DMCA notices to the OSPs hosting the defendants’ web site. In both instances, the OSPs shut
down the defendants’ web site in response. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs’ notices
under the DMCA violated Section 512(f) and sought an injunction preventing the plaintiffs from
further interfering with their web site.^2901
The court ruled the defendants had failed to present sufficient evidence that the plaintiffs
knowingly materially misrepresented to the OSPs that the defendants’ web site was infringing.
The plaintiffs had submitted ample evidence and testimony that they believed the defendants’
web site violated their copyright when the DMCA notices were submitted. Accordingly, the
court denied the defendants’ claim under Section 512(f). However, the court granted a
preliminary injunction barring the plaintiffs from sending additional DMCA notices in view of
the fact that the court had ruled that the defendants’ web site, after the copied materials had been
removed, was not substantially similar to the plaintiffs’ web site.^2902
(vi) Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.,^2903 Stephanie Lenz videotaped her toddler son dancing
in the family’s kitchen to the song titled “Let’s Go Crazy” owned by the plaintiff, and posted the
video on YouTube.com. The plaintiffs sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, which
responded by removing the video from the site. Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification under
the DMCA, demanding that her video be re-posted because it did not infringe the plaintiff’s
copyrights, and the video was then re-posted by YouTube. Lenz then filed an action against the
plaintiffs under Section 512(f) seeking redress for the plaintiffs’ alleged misuse of the DMCA
takedown process, arguing that her posting was a self-evident non-infringing fair use.^2904
The court rejected Lenz’s claim. Citing the Rossi case discussed in subsection (i) above,
the court ruled that Lenz must show a knowing misrepresentation on the part of the copyright
owner in filing the takedown notice in order to establish liability under Section 512(f). The court
noted that the plaintiffs had not conceded that the posting was a fair use, and Lenz had failed to
allege facts from which a misrepresentation could be inferred or why her use of the song was a
self-evident fair use. Accordingly, Lenz’s claim was dismissed with leave to amend.^2905
Lenz then amended her complaint, alleging that the plaintiffs had issued the DMCA
takedown notice only to appease the musician known as “Prince,” the author of the song “Let’s
Go Crazy.”^2906 Specifically, Lenz alleged that Universal issued its DMCA notice to YouTube at
Prince’s behest, based not on the particular characteristics of the video or any good faith belief
(^2901) Id. at 1-3.
(^2902) Id. at 30-31.
(^2903) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44549 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2008) (Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with
Leave to Amend) (not for citation).
(^2904) Id. at 1-3.
(^2905) Id. at 8-9.
(^2906) Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1152 (N.D. Cal. 2008).