Surprisingly, a win for small film distributors as well. We never were able to get YouTube to put us on the "automatically remove" list because we didn't have enough titles for them to consider us proper rights holders. (Harrumph!) So I have always had to take down films one by one using my best judgement if it was fair use. I'm glad the studios will have to do this now too! Though I suspect they will still find a way to make it easier for the big companies despite the decision.
Best regards, Dennis Doros Milestone Film & Video PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640 Phone: 201-767-3117 / Fax: 201-767-3035 / Email: milefi...@gmail.com Visit our main website! www.milestonefilms.com Visit our new websites! www.mspresents.com, www.portraitofjason.com, www.shirleyclarkefilms.com, To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click here <https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2015MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?2223081985127089573> ! Support "Milestone Film" on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>! On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Deg Farrelly <deg.farre...@asu.edu> wrote: > A win for fair use, for now. > > deg farrelly > Media Librarian/Streaming Video Administrator > Arizona State University Libraries > Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 > 602.332.3103 > > > Text of Law360 article follows below. > > https://www.law360.com/articles/702339 > > Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider—in good faith > and prior to sending a takedown notification—whether allegedly > infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly > contemplates as authorized by the law,” the appeals court wrote. “That > this step imposes responsibility on copyright holders is not a reason > for us to reject it. > > Full text of the opinion (9 pages; PDF) in Lenz vs. Universal Music is > available here: > > > https://www.scribd.com/doc/280946517/Opinion-From-United-States-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-Lenz-vs-Universal-Music > > > > > > > Fair Use Review Must Precede DMCA Takedowns: 9th Circ. > > Share us on: > <http://twitter.com/share?text=Fair%20Use%20Review%20Must%20Precede%20DMCA%20Takedowns:%209th%20Circ.&url=http://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/702339> > > <http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/702339> > > <http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/702339&summary=The+Ninth+Circuit+ruled+Monday+in+a+closely+watched+suit+known+as+the+%26ldquo%3Bdancing+baby+case%2C%26rdquo%3B+finding+copyright+owners+must+consider+the+fair+use+doctrine+before+sending+Digital+Millennium+Copyright+Act+takedown+notices+to+online+hosts+like+YouTube.&title=Fair+Use+Review+Must+Precede+DMCA+Takedowns%3A+9th+Circ.&source=Law360> > <https://www.law360.com/articles/702339/share?section=appellate>By *Bill > Donahue* > Law360, New York (September 14, 2015, 11:44 AM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit > ruled Monday in a closely watched suit known as the “dancing baby case,” > finding copyright owners must consider the fair use doctrine before sending > Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to online hosts like > YouTube. > > Siding with Stephanie Lenz and rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation > <https://www.law360.com/companies/electronic-frontier-foundation>, the > appeals court said copyright owners like Universal Music Group > <https://www.law360.com/companies/universal-music-group-inc> can only > send takedown notices if they’ve come a good faith conclusion that the > targeted upload is not a protected fair use of the copyrighted work. > > If they have not, they can be held liable for damages under the DMCA's > Section 512(f) — a provision that bars improper use of the takedown > procedure but has barely been enforced by the courts. > > “Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider — in good faith and > prior to sending a takedown notification — whether allegedly infringing > material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly contemplates as > authorized by the law,” the appeals court wrote. “That this step imposes > responsibility on copyright holders is not a reason for us to reject it.” > > Lenz sued in 2007 after UMG sent a takedown notice to YouTube over a > 30-second clip she posted of her son dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.” > She claimed the video was legal fair use and that the label had thus > violated Section 512(f) in its takedown notice by knowingly misrepresenting > the video was an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work. > > The case was closely watched from both sides. Lenz and EFF said a win > would provide a needed counterbalance to overly aggressive takedown notices > from large media companies. Universal and other media firms, on the other > hand, said the DMCA’s takedown system already overburdens them and the > system can't function as designed if they're required to look into fair use > each time they send a notice. > > Though the court said Monday that companies like Universal need to > consider fair use, it also noted that it was “mindful of pressing crush of > voluminous infringing content that copyright holders face in a digital age” > and that the process for checking for fair use “need not be searching or > intensive.” > > “We note, without passing judgment, that the implementation of computer > algorithms appears to be a valid and good faith middle ground for > processing a plethora of content while still meeting the DMCA’s > requirements to somehow consider fair use,” the court wrote. > > When a company doesn’t meet those requirements, the court said, an > aggrieved party can pursue a claim that the copyright owner violated > Section 512(f) by “knowingly misrepresenting” that it had a good faith > belief that the work was infringing. > > The court also ruled that a litigant like Lenz can recover nominal damages > when such a claim is successful — another point of contention in the case. > The panel left to a jury, however, the question of whether she actually > deserved damages or attorneys fees. > > “Today’s ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not > authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech,” said Corynne McSherry, > the EFF's legal director who argued on behalf of Lenz at the Ninth Circuit. > “We’re pleased that the court recognized that ignoring fair use rights > makes content holders liable for damages.” > > An attorney for Universal did not immediately return a request for comment > on Monday. > > Lenz is represented by Corynne McSherry, Daniel K. Nazer, Kurt Opsahl and > Cindy A. Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Michael S. Kwun, > Ashok Ramani and Theresa H. Nguyen of Keker & Van Nest LLP > <https://www.law360.com/firms/keker-van-nest>. > > Universal is represented by Kelly M. Klaus and Melinda E. LeMoine of Munger > Tolles & Olson LLP <https://www.law360.com/firms/munger-tolles>. > > The case is Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. et al., case Nos. 13-16106 > <https://www.law360.com/cases/525491a369ce422d1a00a99d> and 13-16107, in > the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. > > --Editing by Jeremy Barker. > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of > issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic > control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in > libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as > an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of > communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video > producers and distributors. > >
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
