If we had a dollar for every dancing baby video posted on YouTube, we’d probably be rich. While such clips are a dime a dozen, one has turned into a three-year lawsuit that has resulted in a mother being ordered to turn over her personal chat transcripts, emails, and blog posts to court officials.
The story began in 2007 after Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz filed a lawsuit claiming that Universal and music legend Prince had made false copyright claims in filing a takedown notice of a 30-second YouTube clip she had posted of her children dancing to Prince’s hit “Let’s Go Crazy”. Lenz reportedly filed her case after consulting with the Electronic Freedom Foundation, an internet rights group, which had warned YouTube users that such take-downs could be a violation of their first amendment rights.
As the case was winding down toward a possible ruling, Universal came out of left field and accused Lenz of waiving her attorney-client privilege by "disclos[ing] repeatedly--in e-mails to friends and family, Gmail chats, and on her personal blog the substance of what she and her lawyers have discussed." The music giant claimed that the mom indicated in her writings that she had suffered no injuries as a result of the video’s removal from YouTube and that she was coerced into suing them by the EFF because it "would make an excellent vehicle for trying to change the legal standards and public debate."
"I don't care that YouTube doesn't want to host it [my video]," Lenz wrote in one instance, according to court documents. It’s "not like I'm paying them" and the "EFF is pretty well salivating over getting their teeth into UMG yet again," Lunz was found to have written after the court forced her to turn over documents about her reasons for filing suit and legal strategies in October.
So far Lunz has released over 80 documents to the court as a result of the order, but Universal says that they expected more and asked the judge to hold her in contempt.
"I think Universal's accusations are absurd," EFF attorney Corynne McSherry told CNET on Sunday. "There weren't that many documents to produce. We talked to the client by phone because that's what everybody does. Universal has a very expansive view of the judge's order. They were given an inch and now they're trying to take a mile... We really want to move ahead to summary judgment and move on."
McSherry declined to disclose the advice that had been dispensed to Lunz regarding attorney-client privilege.
Ironically, as this drama has played out over the past three years, Lunz’s second posting of the video has remained on YouTube since just one month after the original was taken down. Universal has never disputed the reposted video, and it has racked up over one million views.
The final verdict in this case has yet to be read, but it’s likely that Lunz has learned to be a lot more careful about what she says online.
In respect to the case itself, I can see how interviews and public blog posts would factor in as a detriment to the case, but personal emails and chats are a bit of a shock. However, if what Lunz had said to the media and in her blog was damning enough, “probable cause” was likely a factor. Either way, it’s definitely a wake-up call for anyone who had been involved in legal proceedings.
