Judge rules against Prince/Uni - Fair Use

Music industry can't force Web removal of song excerpts, judge rules

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

(08-20) 19:58 PDT San Jose -- In a victory for small-time music copiers over the entertainment industry, a federal judge ruled today that copyright-holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was so small and innocuous that it was legal.
More Bay Area News

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an on-line copy was a "fair use" - a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original - before ordering the Web host to take it down.

A 1998 federal law authorized copyright-holders to issue takedown orders whenever they see an unauthorized version of their work on the Internet, without having to sue and prove a case of infringement. Some advocates of Internet users' rights - including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented the individual user in this case - contend the procedure has been abused.

The case dates from February 2007, when Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YouTube.

Four months later, Universal Music Corp., which owns the rights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving Prince compositions. Lenz, exercising her rights under the same 1998 law, notified YouTube several weeks later that her video was legal and ordered it restored. YouTube complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether Universal would sue Lenz for infringement.

Lenz then sued Universal in Northern California, YouTube's home district, for her costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that - she contended - was obviously a fair use of the song, with no commercial value.

Universal denied her claim and argued that the 1998 law doesn't require copyright-holders to decide whether a copied work is a fair use before ordering it taken down. Fair use is never obvious, the company argued, and the inquiry would be so cumbersome and time-consuming that it would thwart the purpose of the law authorizing takedowns.

But Fogel noted today that the law defines a fair-use copy as legal and said the copyright-holder, who has to examine the Web posting to make sure it's an unauthorized duplicate, must also consider whether the excerpt was too innocuous to matter commercially.

In most cases, the judge said, that inquiry "will not be so complicated as to jeopardize a copyright owner's ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements." The law is intended "to prevent the abuse of takedown notices," he said.

Fogel, who will next consider whether Universal's takedown order was legal, said he's allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith.

Universal spokesman Peter Lofrumento told the Associated Press that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter."

WOW - Thanks for posting.
So in a nutshell, does this mean Prince postings can remain on the web unless he actually reviews the length of each posting and determines an infringement has occurred? e.g. "When Doves Cry" at 30 secs is okay but after that it's gettin' the boot?
Damn i shoulda went to law school!

~ WTF IS THAT SMELL? OH ITS YOU! PRINCEY: point me in the right direction 2 make my connection 2 your purple perfection & get my musical infection!"

I saw this on the local news last night.

I'm thrilled at this news. Much as a Prince fan as I am, I've been getting tired of some his behaviour lately. Good to see him knocked down a peg. It's not healthy to believe he can behave like a spoiled prince just because it's his name.

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

Knocked down 2 pegs, he lost the Creep/Radiohead thing too remember?

Change of Venue.

This could be a great legal precedent

Edmonton, AB - - "all seeing, all knowing-thats our luv -prb"-"Yeah...we're like the Hotel California of fansites" - Nikademus - Nothinbutjoy¤°: I am so beyond mother fucking glad that it's the God Damned weekend that i could just shit kitttens

If there were as many constitutional rights that protected "rights of respect," based on moral responsibilities to abide by rules that affect people emotionally as well as they protect bodily harm...Prince could find the red-tape faster than she could.

The Laws all seem to have some kind of loop hole that a dollar can get through somewhere....It's a shame.

And on behalf of gossip of any kind...If the person being talked about, doesn't want the world to know...look at the lawyers job then. Some things do hurt people emotionally for life, which is a lot longer than the healing of someone physically.

Insensitivity. Money. Poverty. Defending Integrity. Power Struggles. Overdone Sex.
Is the world destined to kill romance? I pray not.

Tame said:

~ WTF IS THAT SMELL? OH ITS YOU! PRINCEY: point me in the right direction 2 make my connection 2 your purple perfection & get my musical infection!"

That's really a shame. I hope his lawyers sharpen their claws and find a way to get at people playing with his material like this.

Dayclear said:

Knocked down 2 pegs, he lost the Creep/Radiohead thing too remember?

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

Just because Prince is behind it doesn't make it right. "Fair use" is part of our 1st Amendment rights, Americans. Some of you would rewrite the Constitution if ya had half a chance. Next you'll be throwing out the 10 Commandments.

meow85 said:

I'm thrilled at this news. Much as a Prince fan as I am, I've been getting tired of some his behaviour lately. Good to see him knocked down a peg. It's not healthy to believe he can behave like a spoiled prince just because it's his name.

SoulAlive said:

meow85 said:

I'm thrilled at this news. Much as a Prince fan as I am, I've been getting tired of some his behaviour lately. Good to see him knocked down a peg. It's not healthy to believe he can behave like a spoiled prince just because it's his name.

I agree

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

Goody goody.

meow85 said:

SoulAlive said:

I agree

I mean, the guy does have certain rights of say over what is and isn't done with his music. But not only do those rights obviously not extend as far as he's been throwing them, but even if stuff like the dancing baby video was within his rights to remove, it's just a dick move.

meow85 said:

SoulAlive said:

I agree

I mean, the guy does have certain rights of say over what is and isn't done with his music. But not only do those rights obviously not extend as far as he's been throwing them, but even if stuff like the dancing baby video was within his rights to remove, it's just a dick move.

DerekH said:

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

Good. He was getting ridiculous about this in the true sense of the word.

Marrk said:

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

meow85 said:

Marrk said:

Good. He was getting ridiculous about this in the true sense of the word.

laurarichardson said:

meow85 said:

-----
"allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith."

It appears that this ruling allows the case to move forward but I still think this chick is going to lose and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video.

wonder505 said:

laurarichardson said:

-----
"allowing the case to continue even though he has "considerable doubt" that Lenz can prove the company acted in bad faith."

It appears that this ruling allows the case to move forward but I still think this chick is going to lose and I still can't figure out why she thinks she has a right to use the music in her video.

i don't think its about her right to use his music, it was a short home video showcasing the cuteness of her baby dancing. it was innocent on her part. even though he is entitle to control his music, sending out some of the notices was overkill. some include amateur videos which are innocent and positive and nothing more than a fan's expression of his/her admiration for the song, yet those videos get silenced. I will always be a fan of his music, yall know i'm always for him on alot of these discussions, but its a little disheartening that Prince has to be the one caught up in this mess. i'm sure when he decides to finally speak publically on this, perhaps i can understand his true reasoning, but from an outsider trying to read his mind, i'm out of justification on some of the videos. anyway, that' my two cents on the matter.just wish we could revert back to the good times like during musicology where he had an official site, videos were up and running and everyone is having fun, instead talking about ceast and desist orders and youtube.. i'm sure it will be that way again, as we are all anxiously waiting for news on what's next..
[Edited 8/24/08 18:50pm]

It's not that The Joker's gay. What he is, is Batsexual. He'd be whacking it to Batsy whether our hero had girl parts or boy parts underneath that rubber.

carlcranshaw said:

Either way... this just makes Prince look more and more like an ass... and this from a guy who loves him.

June7 said:

Either way... this just makes Prince look more and more like an ass... and this from a guy who loves him.

So, what does this mean for the dentist guy?????

mydrawers said:

carlcranshaw said:

The case dates from February 2007, when Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pa., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YouTube.

Another 'proud parent' trying to convince an uncaring online world their little "bids for immortality" are cute.

ZoPo5 said:

I'm going to use some of his songs for a fashion show and I don't know if it falls under fair use. I would think it does, I have never heard of an artist suing a designer for use of his songs in a fashion show. However you never know with Prince.

I have asked for permission and have not received any response. If I don't receive a reply I might just change the songs to other artists. I really don't want a hassle and my business is too young for a lawsuit.
[Edited 8/26/08 2:24am]