New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Woman Can Sue Over YouTube Clip De-Posting From AllAccess.com
A federal judge ruled WEDNESDAY that copyright holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was so small and innocuous that it was legal. THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER reports that the ruling by U.S. District Judge JEREMY FOGEL of SAN JOSE was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an online copy was a "fair use" -- a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original -- before ordering the Web host to take it down. A 1998 federal law authorized copyright holders to issue takedown orders whenever they see an unauthorized version of their work on the Internet without having to sue and prove a case of infringement. Some advocates of Internet users' rights -- including the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, which represented the individual user in this case -- contend the procedure has been abused. The case dates from FEBRUARY 2007, when STEPHANIE LENZ, a writer and editor from GALLITZIN, PA., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to PRINCE's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YOUTUBE. Four months later, UNIVERSAL MUSIC, which owns the rights to the song, ordered YOUTUBE to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving PRINCE compositions. Lenz, exercising her rights under the same 1998 law, notified YOUTUBE several weeks later that her video was legal and ordered it restored. YOUTUBE complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether UNIVERSAL would sue LENZ for infringement. LENZ then sued UNIVERSAL in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, YOUTUBE's home district, for her costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that -- she contended -- was obviously a fair use of the song and had no commercial value. UNIVERSAL spokesman PETER LOFRUMENTO told the ASSOCIATED PRESS that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter." [Edited 8/21/08 7:56am] **--••--**--••**--••--**--••**--••--**--••**--••-
U 'gon make me shake my doo loose! http://www.twitter.com/nivlekbrad | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
daPrettyman said: From AllAccess.com
A federal judge ruled WEDNESDAY that copyright holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was so small and innocuous that it was legal. THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER reports that the ruling by U.S. District Judge JEREMY FOGEL of SAN JOSE was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an online copy was a "fair use" -- a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original -- before ordering the Web host to take it down. A 1998 federal law authorized copyright holders to issue takedown orders whenever they see an unauthorized version of their work on the Internet without having to sue and prove a case of infringement. Some advocates of Internet users' rights -- including the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, which represented the individual user in this case -- contend the procedure has been abused. The case dates from FEBRUARY 2007, when STEPHANIE LENZ, a writer and editor from GALLITZIN, PA., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to PRINCE's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YOUTUBE. Four months later, UNIVERSAL MUSIC, which owns the rights to the song, ordered YOUTUBE to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving PRINCE compositions. Lenz, exercising her rights under the same 1998 law, notified YOUTUBE several weeks later that her video was legal and ordered it restored. YOUTUBE complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether UNIVERSAL would sue LENZ for infringement. LENZ then sued UNIVERSAL in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, YOUTUBE's home district, for her costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that -- she contended -- was obviously a fair use of the song and had no commercial value. UNIVERSAL spokesman PETER LOFRUMENTO told the ASSOCIATED PRESS that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter." [Edited 8/21/08 7:56am] thats not cool 4 prince WOLFY  Welcome 2 wolfys lair!! Make love not war!!!
3121 IRELAND...U CAN COME IF U WANT 2 BUT U CAN NEVER LEAVE!! OOOOOOH FUNKY IRELAND | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have not seen the video....and all that I can think of from my own experience with taping children in video's is that they are typical people...either cute as can be ...or silly and intentionally stupid...
When I had made original copies of kids...and transferred only certain clips to another tape....I like any other mother was trying to get the very best onto the second tape for the sake of preserving memories. Had I have put a 3 month old swinging in his swing to "Santa Baby," I do not think Madonna would have come after me... Depending on how the child is behaving....Is where I would draw a conclusion about defaming the song... Like I said....I have not seen this video...although I do believe it is possible to defame a song...which would defame the artist of the song.  "The Lion Sleeps Tonight... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
daPrettyman said: From AllAccess.com
A federal judge ruled WEDNESDAY that copyright holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was so small and innocuous that it was legal. THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER reports that the ruling by U.S. District Judge JEREMY FOGEL of SAN JOSE was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an online copy was a "fair use" -- a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original -- before ordering the Web host to take it down. A 1998 federal law authorized copyright holders to issue takedown orders whenever they see an unauthorized version of their work on the Internet without having to sue and prove a case of infringement. Some advocates of Internet users' rights -- including the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, which represented the individual user in this case -- contend the procedure has been abused. The case dates from FEBRUARY 2007, when STEPHANIE LENZ, a writer and editor from GALLITZIN, PA., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to PRINCE's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YOUTUBE. Four months later, UNIVERSAL MUSIC, which owns the rights to the song, ordered YOUTUBE to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving PRINCE compositions. Lenz, exercising her rights under the same 1998 law, notified YOUTUBE several weeks later that her video was legal and ordered it restored. YOUTUBE complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether UNIVERSAL would sue LENZ for infringement. LENZ then sued UNIVERSAL in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, YOUTUBE's home district, for her costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that -- she contended -- was obviously a fair use of the song and had no commercial value. UNIVERSAL spokesman PETER LOFRUMENTO told the ASSOCIATED PRESS that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter." [Edited 8/21/08 7:56am] So, does this mean it was Universal taking Prince or Prince-related clips off Youtube....and it wasn't Prince himself? If this ruling holds, can Prince vids be put back on Youtube? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DerekH said: daPrettyman said: From AllAccess.com
A federal judge ruled WEDNESDAY that copyright holders can't order one of their songs removed from the Web without first checking to see if the excerpt was so small and innocuous that it was legal. THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER reports that the ruling by U.S. District Judge JEREMY FOGEL of SAN JOSE was the first in the nation to require the owner of the rights to a creative work to consider whether an online copy was a "fair use" -- a small or insignificant replication that couldn't have affected the market for the original -- before ordering the Web host to take it down. A 1998 federal law authorized copyright holders to issue takedown orders whenever they see an unauthorized version of their work on the Internet without having to sue and prove a case of infringement. Some advocates of Internet users' rights -- including the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, which represented the individual user in this case -- contend the procedure has been abused. The case dates from FEBRUARY 2007, when STEPHANIE LENZ, a writer and editor from GALLITZIN, PA., made a video of her 13-month-old son cavorting to PRINCE's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the 29-second clip on YOUTUBE. Four months later, UNIVERSAL MUSIC, which owns the rights to the song, ordered YOUTUBE to remove the video and nearly 200 others involving PRINCE compositions. Lenz, exercising her rights under the same 1998 law, notified YOUTUBE several weeks later that her video was legal and ordered it restored. YOUTUBE complied after waiting two weeks, as required by law, to see whether UNIVERSAL would sue LENZ for infringement. LENZ then sued UNIVERSAL in NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, YOUTUBE's home district, for her costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that -- she contended -- was obviously a fair use of the song and had no commercial value. UNIVERSAL spokesman PETER LOFRUMENTO told the ASSOCIATED PRESS that the company remains "confident that we will prevail in this matter." [Edited 8/21/08 7:56am] So, does this mean it was Universal taking Prince or Prince-related clips off Youtube....and it wasn't Prince himself? If this ruling holds, can Prince vids be put back on Youtube? I hope that would be the case  I'm not a fan of "old Prince". I'm not a fan of "new Prince". I'm just a fan of Prince. Simple as that | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
the prince videos will not go back up but videos using clips here and there and background music can now be uploaded and universal will have give good reason on why it needs to be taken down. to me it looks like the ball is in that woman's court. i wonder how universal will win this? [Edited 8/21/08 10:13am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've seen the vid. The quality altogether is less than poor. Prince's song "Lets go Crazy" takes an effort to hear. The purpose of the video is to show a cute child dancing to music (obviously not to the beat). If I was the person that posted the video (though my child would never be put online like that) I would just dub the music and use something else...case solved. No drama.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DerekH said: If this ruling holds, can Prince vids be put back on Youtube?
No. Prince vids are still off-limit. The ruling was on how a certain law is used. Or abused, as it turned out to be the case. It means that if a mom wants to post a small clip of her kid dancing to Prince's music, this particular judge says the people that sued her for that over-reacted. It means Prince can still keep his own entire vids off YouTube, which is his legal right, but he (and the peeps that represent the rights to his music) should grow when it comes to a 30 second clip, obviously not made to make a buck out of it, or, as it is called; fair use. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It might be on there but it won't have any sound. and that baby was not that cute!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |