Prince, Universal, and a lawsuit over a dancing baby on youtube - All the way to SCOTUS

Here’s the synopsis in 3 sentences:

  • Girl in California posts up a youtube video with a baby dancing to prince music
  • Universal says no. You will not use our music for this and has youtube take it down
  • Girl sues Universal saying the WAY Universal had the video removed was illegal

…then here’s what happened:

  • She sort of wins in district court
  • She gets trounced in appeals court
  • Her case is rejected by the DC court of appeals
  • And surprisingly enough, takes it to the US supreme court, who sends her packing.

The supreme court DOES seize the opportunity to strengthen the rights of the publishers, by decreasing publisher liability their liability for all future cases.

Part of me is glad the system is protecting the publishers. The other part of me is irritated that the district court did not immediately just smash on her like a cockroach. Then the other part of me wonders if Universal records would be making more money, if they didn’t send their high dollar corporate lawyers after 20 second videos of babies.

JONATHON. FFS man. Get your language right. She did NOT do that. Scan read of article shows she went to district court claiming “fair use”.(1) That’s NOT about “the way” they had it taken down (youtube has a quick easy form to fill where, if you prove you own copyright, they take down offenders without prejudice).

She was arguing that her use was legitimate.

Becauser you got that wrong, you have a bias on everything else you wrote which, I’m sure,m you didn’t intend/.


(1) “Universal Music Publishing, then repping the Prince songs repertoire, had Lenz’s video removed using the takedown provisions in America’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But Lenz argued that the short video was ‘fair use’ under US law and then – with support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation – sued Universal for abuse of the DMCA.”