Mom Sues Music Company Over Baby Video Removal 391
penguin_dance writes "A Pennsylvania mom is fighting back, suing Universal Music Publishing Group for having a home movie taken down off of YouTube. The movie, featuring her 18-month old bouncing to Prince's song, 'Let's Go Crazy,' was cited for removal by the Group for copyright infringement. Mom Stephanie Lenz was first afraid they'd come after her — then she got angry. She got YouTube to put the video back up, she's enlisted the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and she's filed a civil lawsuit (pdf). 'I thought even though I didn't do anything wrong that they might want to file some kind of suit against me, take my house, come after me. And I didn't like feeling afraid ... I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
Two words... (Score:2, Informative)
I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?Hey, maybe he'll have to change his name again to avoid being known as the Bozo formerly known as Prince ...
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:5, Informative)
1. She talked to a lawyer.
2. That lawyer is the EFF.
3. They're pretty experienced in this matter, and they intend to collect when she does.
4. Seeking a declaratory judgment is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
5. Universal doesn't get to trample over fair use just because they're a big company.
6. A company that knowingly tramples your rights should pay a fine.
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:3, Informative)
"I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect"
The link you point to says otherwise:
This whole thing is de minimus,or at least it shold have been, if Prince didn't spend his days surfing the net looking for such minor "infringements". And yes, the article makes it clear that it was Prince who found the clip, and who was the one pushing for the DMCA notice.
Re:Legal Precedence? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to suspect you as a troll, but since you phrased it so politely...
The song played in the backround. In Real Life. The baby danced to it. The whole sickening glurge-factor aside (I agree, "for the kids" has no more meaning for "us" than it does for "them"), "documentary" falls well within the bounds of "fair use". And even if it didn't, the scene still happened. You can argue with the law, you can't argue with reality.
So, what right does she have to the song? The same right you or I or anyone has to their own lives, to our own culture, and to hell with the law if someone can twist it to say otherwise. I can tell you my day sucked, and Hoover can go pound sand.
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Is there anything in the past behavior of RIAA that supports that claim?
I know little of RIAA, but the Danish equivalent have had no trouble targeting non-commercial use with ridiculous claims.
Have you actually watched the video? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How to get permission (Score:3, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about suing for small potatoes. A jury recently decided blatant infringement like this cost the music industry $9,000 per song infringed. If you ask them they'll tell you it cost them billions a year and they're paying about that much to the congress critters to pass laws so they get that much every time they sue anybody.
Re:Two words... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How to get permission (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:3, Informative)
Since I do so like to be pedantic, I would like to point out that if moms are indeed characterized as tough, then she would in act be quite average due to the large number of moms.
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, I'm not sure this ladies video is fair use. The music is effectively a soundtrack and comprises a large portion of the video's content. If I heard my (CC-BY-SA) music in the background of a video like this, I would at least expect a "music by orgelspieler" somewhere in the video description.
Let's recap fair use and how it applies to this case:
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:3, Informative)
In the music industry, it's typical for the record label to own the rights to the specific recordings while another entity (ASCAP, BMI) administers rights to performances, sheet music, lyrics, etc., usually in conjunction with a shell company set up by the artist.
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just "on teh Intarweb" that people are saying this. This idea is taught in courses on film production, and the reasons are very simple:
1. You can sue anyone for anything, at any time.
2. Copyright is a big stinking swamp filled with alligators and corpses. Nobody knows which way a judge will jump.
Because of these, copyright holders feel free to sue the heck out of anyone using their copyrighted material in any way, even if that way is technically legal -- because who knows? The judge might just side with you and you might get some money. Large corporate holders have plenty of money to burn, so there's no downside to suing for them.
Conversely, users of copyrighted material have a great deal to lose, even if they win. Fighting cases in court costs money, and successfully defending yourself can be Pyrrhic. I suppose if you're a large corporate user, you wouldn't care monetarily if you lose, but it could cause PR issues, I guess.
In any case, the reason people are told to get clearance for everything is that doing so avoids the whole issue. Going back to the stinking swamp analogy, it's clearly best to just go around it. That's why the "myth" of requiring clearance for everything is perpetuated. It's a Pascal's wager.
No, I don't like it either.
--Rob
Re:But ... (Score:3, Informative)
IP creators do indeed deserve to be compensated however there are limits. Copyright is a recent invention meant to open up society and enable creators to receive something. The system worked as well when the creator got worked under patronage (most classical music and art was commissioned). The current system is a gigantic strain on society. The artists get much less then 10% back on all sales the consumer has to be careful not to tread on fairly arcane laws and their ownership of anything is in dispute. This system isn't working so well. The only ones winning are lawyers, and the middlemen.
Contrary to how you wish to paint me I buy all my media. Games, movies, music. I object to someone telling where and when I can use this media. Thankfully i live in Canada which to date has a saner approach to copyright. Fair use is broader, Technical protection measures such as DRM is perfectly legal to circumvent for non-infringing purposes and non-infringing is semi-well defined. I hope dearly and work hard towards ensuring Canada doesn't sign the WIPO treaty and doesn't become like America, who ironically built their industry on patents stolen from europe.