## Facts

- Stephanie Lenz posted a 29-second home video on YouTube showing her young child dancing while Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” played faintly in the background for roughly twenty seconds.
- Universal Music Corp. and related entities held copyright interests in the song.
- Universal sent YouTube a DMCA takedown notice asserting the video infringed its copyright.
- YouTube removed the video and notified Lenz.
- Lenz submitted a DMCA counter-notification asserting her use was fair use; YouTube restored the video about six weeks later.
- Lenz sued Universal under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), alleging Universal knowingly materially misrepresented that the video was infringing, and also sought declaratory relief of noninfringement.
- The district court denied both sides’ summary judgment motions, leaving disputes about Universal’s good-faith belief and fair-use consideration for trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice under § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
2. Whether the DMCA “good faith belief” requirement turns on a subjective standard and how fair use fits within “authorized by … the law.”
3. Whether willful blindness can satisfy § 512(f)’s “knowing material misrepresentation” element.
4. Whether nominal damages are recoverable under § 512(f).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of both parties’ summary judgment motions and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a DMCA takedown notice because fair use is a use “authorized by law.”
- The court applied a primarily subjective standard for the required “good faith belief,” permitting liability only if the sender lacked a subjective good-faith belief that the use was unauthorized (including unauthorized by law).
- The court held willful blindness may, in principle, satisfy § 512(f)’s knowledge requirement, but found the record insufficient to establish willful blindness as a matter of law in this case.
- The court held nominal damages are available under § 512(f) for injuries caused by a misrepresentation, even if economic harm is small or hard to quantify.

## Legal Principles

- A DMCA takedown notice must include a statement of the sender’s good-faith belief that the complained-of use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; “the law” includes fair use.
- Fair use is a noninfringing use authorized by law; a sender cannot form the required good-faith belief without at least some consideration of fair use.
- For § 512(f) liability, the relevant “good faith belief” inquiry is largely subjective; an unreasonable belief may still avoid liability if genuinely held.
- Willful blindness can satisfy § 512(f)’s scienter requirement when the sender is aware of a high probability that the use is lawful and deliberately avoids confirming it.
- § 512(f) permits recovery of nominal damages (as well as costs and attorneys’ fees) for injuries resulting from a knowing material misrepresentation.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that § 512 requires copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices and treated fair use as a use authorized by law; it affirmed denial of summary judgment because factual disputes remained about Universal’s subjective good-faith belief, recognized willful blindness as a possible route to § 512(f) scienter, and allowed nominal damages for resulting injury.


Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016)