Mother protects YouTube clip by suing Prince
Prince can't push this mother around.
The pop star wanted YouTube to remove a clip of an infant boy dancing to his 1984 hit song "Let's Go Crazy." When the clip got scrubbed, the baby's mother cried foul and filed suit asking for damages. The woman's lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say the dancing-baby clip is the poster child for fair use.
Corynne McSherry, the EFF attorney representing the baby's mother, Stephanie Lenz, said the music on the clip is barely audible and that Lenz, from rural Pennsylvannia, posted the video for noncommercial uses. Copyright owners are often too quick on the trigger when it comes to sending takedown notices to YouTube and other Web sites, according to McSherry.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act enables owners of intellectual property to demand that unauthorized copies of their work be removed from Web sites. But Congress also built in safeguards to prevent copyright owners from making misrepresentations.
"We've seen a lot of abuse of the takedown procedures," McSherry said. "It's very easy to get material taken down, and unfortunately folks aren't careful enough when issuing notices. This interferes with free-speech rights. The Internet can't continue to grow or be a robust forum if users can't share views or larger political commentary without being worried that every little piece of content is going to be removed."
There is also something unique about this case. Universal Music Group is the defendant because it represents some of Prince's publishing rights (his current music label is Sony BMG). A year ago, Universal signed a licensing deal with YouTube that allows users to include the label's music in videos. Under the terms of the agreement, YouTube agreed to remove material from any Universal artist who declines to participate.
According to sources knowledgeable with the agreement, only one artist represented by Universal has elected to opt out of the YouTube deal: Prince.
A representative of Universal declined to comment.
The iconic musician sometimes calls up Universal when he spots unauthorized uses of his work and asks them to send takedown notices, the sources said. The author of such hits as "Purple Rain" and "Little Red Corvette," Prince has hired a company called Web Sheriff to patrol the Web looking for unauthorized copies of his work and then try to get them taken down. The company said it plans to spearhead a legal challenge to YouTube and other Web sites on behalf of Prince and the 1970s disco band, the Village People.
John Giacobbi, Web Sheriff's president, said by phone Tuesday that his company had nothing to do with the Lenz baby clip and declined to comment further.
The lawsuit appears to have a ways to go before the issue is decided. Universal has filed a motion of dismiss and EFF is scheduled to issue their reply in the next few weeks.
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, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
background? WTHeck? Sheesh...
Why?> Any owner of I.P. (intellectual *Property*) should be able to control access to songs or video works created by the entity, and expect payment .... if there isn't a standard system or due-process enabled by commonlaw, or if publishers don't consider all background 'sounds' *before* publishing, then this can and will be abused by unethical partners, who think they can push the boundaries, or assign discrete words to assign to "evidence" of the fact, or otherwise. Everyone must be paid. Otherwise, a poverty mentality and lower standard of living and economy will always continue to exist, until the next president comes into power and changes that fact. best wishes..................
The question is whether music is part of life, and whether incidental music that may be part of your baby video's can be posted to your website, or whether studio's have the right to demand their removal.
Fair use says, they don't. Others may think they do...but at least talk about the issue. Your ramble has nothing to do with the issue.
It's just not as simple as you describe. Artists function within a society, and concepts of fair use and public domain exist to ensure that pubilc access to privatively-owned works is maintained.
Another thing that courts look at are market impact and how both sides have been injured or rewarded. In fact, Prince has been rewarded in this action through advertisement of his brand, so his getting any money in court is slim.
As a PR issue, Prince is an idiot for doing what is - but then he's never been called a brain trust. He's getting free advert from the appearance on YouTube, although one might say he's getting much more from this flap. But in a negative way. He should have made some statement of support about how "cute" this reinterpretation of his work is, and let it go at that. I see he's still the stuck-up, takes-himself-too-seriously musician that he always was.
But anyway, copyright and fair use are especially complicated when they get into court.
And I, as a multiple-copyright-holder and student of media law, believe the music in this case is merely incidental, and can be defended on fair use grounds.
But once it hits court, it's even money as to what will happen.
the question is, when something has no commercial value, and is incidental...is it allowed?
Fair use says: yes. Prince says: No.
whose right?
Well, it cannot be Prince, geez.
I'm glad my forefathers didn't argue copyrights when they invented music or it would have never gotten off the ground. Instead of singing we would have just invented legal yelling.
This is the law.
Man, you need to stop ranting about stuff about which you know nothing.
But as to ownership - as I recall, the Church claimed ownership, but i don't know when the issue of copyright reared its head. It's an interesting question.
I've written about this - Personally, I feel that copyright is too restrictive. At some point, ALL works need to enter the public domain, but right now with the law written as it is, media can remain protected into perpetuity. And that's bad for society, and only good for corporations.
background is Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" I'd never have noticed it..!!
Not only is Prince a has-been he's a looser as well..!!!
This is one more example of the greed of those in the corporate music world.
back when i was a full-time musician, I remember how liberal and free musicians were on their way up. after they "made it," the greed set in and they wouldn't give away a damned thing.
We're seeing that now, on the corporate level.
Another example: If artists are being hurt so badly by illegal downloading and copyright infringement, then how come so many of them still become multi-millionaires overnight?
The question then becomes, does the infringement hurt, or help?
I think the answer is obvious.
he pays for it. Totally different story here.
To the people saying the artist should be paid...are you out of
your mind? You can barely tell what the song is. This isn't an
mp3 or video being made available that the artist could get paid
for otherwise. It's also not someone using the music for any
type of commercial purpose. If you're going to sue for this, you
might as well sue for a person singing the song in a karaoke
machine. It's totally ridiculous.
What surprises me most though is that it's Prince that started
this. He was one of the first artists to embrace the net for those
of you who haven't followed this drama since the beginning.
Way back before napster was even shut down Prince was in
favor of the web and was one of the artist against the lawsuits,
unlike Metalica, Madonna, etc.. That's the biggest shock to me.
This is a lousy quality home movie with audio that is just barely
distinguishable. In no way is this copyright infringement. Any
of you arguing that the artist should be paid for this are out of
your mind.
It is completly within the right of the company to ask Mrs. Lenz to remove the video.
Universal clearly represents Mr. Prince and his monetary interests, and the company is contractually obligated to threatan Mrs. Lenz. The video was not about the toddler, but about promoting a music clip, that was not her property. The music is the property of Mr. Prince, who could sue Universal if the company did not take action against Mrs. Lenz and the toddler (when he turns 18). The other toddlers appearing in the video are assisting in the making of the video - clearly they could be implicated in the suit - and increases the possibility of the suit being financially viable. One must not take all of this lightly. Law is law and it is must be enforced. It is the foundation of society - or else there will be chaos.
JUST JOKING!
(you thought I was serious? :)))
It's incredible what bull **** you can come up with when you try to put yourself in the shoes of an attorney. To think like them is just plain crazy. It's all intellectual mode without heart. So here is what I think (and feel). Read below.
WHAT IS HAPPENING
The recording industry is in self-destruct mode! Good for them, good for us. It's all about committing business model suicide. Let them do it. Let them sue everybody, and when there is nobody left to sue, they can look around and survey the damage. By then the rest of use will still be listening to our favorite music, as most normal musicians and actors and writers and artists, etc.. , will be living in some other business model we are all willing to support. So I say to Universal and the rest of them: KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
With regards from Budapest.
(I wrote this last part after seeing the video and before writting the legal stuff at top).
turultan at gmail dot com
- by SailorJason May 17, 2009 6:30 AM PDT
- So basically, if I get this correctly.
- Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)It's perfectly ok to listen to Prince's crappy music on the radio,
but you can't videotape a baby dancing to it and showing it to people for free on the internet.
Nice job Prince, the artist formerly known as significant, way to take down that mom!
Terrorist execution/propaganda videos? GOOD.
Baby dancing to a prima donna's archaic pop? BAD.