Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 3
  • Relationships: 6
  • Research debt items: 2

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

Summary

Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before sending DMCA takedown notifications under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).

Verified Facts

  • Case citation 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), No. 13-16106.1
  • Stephanie Lenz uploaded a 29-second home video of her child dancing while Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" played in the background.1
  • Universal Music sent a DMCA takedown notification to YouTube, which removed the video.1
  • Lenz sent a counter-notification claiming fair use; YouTube reposted the video about six weeks later.1
  • Lenz sued Universal under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) for misrepresentation in the takedown notice.1
  • The Ninth Circuit held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification.1
  • Because fair use is authorized by law under 17 U.S.C. § 107, a copyright holder's § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) statement of good faith belief requires consideration of whether the use is fair use.1
  • Failure to consider fair use raises a triable issue about whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.1
  • The court held that a plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal damages for injury caused by a § 512(f) misrepresentation.1
  • The EFF legal guide states that a counter-notification asserts that material was removed by mistake or misidentification.2
  • The EFF legal guide states that § 512(f) creates liability for knowingly material misrepresentation in takedown or counter-notice contexts.2

Historical Context

The case is commonly referred to as the "dancing baby" case in secondary reporting. It addressed whether copyright holders must evaluate fair use before using DMCA takedown procedures against user-uploaded video.1

The Ninth Circuit treated fair use, for DMCA purposes, as a use "authorized by the law" under § 107 rather than only an affirmative defense to infringement.1 The opinion held that the copyright holder need not reach the correct fair use conclusion, but must consider fair use in good faith before sending a takedown notification.1

Relationships

  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL cites SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.
  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL cites SRC-USC-17-107-LII.
  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL related_to STAT-USC-107.
  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL related_to STAT-DMCA-512.
  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL related_to TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE.
  • CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL related_to TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.

Sources

  1. SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015).
  2. SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP: EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers — Intellectual Property.

Research Debt

  • Add district court opinions and procedural history with docket sources.
  • Document subsequent § 512(f) cases applying Lenz with primary sources.

Document metadata

  • Decision date: 2015
  • Last verified: 2026-07-19

  1. SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9 — Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015). Primary authority. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP — EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers — Intellectual Property. Official educational guide; secondary source. ↩↩