fair use

Subscribe to fair use via RSS

The cause of action for misappropriation of reports of breaking news, i.e., “hot news” misappropriation, has been around for going on a century, since the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918). In that landmark case the Court recognized a “quasi property” right in such reports on the part of a news-gathering organization under federal common law.

Survival of the hot news misappropriation claim, and its applicability to online news aggregators, has been the subject of much discussion and debate as news aggregation sites have become ubiquitous on the Internet, on sites ranging from Google News to thousands of more modest offerings. The AP, which was the prevailing plaintiff in the landmark case 90 years ago, has been successful in obtaining settlements with a number of online news aggregators that used its material, including a settlement with Google News in 2006 and a settlement with Moreover and its parent company Verisign last year.

The AP has again made progress in this ongoing battle, this time in its hot news misappropriation lawsuit against online aggregator All Headline News Corp. In this case, the court issued a ruling that recognizes not only the AP’s misappropriation claim, but its claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act copyright management provision as well.

Stephanie Lenz posted a homemade video on YouTube.com, depicting her toddler son dancing in his walker, with the song “Let’s Go Crazy” by “the artist professionally known as Prince” playing in the background. Several months later, attorneys for Universal Music, owner of the copyright in the recording, sent a takedown notice pursuant to § 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires that the notice include among other things “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 video was promptly removed. Lenz responded with a DMCA counter-notification, and the video was re-posted several weeks later.
Lenz then instituted suit against Universal for damages and attorney fees under § 512(f) of the DMCA, alleging that in issuing the takedown notice, Universal lacked the statutorily required “good faith belief” that her use of the song was infringing. In the latest ruling in the action, Judge Jeremy Fogel in the Northern District of California ruled that the takedown provisions of DMCA § 512(c) require a copyright owner to “consider the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith belief that ‘use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.'” Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. 07-3783 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2008) (emphasis added).
…