For copyright holders, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) takedown procedures provide a relatively quick and easy way to address online copyright infringement.
The DCMA requires Internet service providers to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing” upon receiving notice of infringing material being posted on their networks. The notification process has become commonly known as “DMCA notice-and-takedown process.”
DMCA notice-and-takedown
The Ninth Circuit case, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., revolves around a 29 second home video of two young children dancing to Prince’s song Let’s Go Crazy, which was posted on YouTube by the children’s mother, Stephanie Lenz. After reviewing the video, Universal Music Corporation sent YouTube a DCMA takedown notice.
After the video was removed, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA. She specifically alleged that Universal violated the good faith requirement set forth in Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v). It requires a takedown notification to include a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
The specific question before the Ninth Circuit was whether fair use is an authorized use under the law. Citing that the fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright, the appeals court concluded that fair use is “authorized by the law” for purposed of the DCMA.
“We hold that the statute requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law,” the opinion states.
With regard to the obligations of copyright holders, the Ninth Circuit provided the following clarification:
To be clear, if a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages under §512(f). If, however, a copyright holder forms a subjective good faith belief the allegedly infringing material does not constitute fair use, we are in no position to dispute the copyright holder’s belief even if we would have reached the opposite conclusion. A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to § 512(f) liability.
The Ninth Circuit’s landmark intellectual property decision is only binding on federal courts in in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, and the State of Washington. However, the ruling suggests that courts may begin to hold copyright owners to a higher standard when sending takedown notices under the DMCA.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Ninth Circuit: DMCA Takedown Notice Requires Fair Use Analysis
Author: Fred D. Zemel
For copyright holders, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) takedown procedures provide a relatively quick and easy way to address online copyright infringement.
The DCMA requires Internet service providers to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing” upon receiving notice of infringing material being posted on their networks. The notification process has become commonly known as “DMCA notice-and-takedown process.”
DMCA notice-and-takedown
The Ninth Circuit case, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., revolves around a 29 second home video of two young children dancing to Prince’s song Let’s Go Crazy, which was posted on YouTube by the children’s mother, Stephanie Lenz. After reviewing the video, Universal Music Corporation sent YouTube a DCMA takedown notice.
After the video was removed, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA. She specifically alleged that Universal violated the good faith requirement set forth in Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v). It requires a takedown notification to include a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
The specific question before the Ninth Circuit was whether fair use is an authorized use under the law. Citing that the fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright, the appeals court concluded that fair use is “authorized by the law” for purposed of the DCMA.
“We hold that the statute requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law,” the opinion states.
With regard to the obligations of copyright holders, the Ninth Circuit provided the following clarification:
To be clear, if a copyright holder ignores or neglects our unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages under §512(f). If, however, a copyright holder forms a subjective good faith belief the allegedly infringing material does not constitute fair use, we are in no position to dispute the copyright holder’s belief even if we would have reached the opposite conclusion. A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to § 512(f) liability.
The Ninth Circuit’s landmark intellectual property decision is only binding on federal courts in in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, and the State of Washington. However, the ruling suggests that courts may begin to hold copyright owners to a higher standard when sending takedown notices under the DMCA.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
