Weather | Traffic | Surf | Maps | Webcam


   
 
Forums Visitors Guide Shopping Classifieds Autos Homes Jobs Entertainment Sports Today's Paper Home

 News
 Metro | Latest News
 North County
 Temecula/Riverside
 Tijuana/Border
 California
 Nation
 Mexico
 World
 Obituaries
 Today's Paper
 AP Headlines
 Business
 Technology
 Biotech
 Markets
 In Depth
 In Iraq
 War on Terror
 Pension Crisis
 Special Reports
 Multimedia
 Photo Galleries
 Topics
 Politics
 Military
 Science
 Education
 Health | Fitness
 Features
 Solutions
 Travel
 Opinion
 Columnists
 Steve Breen
 Forums
 Weblogs
 Services
 Weather
 Traffic
 Surf Report
 Archives
 E-mail Newsletters
 Wireless | RSS
 Noticias en Enlace
 Internet Access
 Sponsored Links
Judge: 'Dancing baby' lawsuit can proceed


ASSOCIATED PRESS

5:22 p.m. August 20, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that music companies and other copyright holders must consider “fair use” of their materials before demanding YouTube and other video-sharing Web sites remove content.

The ruling came in the case of a Pennsylvania woman who sued Universal Music Corp. because it forced YouTube to take down a video clip she posted of her toddler dancing to Prince's “Let's Go Crazy.”

In her lawsuit, Stephanie Lenz of Gallitzin, Pa., alleged that Prince – an aggressive anti-piracy protector of his work – pressured Universal to take action against Lenz and YouTube over the 29-second home video of her child. The musician was not named in the lawsuit.

“She had her free speech squelched,” said Corynne McSherry, an Electronic Foundation Frontier lawyer representing Lenz.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel refused to dismiss the lawsuit Wednesday, saying Universal needed to first consider whether the clip was “fair use” before demanding its removal. It's the first such legal ruling requiring copyright owners to consider fair use of their material before demanding that Internet sites such as YouTube take down material.

Fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright act allow segments of copyrighted works to be used for purposes of parody or satire or in reviews and other limited circumstances.

The judge said he would determine later whether the clip did constitute fair use, but he did knock down Universal's contention that the company was within its rights to demand the takedown regardless. The company argued that considering whether material is fair use could slow its response to stamping out pirated versions of its work appearing on video-sharing sites.

“Undoubtedly, some evaluations of fair use will be more complicated than others,” Fogel wrote in a 10-page decision. “But in the majority of cases, a consideration of fair use prior to issuing a takedown notice will not be so complicated as to jeopardize a copyright owner's ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements.”

Still, the judge said he had “considerable doubt” that the lawsuit would ultimately prevail because he believes Lenz's lawyers will have a hard time proving that Universal acted in bad faith.

The clip was reposted after a six-week hiatus last summer and has received nearly 600,000 hits since it was first posted in February 2008.

“While the court merely declined to throw the case out at this early pleadings stage, we remain confident that we will prevail in this matter,” Universal spokesman Peter Lofrumento said.


 Sponsored Links







Quicklinks
Restaurants Bars
Hotels Autos
Shopping Health
Eldercare Singles
Business Listings
Free Newsletters


Guides
Vegas Spas/Salon
Travel Weddings
Wine Old Town
Baja Catering
Casino Home Imp.
Golf SD North
Gaslamp


© Copyright 1995-2008 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. • A Copley Newspaper Site