Voltaire 4,531 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 A company issued a take-down for a home video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. Normally these issues are resolved out of court and the items are removed. BUT, this mother wasn't having it. She pushed. Because it was forced into an actual court decision, it backfired and now has put a much larger burden on copyright holders to prove a clip or upload doesn't represent "fair use" of that song or material. ------------- A music company’s demand that YouTube take down a 29-second home video of two children dancing to a song by Prince backfired Monday when a federal appeals court used the case to make it harder for copyright-holders to act against brief, non-commercial uses of their material. [...]Copyright owners issue numerous take-down notices each day, targeting everything from home videos to campaign ads that include segments of songs or newscasts. When a copyright-holder tells a website like YouTube that one of its postings violates the holder’s exclusive rights to license the material, federal law requires that the posting be removed immediately. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the copyright-holder must first consider whether such a video amounts to “fair use” of the work, making it eligible to be legally posted. Fair use includes journalistic accounts and criticism, educational uses for teaching or research, and brief, private postings that don’t damage the commercial market for the work. The law “requires copyright-holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification,” and those that fail to do so can be held liable for damages, said Judge Richard Tallman in the 3-0 ruling, the first on the issue by any appeals court. Read more here: http://www.sfgate.com/music/article/Demand-that-mother-remove-home-video-from-YouTube-6503900.php Watch toddler bop here: Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I'm glad there's a "fair use" rule tbh, never heard of that before but I always wished there was one in any case I mean, it's ridiculous, in this particular example the song's use even benefits the company and in so many other examples as well. & that this comes in the middle of Prince's ridiculous high and mighty mini era is just delicious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zsolti 2,688 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Please correct me if I make any grammar mistakes, I want to master English as much as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levine 23,744 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Ooops Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 That video is the stuff of life btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 680 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Good decision. Wow, it took about 7 years for a court decision! The story embarrassed the hell out of Prince when it first was reported.Prince was almost as big as Madonna and MJ in the 80's, but his idiotic stand on "protecting his property" is a big reason why he isn't anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwontell 7,312 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 ATTENTION: (bad) jokes and sarcasm are still a thing, so don't take everything I say literally. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTV 13,022 Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Prince - The Taylor Swift of copyright Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.