Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen; The Register, June 27, 2018

Kieren McCarthy, The Register; Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen

"In the Ninth Circuit ruling – which is the one that will now hold until another appeals court takes on the topic and/or the Supreme Court decides to revisit the issue in future – the court said that a copyright holder is obliged to consider whether the content they are planning to send a DMCA notice to is legal under the fair use doctrine.

 Which is great. Except the court also decided that the rightsholder is entitled to reach the decision of whether that is true or not entirely by themselves.

Which on one level provides a sort of equilibrium but on the other means that it is inevitable that there will be lots of future court cases as people argue all over again about what is fair use.

 In other words, this 11-year court battle has not really resolved anything and we can expect to see another one on the exact same topic soon."

Engineer, Prince's estate face off in court over unreleased music; MPRNews, April 19, 2017

Tim Nelson, MPRNews; 

Engineer, Prince's estate face off in court over unreleased music

"Prince's estate is suing a California sound engineer who is offering a multi-song selection of unreleased music from the late pop icon. The two sides faced off in an 80-minute federal court hearing Wednesday afternoon before U.S. District Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright in St. Paul."

The Prince of Copyright Enforcement; Wall Street Journal, 4/21/16

Jacob Gershman, Wall Street Journal; The Prince of Copyright Enforcement:

"The pop music world suffered a huge loss on Thursday with the sudden death of Prince, who will be long remembered as one of the industry’s most innovative and influential stars.

But in the legal arena, “the artist formerly known as Prince” was known as perhaps the recording industry’s most tenacious defender of copyright protections.

The artist and music companies representing him pushed the boundaries of copyright law with disputes that set legal precedents and polarized fans.

It was just last year when a federal appeals court in California ruled in the famous “dancing baby” case that centered on a 29-second home video of a baby dancing to the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.” The court ruled against Universal Music Corp., which enforced Prince’s copyrights, concluding that the company failed to consider whether the content in the video qualifies as fair use before trying to scrub the Internet of it."

9th Circuit revisits Dancing Baby copyright case: No fair use via algorithm; Ars Technica, 3/18/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; 9th Circuit revisits Dancing Baby copyright case: No fair use via algorithm:

"In September, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in the "Dancing Baby" copyright takedown case, initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation more than eight years ago. It was a victory for the EFF, but a very mixed one. Today, the court issued an amended opinion that makes the EFF's win stronger."

Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling; ArsTechnica.net, 9/14/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.net; Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling:

"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today issued a ruling that could change the contours of fair use and copyright takedown notices.

In an opinion (PDF) published this morning, the three-judge panel found that Universal Music Group's view of fair use is flawed. The record label must face a trial over whether it wrongfully sent a copyright takedown notice over a 2007 YouTube video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. That toddler's mother, Stephanie Lenz, acquired pro bono counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF in turn sued Universal in 2007, saying that its takedown practices violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The judges ruled today that copyright holders "must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification.""

Appeals judges hear about Prince’s takedown of “Dancing Baby” YouTube vid; ArsTechnica.com, 7/7/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Appeals judges hear about Prince’s takedown of “Dancing Baby” YouTube vid:

"A long-running copyright fight between the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Universal Music over fair use in the digital age was considered by an appeals court today, a full eight years after the lawsuit began.

EFF and its client Stephanie Lenz sued Universal Music Group back in 2007, saying that the music giant should have realized Lenz's home video of her son Holden dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" was clearly fair use. Under EFF's view of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Universal should have to pay damages for a wrongful takedown.

If EFF wins the case, it could have repercussions for how copyright takedowns work online. The group is trying to make Universal pay up under 17 USC 512(f), the section of the DMCA that penalizes copyright owners for wrongful takedowns. Currently, victories under that statute are exceedingly rare and happen only in extreme circumstances."

Prince sues Facebook fans who shared links to live performances for copyright infringment [sic]; Belfast Telegraph, 1/27/14

Jess Denham, Belfast Telegraph; Prince sues Facebook fans who shared links to live performances for copyright infringment [sic]:

"Pop icon Prince is suing fans who posted his live performances on Facebook or blogs - to the tune of £605,000 each.

The "Purple Rain" singer filed a copyright lawsuit on 16 January in the Northern District of California, targeting 22 individuals he believes have committed "massive infringement and bootlegging" of his copyright...

A strong opposer of digital distribution, Prince famously stated his belief that "the internet is completely over" in 2010. He regularly forces video streaming websites such as YouTube and Vine to take down fan-uploaded footage of his concerts."

Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers; (London) Guardian,

Helienne Lindvall, (London) Guardian; Prince's war with iTunes plays into the hands of illegal filesharers: Prince is right to have issues with iTunes and YouTube. But making his album available only to Mirror readers goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible:

"As a Prince fan, I bought the Mirror for the first time on Saturday to get a copy of his latest album, 20Ten. As a musician, I was puzzled by why he felt the need to give away his music with a UK tabloid that costs 65p. I was equally perplexed by his decision to snub iTunes because it doesn't pay advances. Why would he need an advance? He's Prince, for God's sake. Surely he should trust that people would buy his music anyway. Besides, many more fans would have access to iTunes than a newsagent on one day.

In an interview with the Mirror, Prince compared the internet to MTV, saying that its days are numbered. Is this the reason why, when I put his new CD into my computer, Gracenote, the music database used by iTunes, didn't recognise the titles? Is that why there were 66 five-second silent tracks before the bonus track?

It's a strange turnaround for someone who, a decade ago, described Napster as "exciting". "What might happen with young people exchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation," the "purple Yoda from the heart of Minnesota" said. He also claimed that online distribution could enable musicians to end exploitation from record labels. Surprisingly, despite his dismay with the music industry, Prince later signed with Columbia Records and, in 2005, with Universal.

Since then, he seems to have had a change of heart. Prince has reportedly threatened YouTube with a lawsuit for copyright infringement, forcing it to take down live footage of him playing Radiohead's Creep at the Coachella festival in 2008. Now, I have issues with YouTube, and I fully support an artist's right to decide what happens to their music, but Prince's decision to make his new album available as an exclusive covermount goes against his philosophy of reaching as many listeners as possible.

The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA), unsurprisingly, objected to Prince releasing his album as a covermount. Pointing out that his record sales have halved since the first Daily Mail covermount in 2007, it claims Prince's latest move "could kill his career". While there could be other explanations for the decrease in sales – illegal filesharing, for example – I agree that covermounts devalue music. It makes people question if a CD is really worth £8 when a major artist such as Prince can afford to give it away with a 65p paper.

I agree with independent record label Blancomusic that it's unfair that iTunes takes the same share of the retail price (30%) as the bricks-and-mortar shops, manufacturers and distributors – despite not taking the same risks when stocking product. I also agree that artists make little from other digital stores and streaming services. Yet, making their music available on legal digital outlets is something that they all have had to accept. That's what music fans want, and if they can't get it legally they'll get it illegally, without paying a penny.

ERA concluded its press release by saying: "Go away and make an album that people are prepared to pay for. We still have faith you [Prince] can do it." With 20Ten, I think he has. Unfortunately, most people will now only be able to get it illegally."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/jul/12/prince-itunes

In Defense of Piracy - Wall Street Journal, 10/11/08

In Defense of Piracy:

"In early February 2007, Stephanie Lenz's 13-month-old son started dancing. Pushing a walker across her kitchen floor, Holden Lenz started moving to the distinctive beat of a song by Prince, "Let's Go Crazy." He had heard the song before. The beat had obviously stuck. So when Holden heard the song again, he did what any sensible 13-month-old would do -- he accepted Prince's invitation and went "crazy" to the beat. Holden's mom grabbed her camcorder and, for 29 seconds, captured the priceless image of Holden dancing, with the barely discernible Prince playing on a CD player somewhere in the background...

She uploaded the file to YouTube and sent her relatives and friends the link...

Sometime over the next four months, however, someone from Universal Music Group also watched Holden dance. Universal manages the copyrights of Prince. It fired off a letter to YouTube demanding that it remove the unauthorized "performance" of Prince's music. YouTube, to avoid liability itself, complied."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Judge: Copyright Owners Must Consider 'Fair Use' - PCMag.com, 8/21/08

Judge: Copyright Owners Must Consider 'Fair Use':

"A case involving the YouTube "dancing baby" video will continue after a California judge ruled that content owners must consider 'fair use' before sending Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices...

At issue is a 2007 home video Stephanie Lenz took of her young children dancing in the family's kitchen to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz posted the 29-second video to YouTube on February 8 with the title "Let's Go Crazy #1."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328578,00.asp