UMG orders YouTube take-down over 29 sec baby dancing clip - mother sues in test case

Stan Beer
Sunday, 28 October 2007 16:49

Opinion and Analysis

The suit goes on to state: "On or about February 7, 2007, Lenz’s children (three year old Zoe and 18 month old Holden) were playing in the family’s kitchen when Holden began dancing to the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy,” which Zoe and Holden had recently heard on television during the Super Bowl halftime show. Lenz used her digital camera to create a 29-second video recording of the children’s activities, which consisted primarily of Holden’s dance performance. Lenz later transferred the recording onto her computer and saved it as a video computer file.

"On or about February 8, 2007, Lenz uploaded the Holden Dance Video from her computer to the YouTube website for her family and friends to enjoy.

"On information and belief, on or about June 4, 2007, Defendants, through theirrepresentative, demanded that YouTube remove the Holden Dance Video from the YouTubewebsite because the video allegedly infringed a copyright owned or administered by Defendants. By authorizing the demand, Defendants affirmed under penalty of perjury that their notice of infringement was accurate and that they were authorized to make the infringement claim arising from the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.”

"On June 6, 2007, YouTube sent Lenz an email notifying her that it had removed the Holden Dance Video pursuant to Universal’s notification that the material infringed their copyright. The email also warned Lenz that repeated incidents of copyright infringement could lead to the deletion of her YouTube account and all videos uploaded to the account.

"Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification on June 27, 2007, demanding that her video be reposted because it does not infringe Universal’s copyright in any way. Regardless, the Holden Dance Video has remained unavailable on YouTube for more than six weeks."

In the suit, Lenz goes on to claim that the baby dance video did not infringe any UMG copyrights and was in fact covered by the fair use provision of the US copyright act. Furthermore, Lenz's suit alleges  that UMG either knew or should have known this and therefore misrepresented the video to YouTube by stating that it infringed copyright.

Lenz is obviously not after a big money grab. Her suit alleges that her free speech rights have been violated and she is merely seeking damages in the form of costs and whatever the court decides she should be paid for her trouble. The suit also stipulates that it wants a jury trial if possible.

As trivial as it may seem, this is in fact a test case which could determine the immediate future of Web entertainment and interactive communication. In forcing YouTube to take down a 29 sec video clip which was obviously non-commercial in nature and intended solely for the benefit of family and friends, UMG has pushed the boundary of pre-digital age copyright ownership beyond its limits.

Anyone who wants to view the offending video can do so here at entertainment tabloid site TMZ.com. Having viewed the video, I can say that the sound quality was so bad that if I hadn't been told that a Prince song was playing in the background I would not have recognized it - and that particular song is one I know well.

The views of UMG management and their masters at Vivendi toward Internet age players in the music space such as Google's YouTube and Apple's iTunes are well known. UMG is the number one record company in the world and it is watching helplessly as its power diminishes with shrinking CD sales, in inverse proportion to the rising strength of the Internet players.

The problem for UMG is that each time it tries to make a stand and defend its legacy baggage, it looks increasingly oafish in the eyes of the Web generation, which is used to downloading its music and posting its own content on public sites to communicate with its circle of contacts.

So what are we to make of a gigantic record company fighting to keep a 29 second home video off YouTube? Whatever the outcome of the case of Lenz versus Universal Music Group, the ultimate loser in the eyes of the public will be UMG.