Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lenz Lawsuit Dances to a Fair Use Tune and Heads for Trial
A California district court has denied cross summary judgment motions in a case that has implications for fair use analysis under copyright law and DMCA litigation. The motions arose out of a 2007 lawsuit between plaintiff Stephanie Lenz (“Lenz”) and defendant Universal Music Corp. (“Universal”), concerning Lenz's use in a home video of the song “Let's Go Crazy” by the artist formerly known as Prince.
Lenz had made a 29-second video showing her toddler dancing' to “Let's Go Crazy.” Lenz had titled it “Let's Go Crazy #1.” Universal, a music publishing company that administers the copyrights to the song, identified the video through its daily copyright review procedures and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notice to YouTube, which removed the video, giving Lenz an opportunity to respond. Lenz's first response was incomplete, and the video remained offline. After Lenz retained counsel, she submitted a second DMCA counter-notice, asserting the video qualified as fair use. YouTube re-posted the video approximately six weeks later. In 2007, Lenz sued Universal, alleging that she had suffered damages during the time that YouTube had removed her video in response to Universal's takedown notice. As of January 2013, the video had more than 1.2 million hits, although presumably some of its popularity is due to Lenz's pending legal action.
The Lawsuit
Lenz's lawsuit alleges a violation of the DMCA's 17 USC ' 512(f). Her second amended complaint claims that Universal is liable for knowingly and materially misrepresenting that her online video infringes Prince's copyrights. The complaint also asserts that Lenz incurred damages as a result of Universal's actions. Both parties filed for summary judgment. Lenz asserted that Universal did not consider adequately whether her video constituted a fair use of the “Let's Go Crazy” song before issuing its takedown notice, thus making a material misrepresentation in violation of the DMCA. Universal, on the other hand, asserted that the DMCA is inapplicable and in the alternative, Lenz did not suffer recoverable damages. Neither party's arguments prevailed at summary judgment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?