YouTube Mom Continues Misrepresentation Fight Against Administrator of Prince’s “Let's Go Crazy" Copyright

YouTube Mom Continues Misrepresentation Fight Against Administrator of Prince’s “Let's Go Crazy" Copyright

A collection of music companies will continue to defend themselves against a mother who was once accused of copyright infringement after she posted a YouTube video of her children dancing to a Prince song.

A California federal court refused to grant Universal Music Corporation, Universal Music Publishing,  Inc., and Universal Music Publishing Group  (collectively, Universal) summary judgment with respect to Stephanie Lenz's claim of misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9799 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013) [enhanced version available to subscribers]

The court initially agreed that requiring a copyright holder to engage in a full-blown fair use analysis prior to sending a DMCA takedown notice would be inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the statute. However, in considering facts that might be relevant to a fair use analysis, the copyright holder had to make some effort to evaluate the significance of such facts in the context of the doctrine itself.

"Because the question of whether something constitutes fair use is a 'legal judgment,"" the court said, "proper consideration of the doctrine must include at least some analysis of the legal import of the facts."

In 2007, Universal sent a Takedown Notice to YouTube, requesting the removal of a twenty-nine second video featuring Lenz's young children and Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy." After YouTube restored the video to its site, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA.

The evidence established that Universal issued its Takedown Notice to Lenz without first considering fair use. Universal unsuccessfully argued that while it had not considered fair use per se, it had considered a number of factors that would be relevant to a fair use determination.

Lenz sought summary judgment based on Universal's failure to consider fair use before sending the Takedown Notice. Lenz asserted that Universal's procedures for evaluating copyright infringement were so deficient that Universal willfully blinded itself as to whether any given video might constitute fair use.

The court rejected Lenz's argument that her video was "self-evident" fair use and that Universal must have known it constituted fair use when it sent the Takedown Notice.

"A legal conclusion," the court said, "that fair use was 'self-evident' necessarily would rest upon an objective measure rather than the subjective standard required .... Lenz is free to argue that a reasonable actor in Universal's position would have understood that fair use was 'self-evident,' and that this circumstance is evidence of Universal's alleged willful blindness."

The court also concluded that Universal failed to establish that Lenz was precluded from recovering "any" damages for her DMCA claim.


Sign in with your ID to access Copyright Law resources on or any of these Mathew Bender Copyright Law publications. 

Click here to order Copyright Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications. 

LexisNexis Publications:

View the LexisNexis Catalog of Legal and Professional Publications

LexisNexis eBooks

Click here for a list of available LexisNexis eBooks.

Click here to learn more about LexisNexis eBooks.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.