Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Lenz</i> Lawsuit Dances to a Fair Use Tune and Heads For Trial
A California district court has denied cross summary judgment motions in a case that has implications for fair use analysis under copyright law and DMCA litigation. The motions arose out of a 2007 lawsuit between plaintiff Stephanie Lenz and defendant Universal Music Corp., concerning Lenz' use in a home video of the song “Let's Go Crazy” by the artist formerly known as Prince. Lenz v Universal Music Corp., No. 5:07-cv-03783-JF (S.D. Cal 2013). (A PDF of the order is available at http://bit.ly/17DVJ7V.)
Dancing Toddler
Lenz had made a 29-second video showing her toddler dancing to Prince's “Let's Go Crazy.” Lenz had entitled it “Let's Go Crazy #1.” Universal, a music publishing company that administers the copyrights to the song, identified the video through its daily copyright review procedures and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'takedown notice to YouTube, which removed the video, giving Lenz an opportunity to respond. Lenz' first response was incomplete and the video remained offline. After Lenz retained counsel, she submitted a second DMCA counter-notice, asserting the video qualified as fair use. YouTube reposted the video approximately six weeks later. In 2007, Lenz sued Universal, alleging that she had suffered damages during the time that YouTube had removed her video in response to Universal's takedown notice. As of July 2013, the video had over 1.25 million hits, although presumably some of its popularity is due to Lenz' pending legal action.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.