Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 803 F.3d 1126 (2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, confirming the ruling in the 2008 US District Court for the Northern District of California, which holds that copyright holders should consider the use of reasonable in good faith before issuing a takedown notice for content posted on the Internet.
Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube home videos of her children dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy". Universal Music Corporation (Universal) sends YouTube removal notice in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which claims that Lenz's video infringes their copyright in the song "Let's Go Crazy".
Lenz claimed fair use of copyrighted material and sued Universal for misinterpreting the DMCA claim. In a decision that refused a motion to reject false claims, the district court stated that Universal should consider fair use when filing a notice of repeal, but noted that to sue the plaintiff needs to show bad faith by the rights holder.
Video Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
Fakta
In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a twenty-nine second clip, her 13-month-old son dancing with Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy". The audio was poor quality, and the song was heard for about twenty seconds from twenty-nine seconds. In June 2007, Universal, the copyright holder for "Let's Go Crazy", sent YouTube's takedown notice in accordance with the DMCA requirements, claiming that the video was a copyright infringement. YouTube deleted the video, and notified Lenz of deletion and alleged infringement.
At the end of June 2007, Lenz sent a counter notification to YouTube, claimed fair use and requested that the video be resent. Six weeks later, YouTube re-posted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for being mistaken under the DMCA, and requested a court declaration that its use of the copyrighted song was not infringing.
According to DMCA 17 U.S.C. Ã, § 512 (c) (3) (A) (v), the copyright holder must consider whether the use of the material is authorized by the copyright owner or the law. In September 2007, Prince released a statement that he intended to "reclaim his artwork on the internet". In October 2007, Universal released a statement that Prince and Universal intend to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the Internet, as a matter of principle.
Maps Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
Decision
District court
According to Prince and Universal's statement, Lenz argues that Universal issues a notice of abolition in bad faith, as they seek to remove all content related to the Prince rather than considering whether each post infringes copyright, and in particular non-infringing fair use. Universal raises concerns over fact-intensive investigations and subjective results to determine whether a potentially infringing use falls under the general fair use doctrine.
The district court stated that the copyright owner should consider fair use before issuing a DMCA takedown notice. Thus, the district court rejected Universal's action to reject Lenz's claims, and refused to dismiss Lenz's false statements as a legal matter. The district court believes that Universal's concern over the burden of considering fair use is exaggerated, since good faith consideration of fair use, no need for in-depth investigation, is adequate defense of mispresentation.
The Court also made it clear that false accountability is essential in an important part of balance in the DMCA. On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling that rejected some of Universal's affirmative affirmations, including the defense that Lenz was not damaged, although the court did show that at that stage in the process, Lenz's damages seemed nominal.
In January 2013, Judge Fogel denied both parties to judge the decision.
Ninth Circuit
The two sides crossed appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The oral argument was held July 7, 2015. On September 14, 2015, Circuit 9 affirmed the District Court, stating that although fair use appears procedurally as an affirmative defense, the copyright holder has an "obligation to consider - in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notice - whether the allegedly infringing material is a fair use ".
Importantly, the court views fair use not as a legitimate reason to commit a violation or otherwise, not as a violation in the first place. "Because 17 A.S.C§ § 107 creates an infringing use type, fair use is 'legalized' and the copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before submitting a takedown notice under § 512 (c)."
Supreme Court
Lenz appealed to the US Supreme Court asking the question:
Is the Ninth Circuit incorrect in concluding that the affirmation of a good faith belief that the use of the material provided is not authorized "by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law," required under Section 512 (c) of the Millennium Digital Rights Act ("DMCA"), may be purely subjective and, therefore, that unwarranted beliefs - such as established beliefs without considering the compulsory fair use factor - will not cause the sender a notice of abolition for liability under Section 512 (f) of the DMCA?
The US Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in this case on June 19, 2017.
See also
- OPG v. Diebold , previous case concerning fair use in DMCA takedown notice
- Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC , another case involving the claim of abuse of YouTube removal requests
- Christopher Knight (filmmaker), claimant in another 2007 case involving DMCA and YouTube removal
References
External links
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation Resources associated with Lenz v. Universal
- The Citizen Citizens Media Resource Project is associated with Lenz v. Universal
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments