Back To Top

Fair Use Agreement

Fair Use Agreement

In August 2008, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California at Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. ruled that copyright owners could not order the deletion of an online file without determining whether the publication reflected a “fair use” of copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor-in-chief of Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince`s song Let`s Go Crazy and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the song`s copyright owner, told YouTube to remove the video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz immediately informed YouTube that her video was fair dealing and requested that it be restored. YouTube followed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after six weeks and not after the two weeks. Lenz sued Universal Music in California for its legal fees, claiming the music company acted in bad faith by ordering the removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. [34] On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a copyright owner must affirmatively verify whether the conduct complained of constituted fair dealing before sending a takedown message under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, instead of waiting for the alleged infringer to assert fair dealing.

801 F.3d 1126 (9 cir. 2015). “Even though, as Universal demands, fair dealing is considered an `affirmative defense,` we believe that fair dealing is unique in copyright to be treated differently from traditional affirmative defense. We come to the conclusion because 17 us.C. § 107 has created a type of use that is not contrary to law, fair dealing is “permitted by law” and a copyright owner must consider the existence of fair dealing before sending a notice of rigging in accordance with Article 512(c).” Anne`s Statute of 1710, an Act of the British Parliament, created copyright to replace a private ordering system imposed by the Stationers` Company. Anne`s statute did not provide for unauthorized use of copyrighted material. In Gyles v Wilcox[4], the Court of Justice found the doctrine of “equitable reduction” which, in certain circumstances, allowed an unauthorized reduction of copyrighted works. . . .