1

Is it legal to publicly disclose the information of received DMCA takedown request including user information of requester?

Currently, I have filed a DMCA takedown request to a company for infringing content. But after it was accepted and content was removed from the platform, but resquestee decided to make a counter-notice to my takedown request, and he made, which included untrue information.

And the requestee decided to publicly disclose information of the requester including his username on the platform, with extra insulting remarks, and additional information that he had filed a counter-notice against DMCA takedown request. Is there any legal action the requester can take against that?

Improve this question

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
2

There is no secrecy requirement regarding DMCA takedown notices. It is possible that a party is subject to a contractual privacy limitation that prohibits publicly disclosing a user's name, though it is increasingly difficult to locate a clear statement of what a provider promises not to do. Users generally are not required to keep anything secret (which is different from "not infringing copyright"). So it is possible that the provider has violated their TOS in publicly revealing information about a user. Insults are legal.

Improve this answer
2

Is it legal to publicly disclose the information of received DMCA takedown request including user information of requester?

Yes.

which included untrue information.

And the requestee decided to publicly disclose information of the requester including his username on the platform, with extra insulting remarks, and additional information that he had filed a counter-notice against DMCA takedown request. Is there any legal action the requester can take against that?

False statements of fact that damage someone's reputation are sometimes actionable in a defamation action. There are a great many factors that go into the full analysis of when defamation lawsuits can prevail. Usually, one can only prevail if the false statement of fact was knowingly fraudulent and if one also suffers provable economic harm as a result of that statement. Statements made in connection with a formal litigation process are often not actionable at all outside a request for sanctions in the context of the litigation.

Mere insults are not actionable in the U.S. unless they are part of a larger course of conduct that amounts to harassment, and not alway even then.

True information and statements of opinion, even if insulting, are not actionable.

Improve this answer
1

The DMCA takedown notice procedure is governed by 17 USC 512 subsections (c), (d), (f), and (g). Under 17 USC 512 (g)(2)(A) the service provided is expected to notify the subscriber who places allegedly in fringing content on the online service when it is taken down due to a notice. Under 17 USC 512 (g)(2)(B) the contents of a counter notice may be provided to the person who filed the original takedown notice.

There is no other provision under 17 USC 512 that either forbids or requires publicizing either the existence or content of a notice or counter-notice.

Note that the DMCA is a specifically US law and procedure. A number of other countries have somewhat similar procedures governed by their own law, which may be loosely refereed to as DMCA notices, but are not in fact under US law. Some providers not subject to US law choose to accept and act on notices formatted to the DMCA standard, although they gain no legal advantage from doing so.

Note also that even within the US, no provider is required to act on a DMCA notice or counter-notice. But if such a provider does not honor notices, the provider loses the safe-harbor protections of 17 USC 512, and may have greater liability if a court case follows.

If a provider is subject to the GDPR, or the CCPA, disclosing notice info beyond what is permitted or required by law might be a violation of such a privacy law, but neither of these laws currently permit a private individual to file a lawsuit for such an improper disclosure.

Improve this answer
2
  • Outside the USA a provider might not gain a legal advantage if sued if they follow a DMCA notice, but as long as removing content is legal, they will gain the advantage of not being sued in the first place.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Jan 22, 2022 at 22:50
  • @gnasher729 Not always. Having hosted infringing content is actionable in the absence of the safe harbor, and taking it down on request is not a solid defense. The owner could proceed to file and win a suit even after a takedown. Many might not, but some might. But my point is that it isn't really a DMCA takedown, because the DMCA rules do not apply, even if the provider chooses to honor the notice.
    – David Siegel
    Commented Jan 22, 2022 at 23:03
-1

When you issue a DMCA takedown notice, you claim that someone infringes the copyright of what you believe is your work. If they give a counter notice with false information then quite obviously what you believe is right. So you can sue them for copyright infringement.

The DMCA laws are there to stop infringement easily, but when the accused party fights back, you either run or fight them (in court).

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    This does not answer the question at all. The question is about whether info in the notice or counter notice, specifically the identity and contact info of the sender, may lawfully be made public. The question is not about the process after a notice and counter-notice. Also the sender of a DMCA notice claims to be the copyright owner or the agent of the owner, noty thje originmal; creator of the infringed work.
    – David Siegel
    Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 1:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .