Copyright nazis take aim at dancing baby

happygeek 0 532 Views

According to a legal document published at the Electronic Frontier Foundation site, the copyright Nazis at Universal Music Group might have bitten off more than they can chew when they ordered the removal of a Dancing baby clip from YouTube.

Stephanie Lenz posted a video clip on YouTube of her 18 month old baby dancing. Oh ha ha, how original and amusing, you are probably not thinking. It seems that the lawyers at UMG didn't see the funny side either, as they issued YouTube with a notice to remove the clip for copyright violation. The terrible crime committed in this instance being that the baby was dancing, for a whole 29 seconds, to a Prince song. You know, that chap who gave away his last album as a freebie with the UK tabloid newspaper the Mail on Sunday. Anyway, UMG did not like the fact that a baby could be dancing to a 23 year old track (Let's Go Crazy) without getting some money out of it. Let's not worry about the small fact that the song was being played on the television, as part of the half time entertainment during the Super Bowl...

YouTube did as it was told and informed the offensive pirate mother that any further infringements would result in her account being cancelled.

Nice.

No wonder so many people get hot under the collar about copyright issues when a giant such as UMG manages to get all heavy over such a stupid and meaningless 'infringement' as this. If it concentrated on piracy then perhaps it would get more public support, all that cases like this serve to do is entice more people into protesting against big-booted copyright protection.

Of course, the mighty UMG and its legal team probably never gave a second thought to swatting the fly that is a mother posting to YouTube. It might have done had it realised she is also a writer, and editor, and quite prepared to fight back.

Getting the EFF on the case, Ms Lenz has filed a suit against UMG which claims it misrepresented copyright claims under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as intentionally interfering with her contract with YouTube. Lenz also insists that UMG copyright was not infringed as the audio was covered under US copyright act 'fair usage' provision, something that as an editor she knows all about. Lenz has asked for costs and damages, the video to be reinstated and a jury trial so that UMG can be exposed as the big bully it so obviously is.

If you want to see what all the fuss is about, the offending video can be seen here for now.

Dani AI

Generated

Quick legal update and practical context for anyone reading this years later: the “dancing baby” takedown turned into a test case. On September 14, 2015 the Ninth Circuit held that a copyright owner must consider fair use in good faith before sending a DMCA takedown notice, and that failing to do so can give rise to a misrepresentation claim under 17 U.S.C. §512(f); the court also confirmed that plaintiffs can seek at least nominal damages. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov)

Practical takeaways for creators whose clips get removed: preserve the takedown email and the original file, note why the use is fair (transformative purpose, short excerpt, lack of market harm, noncommercial context), and use the statutory counter‑notification procedure if appropriate — the DMCA sets out a formal counter‑notice process and timelines for reinstatement unless the rights holder sues. These are procedural tools that matter; the statute and the court’s opinion explain how they work. (law.cornell.edu)

What this means for rights holders and platforms: the court did not outlaw takedowns, but it required a good‑faith fair‑use check before asserting “good faith belief” in a notice. The opinion made clear that the review need not be an exhaustive, case‑by‑case forensic inquiry and even suggested that reasonable automated or streamlined processes can be consistent with the requirement — provided they actually reflect consideration of fair use. Rights‑holders that rely on blanket, mechanical removals risk exposure under §512(f). (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov)

How this ties to the thread: ’s point about overreach found purchase in court; ’s PR concern about noisy, low‑quality clips rings true in practice; and ’s “fall back to zero” is overstated — Lenz rebalanced power but didn’t create a free‑for‑all. Fair use remains fact‑specific; the best defense is documentation, measured counter‑notices, and knowing the DMCA process. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov)

Member Avatar for scru
scru 909 Posting Virtuoso

Are you kidding me? Or maybe thats a video of lower quality, cuz in the one in the link I can barely make heads or toes of what song is even playing.

Okay then.

Nobody is against these labels protecting their property; it's theirs. But sometimes I just have to wonder where these people's brains are. Why have a fit over a 29 second clip with such degraded audio, when you KNOW you're only gunna get bad publicity in the end? And it's not to say that if I wanted to buy that album, knowing that clip existed and was readily available would deter me...come on.

As they continue to do more and more of this, and piss more and more of ther consumers of, Musicians will begin to look for other ways to get their work out to their fans without them having to go through so much hassle. What with the internet, is that so hard to believe?

Member Avatar for happygeek
happygeek 2,411 Most Valuable Poster

That is, indeed, the clip. That is, indeed, the quality of the audio track. That is, indeed, the music industry shooting itself in the foot once again...

Member Avatar for Grigor
Grigor 17 Light Poster

This is about the time in this wolrd where we should just fall back to zero.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview