Prince
A YouTube video of a baby dancing to a Prince song has ended in victory for the 'fair use' premise

Fair use comes first in web video

Dancing baby sets legal landmark

Shaun Nichols in San Francisco

A video of a dancing baby has led to a landmark decision regarding the handling of internet videos.

As part of the ruling in the Lenz v. Universal case, US Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that content holders must consider the fair use premise before sending takedown notices to video sites.

Advertisement

Fair use allows a person legally to use a piece of copyrighted material if the product is used for a short period of time and is not used for any commercial purposes.

Civil rights groups have long complained that the premise is not taken into account when copyright owners issue takedown notices under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

"Given the 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach some content owners take to the DMCA notice process, improper takedowns of non-infringing fair uses are all too common," said the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"We are very pleased that Judge Fogel has put content owners on notice: ignore fair use at your peril."

The ruling stemmed from the case of a mother who posted a clip on YouTube of her baby son dancing to the tune of the Prince song Let's Go Crazy.

The clip was later removed from YouTube when Universal filed a takedown claim under the DMCA.

The woman then filed suit against Universal, alleging that the video constituted fair use and that Universal had thus wrongly ordered the video to be taken down.

"In order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with 'a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorised by the copyright owner, its agent or the law' the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright," Fogel said in his ruling.

"The DMCA already requires copyright owners to make an initial review of the potentially infringing material prior to sending a takedown notice.

"Indeed, it would be impossible to meet any of the requirements of Section 512(c) without doing so."

  • Have your say
  • Send to a friend
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Share

Do you agree?

Further reading

Prince

Mum fights Universal over YouTube clip

Child dancing to Prince song leads to court case

'Anonymous' wages war on Scientology

Online spat turns nasty following Cruise video

eBook hacker brought to book

Adobe's nemesis in the dock

DRM vendor threatens to sue media giants

Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Real under fire for not using DRM controller

Related whitepapers

Related jobs

Most watched

iPhone

Video Review: iPhone 3GS

We put Apple's latest iPhone through its paces

Xperia X1

Video Review: Sony Ericsson Xperia X1

First Looks Editor Ian Williams gets hands on with the Sony Ericsson Xperia X1

IT white papers

Search white papers

Top categories

Poll

Poll: Summer smartphones

Poll: Summer smartphones

Which smartphone will you be taking to the beach this summer?

View poll results

Advertisement

Advertisement

Newsletter signup

Sign up for our range of FREE newsletters:

Existing User

Newsletter user login:

Enter email address to edit your newsletter preferences

Job of the week

Search thousands of IT jobs :

Search thousands of IT jobs:

Advanced search

Hiring now on ComputingCareers:

Related IT jobs

Search thousands of IT jobs :

Search thousands of IT jobs:

Advanced search

Spotlight

Google Chrome

Microsoft has no need to worry about Chrome OS

Redmond may actually welcome the new arrival

Dr Aladdin Ayesh

Is it time for the Turing Test to retire?

It is nearly 60 years since Alan Turing devised a...

Security double standards

Broadband provider Tiscali has launched new figures showing an alarming...

Beach

Top 10 holiday gadgets

A wry look at the must-have beach items for any...

Primary Navigation