Mom continues to chase Prince over 'fair use'
SAN JOSE, Calif.--Stephanie Lenz is an angry Pennsylvania mother who refuses to back down from the music industry.
Lenz's attorneys were in federal district court on Friday morning, trying to thwart a motion to dismiss her lawsuit against Universal Music Group. A year ago, the music label ordered YouTube to pull down a 30-second video she shot of her infant son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."
Lenz, who resides in a rural Pennsylvania area, claims that her video is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Fair Use provision in copyright law. She fought the order, and eventually, Universal Music abandoned any claim that she violated Prince's copyright. YouTube has since reposted her clip.
Now Lenz is out to teach the music industry a lesson.
What Lenz and her attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation want are for media companies to stop sending take-down notices in a "willy nilly" fashion and to make sure that they have a legitimate claim of copyright violation before acting. They failed do this with Lenz's video, according to Corynne McSherry, an EFF attorney.
"This video is so clearly noninfringing," McSherry said. "What we've seen is that Universal Music had the view that they could take down Prince content as a matter of principle. But what they were obligated to do was form a good-faith belief that the video was infringing...They may not have formed a good-faith belief at all."
The good news for her is that U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel said he would take the matter under consideration after hearing arguments from both sides.
In April, Fogel tossed out the lawsuit Lenz filed against Universal in October. Fogel said her argument that Universal was misusing its copyright was weak.
The judge did allow Lenz's EFF attorneys, however, to try their arguments a second time.
EFF promptly filed a second complaint, arguing that Universal Music should compensate Lenz for falsely accusing her of violating the law and getting her video removed from Google's video-sharing service. The music label has asked the judge to dismiss the case.
A lawyer for Universal Music argued that the label isn't liable for ordering Lenz's video to be removed because it doesn't have to think about Fair Use prior to sending take-down notices. There is no legal obligation to think about it in advance.
EFF, which advocates for the rights of Internet users, disagrees. The group has always said there is real harm caused when a media company issues take-down notices. For example, Lenz had to spend time learning why her video was taken down and convincing YouTube that she had not violated copyright law.
Even though Universal Music now says it no longer considers Lenz's baby video to be infringing on its copyright, Lenz says just receiving the take-down letter caused her harm.
Fogel gave no timetable on when he might make a decision. Should he decline to dismiss the case, Lenz's lawsuit would be allowed to move forward.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg.
- Topics:
-
Corporate & legal
- Tags:
-
Prince,
-
Universal Music Group,
-
copyright
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us





The funny thing is - when I could listen to music freely, I could discover what I liked and didn't like - and could then go BUY the artist's work(s) in a more convenient format.
Now that I can't really do that, I've stopped buying music because I'm sick of plunking down ten or twenty dollars only to find myself disappointed.
Perhaps it's stupid of the record company to pursue this. I'd argue the video is free advertising for the music and might sell more CDs or downloads. I can't image them losing money because somebody can watch a video featuring that song. But it's their right to be stupid.
The big record companies are so dumb, they probably won't learn their lesson even when they are shuttering their buildings.
She doesn't need permission to use the music in the clip. That's the point. I'm not sure she deserves compensation, but I know that the recording industry needs to be taught a lesson. They cannot abuse the law and intimidate individuals w/ invalid threats.
She doesn't need permission to use the music in the clip. That's the point. I'm not sure she deserves compensation, but I know that the recording industry needs to be taught a lesson. They cannot abuse the law and intimidate individuals w/ invalid threats.
Either that, or intelligence (double entendre) just isn't worth that much, so no one uses it.
"I'd argue the video is free advertising for the music and might sell more CDs or downloads."
--------
All freeloaders tend to say stuff like this. The music company should be legally entitled to decide if they want free advertising or not.
In this case, the sound quality is so bad it is likely to hurt record sales.
-
by JWreford
July 19, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
- If this video is considered illegal or improper use than I would have to say any home video that has music playing in the background is illegal and 90% of America should be sued. Besides the fact that the music is next to impossible to hear, I did not even know it was Prince, I fail to see how it would be considered stealing. It isn't even the entire track. Thousands of videos and mp3 are stolen every day and this is what Big Business chooses to focus on. No wonder we live in such a crappy society. Big Business is always throwing their weight around, even if they are in the wrong. If they have to start paying for damages or a fine for their stupidity then perhaps they might think twice before doing it again. They do this in the pursuit of money. They have probably made money on this some how, publicity. Prince, in my mind should step in here and apologize on behalf of this music company. Some good will or something along those lines. Show that he is a good person and that the company that releases his music isn't as dumb as they appear. As for the mother's damages... she rightly deserves damages. She had to spend her time and effort to fight back. Is your time and effort not worth compensation? Now the Music Company is saying it isn't an illegal video? Back peddling in my mind. They made a mistake that affected other people. They should have to pay. If you or I made a mistake than we would have to pay. They need to be held accountable for the actions. Not that I would ever want to hear Prince's music, I now never want to hear music that is put out but this particular music company. This is just another case of Big Business trying to hose the little man. The rich live off the backs of the poor.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 37 Comments >>