Supreme Court Seeks Solictor General Opinion on 'Dancing Baby' DMCA Case Involving YouTube
The Supreme Court asked the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General Monday to opine on Lenz v. Universal -- popularly known as the “dancing baby” case -- as the court considers whether to grant twin petitions for review of the…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2015 ruling in the case. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Universal Music Group petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the 9th Circuit’s ruling. EFF was representing Stephanie Lenz in her nine-year-long lawsuit against UMG over the record label’s takedown notice asking YouTube to remove a 29-second video that Lenz posted that showed her toddler son dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” (see report in the July 25, 2007, issue). The 9th Circuit ruled in 2015 that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification” (see 1509140070). The Supreme Court sought further input on EFF’s petition, in which the group asked the Supreme Court to review how copyright owners decide to issue takedown notices. The high court sought an opinion on “whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the affirmation of good faith belief that a given use of material use is not authorized ‘by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law’” under DMCA Section 512 “may be purely subjective and, therefore, that an unreasonable belief -- such as a belief formed without consideration of the statutory fair use factors -- will not subject the sender of a takedown notice to liability” under Section 512. The top judicial body rejected UMG’s petition to review the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the issue of Lenz’s standing to sue without proving a concrete or particular injury stemming from the takedown notice.