountered a variety of English in which that'd be ok, prescriptively or otherwise.
That means simply singing or humming his songs would result in us violating copyright protection! There are better artistes elsewhere who will appreciate us appreciating their music.
> If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared.
Is there anything in the past behavior of RIAA that supports that claim?
I know little of RIAA, but the Danish equivalent have had no trouble targeting non-commercial use with ridiculous claims.
don't feel TOO bad, it's a pretty long list.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Who do you think knows the law better, the people of the EFF who are handling the case OR some idiot with a slashdot account?
She didn't hire some ambulance chaser who is going to get his money anyway, she went to the EFF and they took on her case. That is smarts. The EFF doesn't exactly have a long history of losing. The content industry may be able to hire lots of lawyers but the EFF seems to get the smart ones.
Will she win? Wrong question, will the EFF win on HER behalve.
Also this will play extremely badly for Prince. I doubt he wishes to be known as the artists that sues moms. You can bet your ass that the press will have a field day because of his former name. THey LOVE pun headlines. If you have them a choice between a pun headline about a kitten or the outbreak of WW3, they choose the kitten.
No my friend, I will take the legal opinion of the EFF any time over yours. To many people on slashdot think they are lawyers. I listen to the ones who really are AND have a track record of being any good at it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Here it is. UMG doesn't have a leg to stand on.
If you read the story then it seems as if this mother went to the EFF and they are representing her. The EFF ain't a commercial organization, this isn't a lawyer who is going to get his money wether he wins or loses.
Yet many will spout that she doesn't stand a chance. Yeah, because the EFF lawyers are NOT leaders in their field with a long history of winning.
This is a video with music playing in the background. Imagine if that was illegal, does the same go for images? BAM, you just destroyed all visual media taken in say Disney land. Disney owns the image rights to their park. Hell, simply picture on the street is likely to have lots of copyrighted advertising signs. Your clothes? Owned by the designer. Could you only make homemovies in a sterile white room with naked people? Might get a bit boring.
You could barely film/photograph anything without showing something that infringes on a copyright.
I am not going to watch a video of a baby, but the music was playing in the background, it was NOT a soundtrack added to the video. If we make it illegal to film normal live we have really bend over to far to the music industry.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Talk to a lawyer. A good one. Who does his work because he believes in a cause and does it without saying "win or lose, you own me". IANAL but the EFF is.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
uh, you are so sure of yourself, yet your argument is non-legal nonsense. Here are the tests of fair use:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
The four factors judges consider are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
in this case:
1. clearly transformative, new work - she wins
2. not factual stuff, yet hugely public - a wash
3. it's a small fraction of the work, yet non-trivial - a wash
4. none, not for sale - clearly she wins this one
in short, whether you agree w/ *my* analysis or not, anyone can agree you made no fair use analysis AT ALL, instead tossing out pseudo-legal terms to confuse others, and prop yourself up. which makes it ridiculous to claim "she will lose."
no, not ridiculous:
TROLL.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.
Give me a fucking break. She posted a video of her kid with something that I couldn't even distinguish playing in the background. Whatever she used the video for, any noise in the background is incidental. If you really think this in any way, shape or form is effecting {symbol}'s (the moron formally known as prince) ability to make money forever for a few days work he did who knows how long ago, you're a moron also. And while you're at it explain why the are there laws enforcing the fact that just because some asshole can make a little music their little bit of work should be preserved for the exclusive purpose of making money for both them and their relatives for 90 years after they are dead. Strangely enough there are no laws forcing people to keep paying me until 90 years after I'm dead for the work I do every day.
Who is John Galt?
Maybe we should coin a new phrase. Rather than "Ambulance Chasers" we could have "YouTube Trawlers"?
And invoke the wrath of the caffeine-pumped hardcore gamer community? Nah, lets go after the babies instead.
:wq
Prince represents one fairly extreme (and minority, it should also be said) end of the spectrum as far as intellectual property is concerned. At the other end you've got people like Trent Reznor with the comments he made at his concert recently, literally telling people to pirate his music.
The moral of the story here is that if you're selecting artists to listen to, it might actually be a good idea to try and find out what their individual stance on enforcement is. Some are going to be like Prince, or Metallica. Others are going to be like Trent Reznor. Most, I suspect, will fall somewhere in between, in the sense that while they won't mind fair use to a degree similar to what has traditionally existed with radio, they will still, in the end, quite rightfully expect people to buy CDs of their music. However, I also believe that enforcement needs to be the responsibility of the artist themselves, and not middlemen organisations like the RIAA...because very often the middlemen organisations hold views which are not representative of everyone that they claim to represent.
One other thing I'd actually like to see some acts offering is the possibility of legal indemnity to individuals who can be proven to have bought copies of their music. In other words, if you buy a copy of a given artist's music, for a contract to exist between you and said artist specifying exactly what it is that you are or are not legally allowed to do with the music you've bought, and as long as you operate within those guidelines, you won't get sued. Different artists are going to have different perspectives on that, so said contracts would actually need to be extremely individual in nature. I'm also not talking about something exactly the same as a software license here, either. I would want to see something where people actually had to provide individual signatures that were recorded along with the date of purchase; not something clickthrough that is untraceable, unenforceable, and can thus be brushed off.
Someone like Prince would obviously be fairly strict; private, individual listening/viewing only, with no reproduction or secondary performance allowed of any kind whatsoever. At the other end of the spectrum you'd likely get people who'd be willing, once you've paid them, to let you do whatever you wanted, up to and including the creation of derivative works.
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Last time I checked, the industry's profits were still pretty comfortably in the gaziliions range. If by "devastated" they mean "somewhat less outrageous than before," and "our poor execs are having to get by on salaries and bonuses only 30 times as big as the average workingman's salary instead of 50 times as much" then perhaps it's an accurate statement. It's all a matter of proportion -- the more you make, the more you expect. It's like a baseball player making $20 mil a year, then getting insulted because his team wants to pay him "only" $15 mil this year. Corporations and their royalty seem to think that they have a "right" to consistently make as much or more than they did the previous year. I think Average Joe has little sympathy for them (as do I).
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
The use of the music is as a Historical Document. Her baby is "dancing crazy" to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy". It doesn't appear PLANNED. It appears ad libbed. How is this any different than if a news camera interviewed a fan at a music festival as copyrighted music was heard playing in the background? Should the news crew be forced to censor the audio? Should sporting leagues like the NFL be required to get signed contract permission from cheering fans appearing on broadcasts? If you were to argue there is an implicit contract, then so too must there be an implicit contract of people reacting to sound waves beamed out all over the place in all manner of delivery mechanisms, including radio.
/raises Sword +3
Must you turn the television and radio OFF to film yourself commenting upon the content being heard and seen ala Beevis and Butthead, ala Mystery Science Theater? Her video is original content. Those corporate shills have no right to dare demand a take down notice, even if she used the whole "Let's Go Crazy" song. The focus is her baby's reaction to the song "Let's Go Crazy". This is not *just* FAIR USE, but FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TRUTH. Nobody can see or hear the real FACTUAL reaction of the baby to "Let's Go Crazy"? To prohibit this is censorship. To prohibit this is to prohibit free expression. To prohibit this is to violate the First Amendment.
The song is not used to "supplement a video work". The video work is a reaction to a specific song. Use of the song is ESSENTIAL to the video work reaction. To deny the use of the song is to deny the meaning of the video. And that is nothing less than an attempt to bury FACT, an attempt to bury HISTORY. Prince and his copyright holder minions had their chance, had their right to remain silent. Just because somebody utters something does not give them the right to cut off or prohibit the use of another's ears. Copyright be damned! No news station is prohibited from filming fact. And they dare claim copyright on those broadcasts of fact? They don't own peoples' reactions. They don't own peoples' creative responses to prior art. And this woman has a RIGHT to share her crazy dancing baby reacting to any song ever played. If some artist doesn't like it, too bloody bad. Enough of artists freely "stealing" public domain ideas like words and inserting them to abuse and falsely claim copyright on derivative works.
Sound the horns.
"Chhhhaaaaarrrrggggeee!!!!!!" [Insert Hollywood frontal assault here.]
All your culture are belong to us
... it *was* copyright violation. Plain and simple. This doesn't come close to fitting the criteria for fair use (a lot of"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I'm sorry but I think those all apply here.
Written in 1984, it is only 24 years old- so even by the original jeffersonian copyright rules which I prefer & support the song should have another four years to go. It's not so cut and dry... you know there are so many one noted replies that seem like "golly the bad lady hurt the poor starving artist. clearly she needs ot be punished". Either the US has given up on asserting fair use and has rolled over and let the corprate interests rape them, or there is a significant number of astroturfers on slashdot.
A copyright grants a limited monopoly on distribution on certain content. Fair use exempts certain forms of distribution as allowable. The idea is that a artist/creator/agent there of is enable to collect fees in some circumstances and has control. However not all forms of distribution violate copyright. In fact the media studios have been extremely over zealous in their pursuit of their fair share. This case is likely within fair use regaurdless of what you say.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This isn't about "sue me first. sue you first" this is about the fact that due to RIAA's litigation-happy activities, she was essentially terrorized and intimidated. She was very. very afraid. Who is to blame for that fear and intimidation? The RIAA. Now, for that baseless fear and intimidation, she is going to sue for damages caused.
There are likely to be many precedents where unfounded fear and intimidation had resulted in damages being awarded by the courts. Her fears are not unwarranted and I believe the will be victorious in this case.
I agree completely....
The only problem I have with this case is the fact that she *is* suing the wrong party here. Her beef lies with YouTube for their knee jerk reaction in pulling the video on unsubstantiated copyright claims. That is the hazard of the DMCA. For all we know, the label being sued could be "Joe Jobbed" in this. All it takes for some places (YouTube being one of those places) is an email claiming copyright infringement and POOF! There goes your content. The DMCA was purposely setup this way. YouTube could lose their safe harbor status if they didn't. It's a flaw in the DMCA that hasn't been addressed.
I don't think this will even make it to a court solely based on that.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Now explain to me how it is possible that the first two recommended videos that show up after this is done playing are:
* BLONDE AMERICAN SLUT
* Sexy Blonde Shows Off Her Oral Talents.
And no, I'm not making this up.
no, dickwad. It's called fair use! look it up.
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup This is UMG's official Youtube site. They have all the latest music videos their trying to promote available here. Let's teach UMG that karma is a real bitch. We should descend on their Youtube channel like a swarm of locusts, and give the minimum possible number of stars to all their music videos. Pass this along to everyone you know who has a bone to pick with UMG. You might be thinking 'it's a waste of time', but the Grand Canyon was formed from a gradual drip of water over a long period of time. If enough individual users do this, it will begin to affect the overall ratings of the videos in question. If we can't do something this basic against the RIAA, we'll never be able to do anything more elaborate. You have to start somewhere.
Having been involved with hosting I have to run though my favorite DMCA response.
We get a take down notice for some free hosting bits all we have is an email.
We forward it and they respond with a funny/fake counter notice. Since it's the first time we get legal involved and they say forward it back and do not question it.
We forward it to the original requester and keep the content up.
They sued and got a summary judgment after 6 months we got the order from the court and removed it and hand over any records we had to who uploaded it.
Seems to be a good plan, They used tor to get to our site, they I would assume used tor to get to the free email service so we had no useful info. I would assume they did the same thing somewhere else and got the content back up. Overall the DMCA is not to bad in this from the ISP point of view, it should allow for a processing fee from the ISP paid by whoever makes the request, and ban ones on the responder (let the court get them to pay for it if they loose sure) since it's expensive to handle these things well.
No sir I dont like it.
IP creators do indeed deserve to be compensated however there are limits. Copyright is a recent invention meant to open up society and enable creators to receive something. The system worked as well when the creator got worked under patronage (most classical music and art was commissioned). The current system is a gigantic strain on society. The artists get much less then 10% back on all sales the consumer has to be careful not to tread on fairly arcane laws and their ownership of anything is in dispute. This system isn't working so well. The only ones winning are lawyers, and the middlemen.
Contrary to how you wish to paint me I buy all my media. Games, movies, music. I object to someone telling where and when I can use this media. Thankfully i live in Canada which to date has a saner approach to copyright. Fair use is broader, Technical protection measures such as DRM is perfectly legal to circumvent for non-infringing purposes and non-infringing is semi-well defined. I hope dearly and work hard towards ensuring Canada doesn't sign the WIPO treaty and doesn't become like America, who ironically built their industry on patents stolen from europe.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."