(NEWSER) – Of all the YouTube videos that could pose legal problems, a 30-second clip of a dancing baby seems less than likely. But almost 10 years after Stephanie Lenz posted her young son bopping to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy," her video may now appear before the Supreme Court, Consumerist reports.
Per a release, the Electronic Frontier Foundation last week petitioned the high court on behalf of Lenz to overrule an appeals court decision that gives copyright holders ample leeway in forcing content offline with little to back up that takedown — a form of "censorship," the EFF says, that rights holders claim falls under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In Lenz's case, Universal Music Group, which owns the rights to the Prince song, informed YouTube that Lenz's 2007 video was a copyright infringement, and YouTube took the video down to avoid a lawsuit. (Consumerist explains third parties can escape liability if they respond to violations in a timely manner.)
It's hard to believe that a major recording company as Universal Music Group would want to be bothered by such a small case of a copyright infringement as the song was playing in the background to the baby's dancing in the privacy of their home. I suppose that even nightclubs and bars which play music without direct permission from the recording labels might be in violation of copyright infringement laws also. What would the Universal Music Group seek in damages? 'Dancing baby' may head to Supreme Court
I may not be making my thoughts clear, but maybe some people might understand how this case can be seen as too petty to be taken to the high court.
Per a release, the Electronic Frontier Foundation last week petitioned the high court on behalf of Lenz to overrule an appeals court decision that gives copyright holders ample leeway in forcing content offline with little to back up that takedown — a form of "censorship," the EFF says, that rights holders claim falls under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In Lenz's case, Universal Music Group, which owns the rights to the Prince song, informed YouTube that Lenz's 2007 video was a copyright infringement, and YouTube took the video down to avoid a lawsuit. (Consumerist explains third parties can escape liability if they respond to violations in a timely manner.)
It's hard to believe that a major recording company as Universal Music Group would want to be bothered by such a small case of a copyright infringement as the song was playing in the background to the baby's dancing in the privacy of their home. I suppose that even nightclubs and bars which play music without direct permission from the recording labels might be in violation of copyright infringement laws also. What would the Universal Music Group seek in damages? 'Dancing baby' may head to Supreme Court
I may not be making my thoughts clear, but maybe some people might understand how this case can be seen as too petty to be taken to the high court.
