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

eu flag

V3.co.uk weekly debrief, 6 Nov 09

This week, Europe decides what to do with illegal file sharers

Intel unveils its micro server platform

Small-enclosure systems take aim at hosting market

IT white papers

Search white papers

Top categories

Poll

Impact of Information Overload poll

Impact of Information Overload poll

What is the biggest problem your firm faces as a result of the data explosion?

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

eu flag

V3.co.uk weekly debrief, 6 Nov 09

This week, Europe decides what to do with illegal file...

Dell Adamo XPS

Dell launches ultra-thin Adamo XPS

World's thinnest laptop will be available by Christmas

Top 10 articles, 6 November 2009

The worst Microsoft products of all time, and a USB...

Iain Thomson

Pirate Bay shutdown could be inspiring online militancy

Recent Swedish attacks raise worrying possibility

Primary Navigation