How do some music companies expect people to take down videos that contain small samples of songs?

We are protected under the Fair Use Act (forgot what year) which says that people can use small snippets of licensed audio and video material for personal use. Universal Music Group recently forced you tube to take down a mother's video clip of her baby son dancing to a Prince song. And it was only 29 seconds long! Universal Music group violated the Fair Use Act. Do you think something like this would actually hold up in court? The Fair Use Act protects this lady and people like us. Look at how many other videos are out there where licensed music is being used as background music.

How do some music companies expect people to take down videos that contain small samples of songs?

-(Myspace music www.myspace.com)

This law did not take into account internet usage. It's a very gray area legally speaking. The original intent was for home videos and things of that nature. The law was unable to reasonably expect the increased usage of the internet for personal use and display. Led Zepelin has a huge case about this very thing right now . . . it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

How do some music companies expect people to take down videos that contain small samples of songs?

-(Myspace.com graphics myspace.com)

Any exhibition of copyrighted media is protected. You cannot use someone else's work to enhance your own. The Fair Use Act contains no clauses that apply to what you are talking about.

You are allowed to sample music, but it can be no longer than 3 seconds and even then it usually has to be post-processed to the point where it is not recognizable.

Yes, it will hold up in court, I guarantee it. I know their is an explosion of people doing this, and it is illegal. You are using someone else's hard work and copyrighted material to promote your own. Which takes more effort to make, the album the music came from, or the 30 second video clip? If the video clip is such great content, why does it require someone else's copyrighted work?

I believe your objections are because you like these types of works (video clips w/ sampled music) and I understand, but often the music has nothing to do with the clip. You're liking this type of content has nothing to do with the law though.
Well didn't it cross the line when it was no longer personal use? I guess it would depend on what is considered "personal use". I understand what you are saying, but when it becomes a video watched by the public, intentional or not, and no longer for someones own personal use the line gets a little fuzzy.
The music industry is dying as we all know it and now they are turning on there own loyal customers and fan base. We know it, the bands know it, every one knows it but the big wigs at these companys because all they can remember was the hey day of the early and late nineties when the general public had to listen to whatever they decided to shove down our throats (Nysnc, Ricky Martin, Jenifer lopez) Now that people can pick and choose what music they listen too real talented bands are starting to come to the for front. Bands are starting to just sell there CD's themesleves threw there websites. MTV more or less set music back about two decades because it made the Image more important than the music. So i guess what im saying is that in ten years this argument wont even matter
Fair Use is a fuzzy topic.

Youtube and google are active in promoting Fair Use. After all, no search engine could exsit without it!

That being said, a cae can be made that 29 seconds is too long, and a related case could be made that when you post 29 seconds on youtube for anyone to see, it is no longer "personal" use.

29 seconds too long? That is only 1 second less then a 30 second TV commercial, for which copyright holders expect be paid, and they get it.

And certainly a music video on youtube as the potential to be seen as often and as many times by as many people as a tv commercial or film.

Not only that, but even if the music would have been fair use to the mother had she not shared it, the case could be made that for youtube/google, distributing it was nto fair use, certainly not under a person use claim, as they actually do endeavor to profit from the distribution of this and of all videos.

I am not saying that there are not often Fair Use claims to be made, and in general I am for them, but right now it is a very active battle area in the law and in business.

The mom is certainly free to remake her video if she wants.

You can read definitive info on these topics at www.chillingeffects.org
never heard of it so i looked it up. most likely UMG played chicken, threatened to sue and the mother blinked first. also, the bar has been set by a minnesota court at $225,000 but she can certainly take it to verdict to make a point.