Title and Citation
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015).
Facts of the Case
The essence of this case is the confrontation between Stephanie Lenz and Universal Music Corp. According to Lenz, it illegally accused her of copyright infringement when posting a home video. The reason for initiating this case was removing Lenz’s video at Universal’s request, which contained a fragment of the artist Prince’s composition. The woman filed a complaint, arguing that Universal did not determine the factors that make up the fair use. The company’s arguments were the judgments of Universal Music Corp’s assistant, who ruled that Prince’s music was the focal point of the video.
Issues
Must copyright owners consider fair use before sending a takedown notice under the DMCA?
Decisions
As a result of this case, Lenz’s complaint was satisfied, and the court stated that companies must consider fair use requirements.
Reasoning and Analysis
The judge used the following chain of arguments:
- Universal has shown that it was convinced of Lenz’s copyright infringement because the video was not a fair use;
- However, Universal has not considered the factors that make up the concept of fair use;
- Therefore, Universal’s assertion and belief were erroneous, although those factors are stated in §107, and its decision was made knowingly;
- Although Universal’s actions were based on good faith belief, there is evidence to the contrary, making the company subject to § 512(f) liability.
The importance of this case lies in the fact that the court established the procedure for applying the DMCA. Since fair use is enshrined in legislation, organizations should be subject to an established list of fair use elements. Thus, this case is essential because it draws the attention of various companies to comply with the law and the correct interpretation of the DMCA.
Separate Opinions
The party that has shown partly concurring and dissenting opinion is M. Smith, Circuit Judge. He agreed with all of the majority decisions, except for Part IV.C. According to the majority opinion, Universal’s actions regarding forming a subjective opinion are a verifiable factual issue. Smith counters that the company has deliberately left out the issue of fair use. The judge clarifies that the § 512(f) requirement for misrepresentation is satisfied when a party is aware of the lack of sufficient information. As a result, in Smith’s opinion, Universal’s actions were not legally sufficient to form a subjective opinion on fair use.