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.'"

Comments

Tag goodforher !

[ynososiduts]

Nothing is better than seeing the average person stand up to the injustice of big corporation.

Re:Tag goodforher !

[Anonymous Coward]

She's not average. It's been my experience that moms are the toughest f*$king people on the planet, not to be trifled with.

This music group, may FSM have mercy on them... because she won't.

Re:Tag goodforher !

[orgelspieler]

I'll never understand the persistence of the myth that you must get clearance for every little sound in your film. The intarweb is full of pretty smart people warning that any image or sound in your films is a copyright violation unless you get permission from the copyright holder. One even said if somebody was wearing an identifiable t-shirt, you had to blur it if you couldn't get "clearance." This is all nonsense. People perpetuating this myth are eroding our fair use rights. IANAL, but I am a copyright holder, and I have talked to a few lawyers about it.

That being said, I'm not sure this ladies video is fair use. The music is effectively a soundtrack and comprises a large portion of the video's content. If I heard my (CC-BY-SA) music in the background of a video like this, I would at least expect a "music by orgelspieler" somewhere in the video description.

Let's recap fair use and how it applies to this case:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Obviously, the only item this might fail on is the amount. 29 seconds is about 10% of the song. You have to meet all four requirements to count as fair use. This is a great case for the courts to help explain what is and isn't allowed. Or better yet, maybe it will serve as a touchstone for those jerks in Washington to get off their asses and do something about this vast gray area that is diminishing the creative output of the nation. Copyright is supposed encourage creativity, not stifle it.

Prince?

[kihjin]

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.

Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this ....

[deesine]

>Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?

I doubt it was Prince himself doing the searching. Prince is plenty rich enough that he is probably paying someone to do the searching.

Having worked for an online kids entertainment company, I can tell you that part of the job responsibility of the 2 full time lawyers was to scour the net looking for any and all references to their company name and images. Also, no surprise this company was owned by a Scientologist, with all upper management being part of the cult too.

Uncorroborated claims newsworthy

[LoadWB]

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"?

Re:Offense is the best defence?

[Wavicle]

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.

Re:Offense is the best defence?

[sharkb8]

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.

To paraphrase....

[MrKevvy]

"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."

Have you actually watched the video?

[MacDork]

Here it is. UMG doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The RIAA's new moto

[EEPROMS]

All your culture are belong to us

Re:Normally...

[erroneus]

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.