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."

Reuters via New York Times; Divided U.S. Supreme Court Turns to Less Sensitive IP Cases, 9/21/16

Reuters via New York Times; Divided U.S. Supreme Court Turns to Less Sensitive IP Cases:

"Shorthanded and ideologically divided, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take up any cases on politically sensitive social issues in its new term starting in October, instead showing a keen interest in more technical cases of importance to business such as disputes over intellectual property.

In addition to four intellectual property cases it has already agreed to hear, the court could as soon as next week take up a trademark battle that pits an Asian-American rock band and the Washington Redskins football team against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Later in the year, the court could take up a quirky copyright fight between a woman and a record company over a video she posted online of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song...

It is not unusual for the court to take up a handful of intellectual property (IP) cases among the 70 or so it selects for oral argument but this year there is a greater incentive than ever because they are often decided by unanimous or lopsided votes.

(Graphic on the Supreme Court's handling of intellectual property cases: http://tmsnrt.rs/2cZmi4S)"

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 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."

Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos; Reuters via New York Times, 1/15/10

Reuters via New York Times; Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos:

"More than a decade after the launch of Napster, the recording industry's complicated legal relationship with Web-savvy music fans seems no closer to resolution. But a number of cases winding their way through the courts may bring a bit of clarity in 2010 to one particularly fuzzy area of the law: fan-created online videos that contain music.

The major labels have all worked out deals with YouTube to split ad revenue with the site after a user uploads a music video. But considering that labels don't issue explicit licenses to users and YouTube continues to warn against uploading copyrighted material, it isn't clear whether the labels actually want fans to upload their music in the first place. Meanwhile, other copyright owners who don't have deals with YouTube, such as Viacom and music publisher Bourne, are still pursuing copyright infringement suits against the video-sharing giant...

FEW PRECEDENTS

There is surprisingly little case law on this topic. In September, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled against Universal Music Group in its infringement suit against Veoh.com, saying the video-sharing site was protected by the DMCA. But that case isn't binding on a New York federal court, and UMG is appealing. And in a case involving peer-to-peer site isoHunt, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in December that safe harbors are simply unavailable to sites that "induce" infringement.

The other major legal question in the EMI suit is whether lip dubs and similar mash-ups of amateur and professional content are infringing. Copyright reform activists argue that they're examples of fair use tolerated under copyright law as an accommodation to noncommercial, transformative creativity. Of course EMI will point out that, whatever the motivation of the amateur lib-dubber, Vimeo is anything but "noncommercial."

Sources familiar with the labels' thinking on the issue acknowledge these videos' promotional value, but they also note that other video-sharing sites like YouTube have struck deals with the labels and dismiss the notion that copyright owners should forgo a revenue stream simply because it also promotes their artists.

Elsewhere, Stephanie Lenz is still battling UMG over its takedown of a video she had uploaded to YouTube of her toddler son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz wants damages for the removal of a video she considers an obvious fair use; UMG maintains it acted in good faith to protect its copyright. And Don Henley's suit against U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.) over the use of "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance" in "parody" political videos is moving forward in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif.

U.S. courts have yet to provide clear guidance regarding the legality of pairing copyrighted music with amateur video and then broadcasting it to the world. That may finally change in 2010."

http://tv.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/15/arts/entertainment-us-copyright.html?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse

Copyright in the Age of YouTube, ABA Journal, February 2009 Issue

Via ABA Journal: Copyright in the Age of YouTube, As user-generated sites flourish, copyright law struggles to keep up:

"“The entertainment industry wants to change the law to protect their existing business models,” he says, “rather than change their business models to adapt to new technology.”

Protectionist behavior by copyright owners is nothing new. “There’s a recurrent pattern whenever a new technology crops up,” [Jessica] Litman says. “Existing content industries insist that the new technology must play by the old copyright rules. ... The new companies say that the old rules fit your technology and business models, but they don’t fit our technology and business models. Some­times the older companies impose restrictions that try to stop the new technology, but in the end, the old and new companies reach some compromise.”

This time, however, copyright owners may need to compromise with more than just the new online businesses. Content owners may need to reach an understanding with tens of millions of U.S. Internet users.

“History tells us that unless the [copyright] rules will accommodate their interests, there will be no stability,” Litman says. “If the public does not see the rules as legitimate, they won’t obey them.”

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/copyright_in_the_age_of_youtube

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