Lessig challenges DMCA takedown notice

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Lessig challenges DMCA takedown notice

Know your enemy. Did Australian company record company Liberation Music bear this advice in mind when it requested that YouTube block the video of a lecture titled “Open” given by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig?

Yesterday Lessig – a well-known political activist and critic of the copyright systemretaliated, asking the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages. He is represented by lawyers from the law firm Jones Day and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The dispute concerns a lecture Lessig gave at a Creative Commons conference in Seoul, Korea in June 2010. The lecture included several clips of amateur music videos to illustrate cultural developments in the age of the internet.

The clips included groups of people dancing to the song “Lisztomania” by the band Phoenix, which is represented by Liberation Music. Lessig claims his use of the clips is permitted under the fair use doctrine and does not infringe copyright.

In June 2013, a video of the lecture was posted on YouTube. On June 30, Lessig received a notice from YouTube saying the video of his lecture had been blocked under its filtering procedures as it included content owned or licensed by Viacom (the notice, included in the court documents, was addressed “Dear lessig”).

It is believed that Liberation Music sought to block the video at about the same time.

When Lessig disputed the block, Liberation Music issued a DMCA takedown notice, demanding the removal of the video. When Lessig submitted a counter-notice, Liberation Music emailed him threatening legal proceedings within 72 hours and he retracted his counter-notice.

Lessig’s suit seeks a declaration that the video of the lecture is protected by the fair use doctrine and does not infringe copyright as well as an order enjoining Liberation from asserting a copyright claim against him. He is also seeking damages, costs and other just relief.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article