From the IPKat's friend Ben Challis (he of the Music Law Updates) comes the following tale, which may cause readers to ask who is the bigger baby: the 13-month old dancer or the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince: "A mother who uploaded a video of her son dancing to a Prince track is taking the artist and his label to court over their efforts to have the video taken off YouTube. Stephanie Lenz of Pennsylvania made a video of her 13-month-old boy dancing to an almost inaudible song, and posted it on YouTube as thousands of parents do worldwide. "Let's go Crazy" is the “barely distinguishable song” in the background –- it is by Prince and the copyright is owned by Universal Music, who issued a take-down notice. YouTube initially took it down but Lenz fought back and sent a letter to YouTube, demanding that her video be reinstated. They in turn sent a letter to Universal Music. Eventually YouTube posted the video back up, because Universal Music never answered. And that's where it would have ended, except that Lenz has decided to file a lawsuit against Universal Music with the legal help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. A federal judge in San Jose will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by Lenz. She claims Universal Music misused the takedown notice and is abusing copyright law. She also argues that the use of the track is covered by ‘fair use’ provisions in the US".More on Mercury News, After Dawn and DB Techno
The IPKat thinks that this sort of thing really does no credit to copyright and that, at a time when composers, performers, writers and publishers need all the goodwill they can get, it makes copyright enforcement appear ungracious, to say the least. But Merpel says, there may be embarassment in individual cases such as this, but how much time and how many resources can copyright owners allocate to considering the merits of each unauthorised use? Is it not reasonable for them to have a system?
Lenz not in Prince's focus
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html