Lenz v. Universal
Not available (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A copyright owner must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Failure to do so may give rise to a claim for misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Facts:
- Stephanie Lenz videotaped her young children dancing in her kitchen for twenty-nine seconds.
- The Prince song 'Let’s Go Crazy' played in the background for approximately twenty seconds, with poor sound quality.
- Lenz titled the video 'Let’s Go Crazy #1' and uploaded it to YouTube to share with family and friends.
- Universal Music Corp., the copyright holder for the song, sent a takedown notice to YouTube pursuant to the DMCA, demanding the video be removed for copyright infringement.
- YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz of the takedown.
- Lenz sent a DMCA counter-notification to YouTube, asserting that her video constituted fair use of the song.
- YouTube re-posted the video approximately six weeks after receiving the counter-notification.
- Lenz alleged that Universal sent the notice not based on a good-faith belief of infringement, but as part of a broader 'Prince Policy' to remove all content containing his music, regardless of context.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Lenz filed suit against Universal Music Corp. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Lenz's initial complaint alleged misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) and tortious interference with contract.
- The court granted Universal's first motion to dismiss but gave Lenz leave to amend her complaint.
- Lenz filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging only a claim for misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
- Universal filed the instant motion to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512, require a copyright owner to consider whether a use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use before sending a takedown notice alleging that the material is infringing?
Opinions:
Majority - Fogel, J.
Yes, a copyright owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright before issuing a takedown notice. The DMCA requires a complaining party to state it has a 'good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.' Because the Copyright Act explicitly states that fair use 'is not an infringement of copyright,' a fair use is a use 'authorized by the law.' Therefore, to form a good faith belief that a use is not authorized, the copyright owner must first consider the applicability of the fair use doctrine. An allegation that a copyright owner issued a takedown notice in bad faith without considering fair use is sufficient to state a claim for misrepresentation under Section 512(f) of the DMCA. This requirement balances the need for rapid response to infringement with users' legitimate interests in not having non-infringing material removed.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant affirmative duty for copyright holders utilizing the DMCA's takedown procedures. It clarifies that the 'good faith' requirement in § 512(c) is not a mere formality but includes a substantive consideration of legal defenses to infringement, specifically fair use. The ruling empowers creators of user-generated content by providing a cause of action against rights holders who issue automated or blanket takedown notices without individualized analysis. It shifts some of the analytical burden onto the complaining party, aiming to curb the abuse of the DMCA process as a tool for censorship rather than legitimate copyright protection.
