This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Legal Top Stories
Prince toddler case might force content owners to be more careful when issuing take-downs and cease and desists
By CMU Editorial | Published on Tuesday 2 March 2010
So, we reported last week that there was new chatter to the effect that Prince might be suing YouTube again, but it turns out that what was really happening was a new set of legal wrangling regards that most classic of Prince-related web litigation, when Prince’s publishers Universal got legal with an American woman who posted a video clip of her toddler-aged son dancing to ‘Let’s Go Crazy’.
And the latest development could have interesting ramifications for the legal departments of record companies and music publishers.
It was in 2007 that Stephanie Lenz got a scary looking legal letter from Universal Music Publishing telling her that the video clip of her child dancing for the camera with a Prince track playing in the background, which she had posted onto YouTube, infringed the copyrights of the publisher and their artist. Lenz initially complied with Universal’s order and took down the video, but then she got talking to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reckoned her video was covered by so called ‘fair use’ provisions in US copyright law, meaning she’d never infringed anyone’s copyright.
They took the matter to court and a judge declared that the music used in the dancing toddler video was indeed covered by the ‘fair use’ provisions. Not happy with just occupying the moral high ground, Lenz and the EFF then went after Universal for damages, accusing the major music publisher of negligently issuing a meritless takedown notice which had caused Lenz emotional stress.
Responding to the damages claim, Universal provided various arguments as to why they should not be liable, including accusing Lenz of acting in bad faith and with ‘unclean hands’ in pursuing damages. But a Californian judge has been considering those arguments of late and has now rejected them, ruling partially in favour of Lenz.
That said, while it seems likely that Lenz will now be able to demand Universal pay her and the EFF’s legal fees, it is unlikely she’ll be able to claim any actual damages. It also seems unlikely Lenz will be able to claim even legal costs for the latest round of legal action, ie the fighting of the publisher’s claims that they shouldn’t have to pay anything. So I’m not sure who the real winner here is.
But, certainly, if this case means that the issuing of meritless takedown notices could make the issuer liable for the alleged infringer’s legal costs in proving the original claim has no merit, well that would mean that lawyers for the music majors might have to be a bit more careful before sending out the customary cease and desist letters against those they suspect may be infringing their copyrights.
