Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

Last updated

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameLenz v. Universal Music Corp.
DecidedSeptember 14, 2015
Citation(s)801 F.3d 1126 (2015)
Case history
Prior action(s)Cross-motions for summary judgment denied, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9799 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Subsequent action(s)Opinion amended, 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016); cert. denied, Lenz v. 137 S.Ct. 2263 (2017)
Holding
Copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Milan Dale Smith, Richard Charles Tallman, Mary Helen Murguia
Keywords
Fair use, Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet. [1]

Contents

Background

In February 2007, Stephanie Lenz posted on YouTube a 29-second clip of her 13-month-old son dancing to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy". The audio was of poor quality, and the song was audible for about 20 of the 29 seconds. [2] The total length of the original song is more than four minutes. In June 2007, Universal Music Corp., the copyright holder for "Let's Go Crazy", sent YouTube a takedown notice as enabled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming that the video was a copyright violation built upon an unauthorized copy of the song. [2]

YouTube removed the video, and notified Lenz of the removal and the infringement accusation. Lenz in turn sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting that the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [3]

In September 2007, Prince stated in the media that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet" and to challenge Lenz's suit. [4] In October 2007, Universal released a statement that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince and his music from the Internet, as a matter of principle. [2]

District court ruling

The dispute was first heard at the District Court for the Northern District of California in 2010. Based on Prince's and Universal's statements, Lenz argued that Universal was issuing takedown notices in bad faith, as they vowed to remove all Prince-related content on sight rather than consider whether each posting truly violated copyright. Lenz claimed that her video was non-infringing fair use because it used a minor portion of Prince's song in the background of a video that was intended to highlight her son. Universal claimed that this argument would subject the fair use analysis to subjective interpretations. [2]

The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claim. The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is a sufficient defense against misrepresentation. [2]

However, the court also denied Lenz's claim of misrepresentation, because even though Universal should have considered good faith before accusing her of copyright infringement, the company did not have to argue that it had not exercised bad faith under the DMCA. Furthermore, Lenz had not suffered any significant damages from Universal's notice to YouTube to take down the video. [2] [5]

In a later proceeding, the district court ruled against both parties in their motions for summary judgment against each other, creating a stalemate. [6] Both parties appealed, with Lenz continuing to claim that copyright holders should not abuse the takedown notice process, and Universal continuing its efforts to protect its copyrights for Prince's music against unauthorized duplication on the Internet. [7]

Circuit court ruling

Recording of oral arguments in the appeal to the Ninth Circuit

Both parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015. [8] On September 14, 2015, the circuit court affirmed the district court, holding that copyright holders have a "duty to consider—in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use". [1]

Importantly, the court viewed fair use not as a valid excuse for otherwise infringing conduct, but rather as consumer behavior that is not infringement in the first place. "Because 17 U.S.C. § 107 [9] created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is 'authorized by the law' and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)." [1]

While this ruling allowed Lenz's video to remain on the Internet with no further penalties or accusations of copyright infringement, Lenz appealed to the US Supreme Court with a request for further clarification on the takedown notice process under the DMCA. Lenz asked:

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the affirmation of good faith belief that a given use of material use is not authorized "by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law," required under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), may be purely subjective and, therefore, that an unreasonable belief—such as a belief formed without consideration of the statutory fair use factors—will not subject the sender of a takedown notice to liability under Section 512(f) of the DMCA? [10]

The United States Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case on June 19, 2017. [11]

Impact

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. attracted a fair amount of media attention, as a dispute in which there was no clear winner, [12] [13] while a powerful entertainment company may have made absurd claims about the damage caused to its copyrights by a YouTube video in which only a short segment of its song was heard in poor audio quality. [14] [15] Despite the media attention toward the ruling, several legal scholars noted that the ultimate decision did little to clarify how much of a copyrighted work can be copied under fair use for Internet content that causes little financial or reputational harm. [16] [17] Others noted that the DMCA process allowing a copyright holder to request the removal of items from Internet platforms, and the reply process for the creators of allegedly infringing content, both remained unclear after the ruling. [18] [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair use</span> Concept in copyright law

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The US "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test, that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.

Lumen, formerly Chilling Effects, is an American collaborative archive created by Wendy Seltzer and operated by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. It allows recipients of cease-and-desist notices to submit them to the site and receive information about their legal rights and responsibilities.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.</i>

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, was a lawsuit involving an archive of Diebold's internal company e-mails and Diebold's contested copyright claims over them. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic provided pro bono legal support for the non-profit ISP and the Swarthmore College students, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyfraud</span> False copyright claims to public-domain content

A copyfraud is a false copyright claim by an individual or institution with respect to content that is in the public domain. Such claims are unlawful, at least under US and Australian copyright law, because material that is not copyrighted is free for all to use, modify and reproduce. Copyfraud also includes overreaching claims by publishers, museums and others, as where a legitimate copyright owner knowingly, or with constructive knowledge, claims rights beyond what the law allows.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act</span> 1998 U.S. federal law

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is United States federal law that creates a conditional 'safe harbor' for online service providers (OSP), a group which includes Internet service providers (ISP) and other Internet intermediaries, by shielding them for their own acts of direct copyright infringement as well as shielding them from potential secondary liability for the infringing acts of others. OCILLA was passed as a part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and is sometimes referred to as the "Safe Harbor" provision or as "DMCA 512" because it added Section 512 to Title 17 of the United States Code. By exempting Internet intermediaries from copyright infringement liability provided they follow certain rules, OCILLA attempts to strike a balance between the competing interests of copyright owners and digital users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<i>IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i> 2008 US District Court case

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132, is an American legal case involving an internet television network named Veoh that allowed users of its site to view streaming media of various adult entertainment producer IO Group's films. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh qualified for the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2006). According to commentators, this case could foreshadow the resolution of Viacom v. YouTube.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3Tunes, LLC</i> 2011 US legal case

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In the case, EMI Music Group and fourteen other record companies claimed copyright infringement against MP3tunes, which provides online music storage lockers, and MP3tunes's founder, Michael Robertson. In a decision that has ramifications for the future of online locker services, the court held that MP3tunes qualifies for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. However, the court found MP3tunes to still be liable for contributory copyright infringement in this case due to its failure to remove infringing songs after receiving takedown notices. The court also held that Robertson is liable for songs he personally copied from unauthorized websites.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

<i>UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC</i> United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 No. 09-55902, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which UMG sued video-sharing website Veoh, alleging that Veoh committed copyright infringement by hosting user-uploaded videos copyrighted by UMG. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that Veoh is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions. It was established that service providers are "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability so long as they diligently remove infringing material upon notice of infringement".

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

YouTube copyright issues relate to how the Google-owned site implements its protection methods. The systems are designed to protect the exclusivity of a given creator and owner and the rights to reproduce their work. YouTube uses automated measures such as copyright strikes, Content ID and Copyright Verification Program. These methods have been criticized for favoring corporations and their use of copyright claims to limit usage of uploaded content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">YouTube copyright strike</span> Website policy action

YouTube copyright strike is a copyright policing practice used by YouTube for the purpose of managing copyright infringement and complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is the basis for the design of the YouTube copyright strike system. For YouTube to retain DMCA safe harbor protection, it must respond to copyright infringement claims with a notice and take down process. YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. A copyright strike will expire after 90 days. However, if a YouTube user accumulates three copyright strikes within those 90 days, YouTube terminates that user's YouTube channel, including any associated channels that the user have, removes all of their videos from that user's YouTube channel, and prohibits that user from creating another YouTube channel.

Censorship by copyright or censorship through copyright refers to the use of copyright to enact censorship.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (2015), (9th Cir. 2015)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp , 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
  3. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512, see (f).
  4. ↑ Reuters, "Prince to sue YouTube, eBay over music use" (September 13, 2007).
  5. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 512, see (c)(3)(A)(v).
  6. ↑ Lenz v. Universal, Order Denying Motions for Summary Judgment, Jan. 14. 2013.
  7. ↑ Reymond, Michel Jose (2016). "Lenz v Universal Music Corp: Much Ado about Nothing". International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 24 (2): 119–127. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eav021 – via HeinOnline.
  8. ↑ Mullin, Joe (July 7, 2015). "Appeals judges hear about Prince's takedown of "Dancing Baby" YouTube vid" . Retrieved July 7, 2015.
  9. ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 107.
  10. ↑ Petition 16-217 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
  11. ↑ Certiorari Denied - Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
  12. ↑ "Lenz v. Universal". Electronic Frontier Foundation. July 1, 2011. Retrieved October 1, 2022.
  13. ↑ "Appeals Court Rules Youtube Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince Was Fair Use". NPR.org. September 15, 2015. Retrieved October 1, 2022.
  14. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (June 19, 2017). "Supreme Court Turns Down "Dancing Baby" Copyright Case". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 1, 2022.
  15. ↑ Wagner, Laura (September 14, 2015). "'Dancing Baby' Wins Copyright Case". NPR. Retrieved October 1, 2022.
  16. ↑ Miller, Joseph M. (2010). "Fair Use through the Lenz of Section 512(c) of the DMCA: A Preemptive Defense to a Premature Remedy". Iowa Law Review. 95 (5): 1697–1730 – via HeinOnline.
  17. ↑ Chuang, Ian (2008). "Be Wary of Adding Your Own Soundtrack: Lenz v. Universal and How the Fair Use Policy Should be Applied to User Generated Content". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 29 (2): 163–192 – via HeinOnline.
  18. ↑ Ray, Brandan (2019). "Could Someone Lenz a Hand: Modernizing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after Lenz V. Universal Music Corp". Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law. 25 (1): 218–250 – via HeinOnline.
  19. ↑ Randazza, Marc J. (2016). "Lenz v. Universal: A Call to Reform Section 512(f) of the DMCA and to Strengthen Fair Use". Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. 18 (4): 743–782 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.