Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016)

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 alleges that D misrepresented in a takedown notification that her 29-second home video constituted an infringing use of a portion of a composition by the Artist known as Prince. D was Prince's publishing administrator and responsible for enforcing his copyrights. D searched YouTube for Prince's songs and reviewed the video postings returned by his online search query. None of the video evaluation guidelines explicitly include consideration of the fair use doctrine. D decided P's video should be included in a takedown notification sent to YouTube that listed more than 200 YouTube videos D believed to be making unauthorized use of Prince's songs. The notice included a 'good faith belief' statement as required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v): 'We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.' YouTube removed the video. P sent a counter-notification pursuant to § 512(g)(3). After YouTube provided this counter-notification to D per § 512(g)(2)(B), D protested the video's reinstatement because P failed to properly acknowledge that her statement was made under penalty of perjury, as required by § 512(g)(3)(C). D stood its ground. No one made any mention of fair use. P sent a second counter-notification on June 27, 2007, which resulted in YouTube's reinstatement of the video in mid-July. P filed the instant action on July 24, 2007. On February 25, 2010, the district court granted P's partial motion for summary judgment on D's six affirmative defenses, including the third affirmative defense that P suffered no damages. Both parties moved for summary judgment on P's § 512(f) misrepresentation claim. On January 24, 2013, the district court denied both motions. The court granted the parties permission to bring an interlocutory appeal.