Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P videotaped her young children dancing in her family's kitchen. The song 'Let's Go Crazy' by Prince played in the background. The video is twenty-nine seconds in length, and 'Let's Go Crazy' can be heard for approximately twenty seconds, albeit with difficulty given the poor sound quality of the video. The audible portion of the song includes the lyrics, 'C'mon baby let's get nuts' and the song's distinctive guitar solo. P is heard asking her son, 'what do you think of the music?' P titled the video 'Let's Go Crazy # 1' and uploaded it to YouTube.com. D owns the copyright to 'Let's Go Crazy.' D sent YouTube a takedown notice pursuant to the DMCA. D demanded that YouTube remove P's video from the site because of a copyright violation. YouTube removed the video. P got an email notifying her of D's accusation of copyright infringement. The email advised P of the DMCA's counter-notification procedures and warned her that any repeated incidents of copyright infringement could lead to the deletion of her account and all of her videos. P sent YouTube a DMCA counter-notification under section 512(g). P claimed that her video constituted fair use of 'Let's Go Crazy.' P demanded that the video be re-posted. YouTube re-posted the video on its website about six weeks later. As of the date of this order, the 'Let's Go Crazy # 1' video has been viewed on YouTube more than 593,000 times. In September 2007, Prince spoke publicly about his efforts 'to reclaim his art on the internet' and threatened to sue several internet service providers for alleged infringement of his music copyrights. P alleges that D issued the removal notice only to appease Prince. On July 24, 2007, P filed suit against D alleging misrepresentation pursuant to § 512(f) and tortious interference with her contract with YouTube. She also sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. D filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. P was given leave to amend her complaint. P alleged only a claim for misrepresentation. D filed the instant motion.