This is a breach of copyright!

[HoreTore]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ

So, a nice little video a mother made of her baby dancing, which she then put on youtube.

But wait!! Is that "Prince" playing in the background?? OMG TAKE IT DOWN RIGHT NOW!!

old article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070725-universal-demands-takedown-of-homemade-dancing-toddler-clip-eff-sues.html

newest developments: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080721-universal-fair-use-is-still-infringing.html?rel


Stephanie Lenz's YouTube video of her tot dancing to an old Prince song was pulled down at the request of Universal last year after the music label said that the clip infringed on its copyright. Not content with simply having Universal retract its claim, Lenz and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are out to put the squeeze on Universal for issuing a bad-faith DMCA takedown. But Universal told a judge this week that, even though the clip may in fact be "fair use," it was still "infringement" and therefore the initial takedown notice was made in good faith.

So.... Has anyone noticed any increase in drugsales where these lawyers are living?

[drone]

And this is exactly why Prince changed his name and mailed in the last few records on his Warner contract. Ironic that Universal would send out a takedown notice on it.

[Lemur]

Oh, but wait, there's more (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/2033251741.shtml):


Universal Says It Can Ignore Fair Use In DMCA Takedowns

Last year, we wrote about the case where Universal Music sent a takedown notice to YouTube when a woman posted a short (29-second) video of her toddler running around with a Prince song (barely audible) in the background. Universal backed down when challenged on the takedown notice, but the woman (with the help of the EFF) hit back and have sued Universal Music for a false takedown.

The DMCA has provisions for a copyright holder to assert ownership, at which point the service provider needs to takedown the content. Whoever posted the content can protest that the content was legally posted -- which is exactly what happened in this case. However, the DMCA also says that filing a false DMCA notice opens one up to damages from those whose content was taken down. This was in an effort to discourage false DMCA notices. This provision was used last year against Viacom for its false takedowns on satirical clips of the Colbert Report.

The question then, is whether or not filing a takedown notice on content that is used in a way consistent with "fair use" is a misuse or not. Universal Music's claim is that it is not reasonable for the copyright holder to take fair use into consideration before sending a takedown notice. At a first pass, it sounds like the judge agrees.

As ridiculous as this whole situation is, the judge and Universal Music may be correct under the existing law. There isn't anything in the law that says the copyright holder needs to take into account the user's defenses. It just says they need to be the legitimate copyright holder (which Universal Music is).

[TB666]

Understandable that Prince don't want anything to do with these people anymore.

[yesdachi]

Why does Universal hate babies?

[Tratorix]

Why does Universal hate babies?

They don't hate babies per se, they just hate it when babies are enjoying themselves and want to wipe those smug little smiles off their faces. :smash: