Did Lenz Waive Attorney-Client Privelege In Talking About Her Dancing Baby Case?
from the that-seems-unfortunate dept
We just recently spoke about the latest filings in Stephanie Lenz’s lawsuit against Universal Music for issuing a takedown for her video of her toddler dancing to 29-seconds of a Prince song. A court has already declared that Universal Music should take fair use into account, but Universal Music is now claiming that it did take fair use into account, and it did not believe that the use of the music in this video was fair use:
The EFF, in response, is asking the court to overturn that ruling, stating that Lenz’s public comments covered public information and did not amount to a waiver of attorney-client privilege. You can see the EFF’s full response after the jump. No matter which side of the case you support, this is a separate and important issue. Talking about some aspects of your case online should not mean you waive your attorney-client privileges on communications. We should encourage public discussion of important aspects of legal cases, not totally scare off participants by thinking they could lose such important protections as attorney-client privilege if they talk too much.
Filed Under: attorney client privelege, stephanie lenz
Companies: eff, universal music
Comments on “Did Lenz Waive Attorney-Client Privelege In Talking About Her Dancing Baby Case?”
What does after the jump mean.
Re: Re:
n/m, I figured it out.
Mike Masnick, JD
“The EFF, in response, is asking the court to overturn that ruling, stating that Lenz’s public comments covered public information and did not amount to a waiver of attorney-client privilege. You can see the EFF’s full response after the jump. No matter which side of the case you support, this is a separate and important issue. Talking about some aspects of your case online should not mean you waive your attorney-client privileges on communications. We should encourage public discussion of important aspects of legal cases, not totally scare off participants by thinking they could lose such important protections as attorney-client privilege if they talk too much.”
I’m going to spare an actual response to this because you can’t be this dumb. Seriously.
Re: Re:
Compelling argument.
Re: Mike Masnick, JD
I’m going to spare an actual response to this because you can’t be this dumb. Seriously.
I love it when folks like you just toss out an insult because you can’t actually come up with a response.
Please, do let us know, why talking about one aspect of a case, should mean a waiver of attorney-client privilege on additional communications. Since I’m so dumb, why not educate us, rather than insult us?
Re: Re: Mike Masnick, JD
Because it breaks the first two rules of attorney/client privilege?
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick, JD
Need more detail, please! If you have it anyway, for those of us who don’t feel like researching attorney-client privilege.
Re: Re: Re:2 Mike Masnick, JD
Er, that was just a Fight Club reference. Sorry.
Re: Re: Re:3 Mike Masnick, JD
Ohhhhhhh, sorry, I missed that.
Wait, I don’t get it. Why would talking about some parts about a case suddenly waive ALL attorney-client privileges?
Re: Re:
Isn’t it obvious?
Re: Re:
Because the other side is a corporation. Jeez! Clearly you missed the memo!
Re: Re: Re:
Universal has certainly made various public statements about this case. Under the same “logic” can all of their attorney/client communications be made public?
That’s just this case.
Now how about every other case in which someone from Universal has made a public statement or put out a press release.
If Universal is not prepared to do so, then this is an obvious double standard.
Here's news: you don't *have* any right to an attorney.
Not since Obama declared himself able to execute anyone (making explicit and public what Bush did in more or less secret) with zero due process, appeal, or judicial oversight. The system keeps wobbling along with the appearance of normality, but has been fundamentally undermined.
That attitude will be increasingly reflected in court decisions — with “no privacy on the internet” becoming a de facto standard, so that even those who claim you’ve nothing to hide (as from Google or the NSA) will eventually get bitten by the effects.
Re: Here's news: you don't *have* any right to an attorney.
Some argue that’s already a de facto standard. Perhaps you mean a de jure standard? (did I spell that right?)
Good Grief!
This is just plain STUPID! Nothing is as cute as a dancing baby, and these dimwits close it down? Could anyone anywhere show me any way this hurt Prince or Universal Music? This video might make people and buy the song. The lawsuit will either make people not buy the song or pirate it. The foolishness of these deluded people!
Attorney Client Privilege
Michael, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but I do know from law school discussions that a “partial surrender” of such rights can be abused substantially, with details tending to “set an image” in the minds of the public (and potential jurors) being released, and other, balancing details being suppressed.
There have been cases where arguable injustice has resulted from such “now you see it, now you don’t” tactics.
Privacy Invasion by Judiciary
This is a classic case of the judiciary not respecting the right to privacy of ordinary people. It is a deliberate privacy invasion by the judiciary. Attorney-client privilege is well established. The judiciary has no problem respecting it when the client is a corporation or an important person. However, anybody just ordinary, such as a mom with a toddler, is a sitting duck to have their rights violated on any flimsy pretext. Disgusting.
Privilege vs Privelege
Privilege vs Privelege
Mike, you might just want to run a spell check on that sneaky little word “privilege”. Two Is and two Es every time. Cheers.