Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG

Surprise, another 512(f) claim fails. But the sender’s dereliction in this case really got to me, so it’s worth the blog post.

The case revolves around a “beat” produced by Jordan Jenks (a/k/a Pi’erre Bourne). Jenks licensed the beat non-exclusively to Jordan White (a/k/a G-BABY GVVAAN), who incorporated it into a song called “Oi!” Another sound recording, “Right Now” featuring Jordan Carter a/k/a Playboi Carti, incorporates the beat–presumably also non-exclusively licensed from Jenks, though the opinion expressly never says that. UMG owns the copyright to the “Right Now” sound recording, but not the beat.

[Note: by my count, there are at least 3 Jordans involved in this case–Jenks, White, and Carter.]

Despite UMG’s lack of ownership in the beat, UMG’s “content protection specialist” found the song Oi! online, matched the beat to Right Now, and assumed that Oi! infringed Right Now. That led to successful takedown notices targeting Oi!

The problem here is pretty obvious: just because a label owns a sound recording doesn’t mean that it owns every element therein. Here, it appears UMG didn’t have a system for tracking which parts of Right Now it owned and which it didn’t. As a result, UMG apparently makes the blanket assumption that it owns every element of a sound recording in its catalog, leading to overenforcements like this one where it apparently is enforcing its status as a non-exclusive licensee of the beat (which copyright law doesn’t permit).

The court says that White, the plaintiff, never showed that UMG was aware of his non-exclusive license, but was that required? White seems to show that UMG can’t track what it actually owns and what it actually licenses, and the burden should be on UMG to show otherwise. It’s not like UMG had some colorable reason to think it owned the beat; its takedown notice was the direct and foreseeable consequence of its own incomplete tracking of its asset ownership and licensing status. (I generally hate the term “willful blindness,” but that descriptor seems to fit UMG’s conduct here).

White got past a motion to dismiss, but his case predictably falls on summary judgment. He claimed UMG knew that its takedown notice was false, but he can’t deliver the facts sufficient to show UMG’s actual knowledge. White claimed that he had been talking with various UMG folks about his license to the beat, but the court only cares about the knowledge of the UMG’s “content protection specialist,” who was never in those conversation loops.

The court thus concludes that “the factual record contradicts White’s central claim that UMG, in issuing the takedown notices, knew that “Oi!” did not infringe its copyright” and ends the case. This is how UMG can send a completely unsupported takedown notice and get away with it despite 512(f). The result is entirely consistent with the 512(f) precedent, and yet it’s lamentable each and every time.

Case Citation: White v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 2024 WL 3952721 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2024)

BONUS: Google LLC v. Van Duc, 2024 WL 3740145 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2024): the defendants allegedly falsely targeted 117k items through its copyright webform, which Google delisted based on these false premises. Google sued for equitable relief; the defendants defaulted; and the court grants an injunction against further false submittals.

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases
* 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial
* 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox
* Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps
* You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas
* 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless
* Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA
* 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus
* A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court
* 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal
* 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
* Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
* 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America
* 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
* Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe
* Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin
* How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)
* Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo
* Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret
* A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo
* DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk
* Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church
* ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
* 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal
* Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership
* It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner
* Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran
* 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music
* 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom
* Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning
* 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment
* Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG
* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals
* Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI
* Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path
* Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal
* YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman
* Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal
* 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici
* Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
* Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
* Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal
* Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks
* New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
* Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
* Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment