Would you please point me to a line in a judicial decision, in this case, that made that determination? Was there a summary judgment motion, addressed to fair use, that was granted?
I may be wrong but, procedurally, it appears that the video was taken down "automatically", by virtue of the "automated (bot driven) DMCA notice". A video can be restored for reasons other than a judicial determination that the video's use of the soundtrack was, in fact, fair.
For example, Google may have restored the video due to a defect in the DMCA notice, i.e., Google's implicit agreement that bot-based (unreviewed) notice does not satisfy the requirements of the DMCA.
Also, if Ms. Lenz countered the take down, declaring fair use or possibly declaring a defect in the procedure, and the copyright holder didn't file a lawsuit within 14 days after her response then Google is obligated, under the terms of the DMCA, to restore the video.
Given that Ms. Lenz filed the lawsuit a fair inference is that Google's response, of reviving the video, is a procedural necessity - not a judgment of fair use.
But, I may be wrong. I haven't scanned any available case logfiles to determine if there has been a ruling on the issue of fair use. I somewhat doubt it but I'm open to educational dope slapping, as always.
[edited by: Webwork at 6:00 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2008]