Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Many have worried about the role of intermediaries who provide platforms for sharing information and expression on the internet, and their sometimes profound power to make content disappear. But here is an example of one intermediary -- a big and very important one -- that did the right thing.

Students for a Free Tibet posted a video on YouTube showing their protest at the Chinese consulate in New York, which included various images relating to the Beijing Olympics, all to speak against China's human rights record -- a fair use to be sure.

The International Olympic Committee filed a DMCA takedown notice and the video was removed. Upon learning more about the content of the removed video, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked them if they really planned to pursue a claim about this [really very preposterous position] and if not, to withdraw the takedown notice. To the IOC's credit, they retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours.

So here is an intermediary who took an interest in free speech and fair use, even when it didn't necessarily have to. Yes, that followed widespread outrage among bloggers and others. Yes, the situation would have been much tougher if the IOC had maintained its irresponsible position. But we should all be pleased to see YouTube going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.

Free licenses play a vitally important role in fostering creative and collaborative use of copyrighted material. Creative Commons is perhaps the best example, with a around 130 million works under CC licenses, which tell you in advance what you can and cannot do with a work.

Some have wondered how effectively you can enforce a free license if somebody violates the terms of it. Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- one of the most influential in the country -- answered that question forcefully by affirming the enforceability of free licenses through infringement claims. (We represented Creative Commons and several other organizations that support free and open source licensing as amicus parties in this case.)

This is a tremendously important victory for free licensing in a tremendously influential court. Read the full opinion here.

Two months ago, a Manhattan federal court rejected Yoko Ono Lennon's attempt to enjoin the further showing and distribution of Expelled: No Intelligence allowed on the ground that film used fifteen seconds of the John Lennon song Imagine.

EMI Records filed a nearly identical claim in state court based on the film's use of the sound recording, and demanded a nearly identical injunction. We're happy to report the state court has now denied EMI's request for an injunction.

The state court's order is particularly important because it establishes that fair use applies to the use of sound recordings under common law copyright, and rejects the insane conclusion of the Sixth Circuit in Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films that there is no such thing as de minimis use when it comes to sound recordings.

Read the full order here.