“Dancing Baby” Woman Wins Fair Use Decision Against Universal Music Group

An eight-year-old video of a cute baby could lead to a significant chance regarding video claiming policy on the Internet. A US appeals court judge has ruled in favor of Stephanie Lenz, a Pennsylvania woman who sued Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group (UMG) after the the musicrequested a takedown of one of her videos despite her claim of fair use.

Lenz’s battle with UMG began in 2007, when she uploaded a video of her young son dancing to the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.” UMG, which manages Prince on YouTube, promptly sent Lenz a takedown notice through YouTube’s Content ID system. Lenz responded with a lawsuit, as she claimed her video constituted fair use and was therefore protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Subscribe to get the latest creator news

Subscribe

Lenz vs. Universal Music Corp. was decided in Lenz’s favor in 2008, but the appeals process dragged on until 2015. In supporting the original decision, Circuit Judge Richard Tallman urged rights holders to take more responsibility for their takedown notices. “Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider – in good faith and prior to sending a takedown notification – whether allegedly infringing material constitutes fair use,” he stated

.

The “dancing baby” case is one of several instances where an independent videomaker has clashed with a rights holder over the idea of “bad faith” takedown notices. In 2013, digital media activist and current presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig hit recordLiberation Music with a lawsuit similar to Lenz’s. In that case, the two parties ultimately settled out of court.

The court’s decision in the dancing baby case seems important at first glance, but rights holders still retain a lot of power; after all, they only have to “consider” fair use, which is an infamously nebulous and confusing legal topic to begin with. In addition, any decision that could potentially take power away from Content ID is dangerous. As Facebook’s recent struggles with “freebooting” have shown, rights holders need to be able to effectively police content on video sites in order to prevent others from making illicit profits.

One thing’s for certain: Lenz’s child is perhaps the most important toddler in YouTube history–though this kid gives him a run for his money.

Share
Published by
Sam Gutelle

Recent Posts

Have you heard? Addison Rae has a Fortnite skin and Erling Haaland has a secret weapon.

Each week, we handpick a selection of stories to give you a snapshot of trends,…

14 hours ago

With “the largest raise in live shopping,” Whatnot achieves $20 billion valuation

In 2025, Whatnot raised two funding rounds, each of which brought in more than $200 million of…

15 hours ago

Netflix knows how big trailers can be, so it got an exclusive window for a ‘Grand Theft Auto VI’ preview

We got video game trailers on Netflix before we got Grand Theft Auto VI. Jokes aside,…

17 hours ago

So, theoretically, how much does it cost to buy fake views, followers, comments, likes, and shares right now?

It's not a secret that you can buy social engagement. A quick search for "buy…

1 day ago

For vertical live streamers, YouTube is stressing that practice makes perfect

Nearly a year after it was first teased, Practice Mode for Vertical Live is here. That's the…

2 days ago

Is there a right way to moderate children’s screen time? One approach may rise above the rest.

As parents, teachers, and world leaders attempt to rein in the effects of excessive screen…

2 days ago