7 ms·

Dancing Baby Video Battle Back in Court Tuesday

55 points by pwg 14y ago

tlrobinson 14y ago
I was hoping it had something to do with this piece of internet culture... http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/a/ab/Dancing_baby.gif http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/a/ab/Dancing_baby.gif
- mc32 14y ago
  That's what came to mind first, but I'm glad it was more serious and that the court did consider the use of the song "fair use" and that copyright holders should consider the fair use of their copyrighted material before sending a takedown notice. Sometimes I think the EFF overreaches, but here this is 'common sense' stuff that they should (and did) pursue. Kudos.
  - crististm 14y ago
    The "overreaching" part is subjective. I think it is quite balanced considering the actions of the other parties involved.
- GBond 14y ago
  I cam here to see if any other internet "oldies" (we've dated ourselves) thought that as well. The web's first meme?
alexqgb 14y ago
Is anyone else bothered by the characterization of the music as "background"? To me, that suggests music that happened to be playing incidentally in the background while something unrelated was being filmed (e.g. people at a BBQ). That's not the same thing as a performance clearly tied to the song; one in which the particular song is a key element of the video. In other words, passing this off as "background" music is nonsense. Given the context of the video, that characterization is clearly and obviously not true, and I don't think the EFF does itself or the broader cause of copyright reform any favors by misrepresenting facts in this fashion. For what it's worth, I think Fair Use should allow this video, and videos like it. People's engagement with the culture is what makes it culture, and the idea that ownership of the underlying IP extends a bubble of ownership and control to every imaginable situation in which that IP appears is, frankly, odious. As far as this case goes, I think the EFF has picked a fight well worth having, but their ends don't justify the means. If anything, the means may compromise the ends.
- prayag 14y ago
  >That's not the same thing as a performance clearly tied to the song; one in which the particular song is a key element of the video. What performance? Would you really call a kid dancing to a song a "performance"? Do you think the kid wouldn't be dancing if any other song was on? In addition, performance is actually a legal term which will probably mean some sort of training and/or practice. This is not a performance. I don't think ANY court will agree with this being a performance.
  - dhughes 14y ago
    I'd say legally the term 'performance' could have a very broad definition and could be referred to as any 'act'.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      If performance means any act, in the meaning of 'action' and not just 'to act in a perfomance', then the word performance loses the meaning of a perfomance and we would no longer be able to distinguish performances from any act and so the whole idea of being able to licence them would become rather problematic.
      - alexqgb 14y ago
        The legal definition of "performance" means that the song (or a portion thereof) was played in a public setting. Given the number of hits the video received, this performance was, unambiguously, public.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  The music is background since the music is not the focus of the video, the dancing baby is. To me it seems that you are implying that parents wanted to post a tune from The Prince on the Internet and used a clip of their dancing baby as an excuse. That is precisely wrong and precisely along the lines that label lawyers will probably try to draw.

55 points by pwg 14y ago

I was hoping it had something to do with this piece of internet culture... http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/a/ab/Dancing_baby.gif http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/a/ab/Dancing_baby.gif

mc32 14y ago
That's what came to mind first, but I'm glad it was more serious and that the court did consider the use of the song "fair use" and that copyright holders should consider the fair use of their copyrighted material before sending a takedown notice. Sometimes I think the EFF overreaches, but here this is 'common sense' stuff that they should (and did) pursue. Kudos.
- crististm 14y ago
  The "overreaching" part is subjective. I think it is quite balanced considering the actions of the other parties involved.
GBond 14y ago
I cam here to see if any other internet "oldies" (we've dated ourselves) thought that as well. The web's first meme?

alexqgb 14y ago

Is anyone else bothered by the characterization of the music as "background"? To me, that suggests music that happened to be playing incidentally in the background while something unrelated was being filmed (e.g. people at a BBQ). That's not the same thing as a performance clearly tied to the song; one in which the particular song is a key element of the video. In other words, passing this off as "background" music is nonsense. Given the context of the video, that characterization is clearly and obviously not true, and I don't think the EFF does itself or the broader cause of copyright reform any favors by misrepresenting facts in this fashion. For what it's worth, I think Fair Use should allow this video, and videos like it. People's engagement with the culture is what makes it culture, and the idea that ownership of the underlying IP extends a bubble of ownership and control to every imaginable situation in which that IP appears is, frankly, odious. As far as this case goes, I think the EFF has picked a fight well worth having, but their ends don't justify the means. If anything, the means may compromise the ends.

prayag 14y ago
>That's not the same thing as a performance clearly tied to the song; one in which the particular song is a key element of the video. What performance? Would you really call a kid dancing to a song a "performance"? Do you think the kid wouldn't be dancing if any other song was on? In addition, performance is actually a legal term which will probably mean some sort of training and/or practice. This is not a performance. I don't think ANY court will agree with this being a performance.
- dhughes 14y ago
  I'd say legally the term 'performance' could have a very broad definition and could be referred to as any 'act'.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    If performance means any act, in the meaning of 'action' and not just 'to act in a perfomance', then the word performance loses the meaning of a perfomance and we would no longer be able to distinguish performances from any act and so the whole idea of being able to licence them would become rather problematic.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      The legal definition of "performance" means that the song (or a portion thereof) was played in a public setting. Given the number of hits the video received, this performance was, unambiguously, public.
JanezStupar 14y ago
The music is background since the music is not the focus of the video, the dancing baby is. To me it seems that you are implying that parents wanted to post a tune from The Prince on the Internet and used a clip of their dancing baby as an excuse. That is precisely wrong and precisely along the lines that label lawyers will probably try to draw.