Hot answers tagged

47

There is a slight confusion here: The large company sent the DMCA notice to your host, not to you. You are not taking down anything. The host does that. If the DMCA takedown notice is following all the rules, then your host has two choices: Take down your content, or be willing to be part of a copyright court case. Assuming that the host doesn't want to go ...


30

If I understand correctly, you are asking whether a copyright holder's failure to submit a DMCA "takedown" notice in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 prevents that copyright holder from enforcing their copyright. The answer is no, for multiple reasons. DMCA is an optional process First, a common misconception seems to be that the DMCA creates a mandatory ...


26

The most important fact to remember is that under DMCA safe harbor rules, you do not make a judgment of the merits of the allegation, you simply follow the rules. The second most important fact to remember is that you have to follow the rules exactly. The point of the rules is that it immunizes you from being sued either by the uploader or by the copyright ...


9

A simple EULA does not absolve you from legal responsibility. The law that you need to be acquainted with, if you are dealing with the US (i.e. might be sued in the US), is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in particular Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which states the "safe harbor" provisions. Aspects of DMCA safe ...


7

The particulars of "actual knowledge" are addressed in Viacom v. YouTube. The ruling from the appeals court states (emphasis mine): Under § 512(c)(1)(A), knowledge or awareness alone does not disqualify the service provider; rather, the provider that gains knowledge or awareness of infringing activity retains safe-harbor protection if it “acts ...


6

Yes The relevant legal concepts are copyright, contract law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. You are liable to be sued by the people affected for damages and/or be prosecuted by the government for the felony under either or both laws. Let's start here: "I bought a game". No, you didn't; you bought a licence to use the software in accordance with the ...


4

When you file a DMCA notice, what it really means is that you are saying: "Dear website, there is some copyright infringement going on against my works, and I'm willing to take someone to court. You have the choice of removing these materials, which means I cannot sue you, or you can leave copyright infringement on your website and you will be part of the ...


4

There is no general prohibition against taking down material, even non-infringing material, which is posted by some person, but there is a risk to the service provider. Abstracting away from the specifics of github, a Provider has some agreement with the User whereby User rightfully makes Stuff available on Provider's site. Arbitrarily removing Stuff (in ...


4

No, this is not true. Copyright can be enforced selectively. You are confusing copyright with trademark. Company can lose its trademark if they aren't protecting it. All the meanwhile they can choose to ignore some copyright infringement while enforcing their rights on others with no legal problems what-so-ever. In order to illustrate the difference: for ...


3

You have the right to request anything you want, but there is a very limited set of things that you can have a legal expectation of them doing. The service provider has no obligation to block a user. You can likewise request a report, and from a pirate site I would expect no response. There is no legal requirement that a pirate site block an offending user ...


3

There are two completely separate problems: (a) are you allowed to send a DMCA notice if you are not authorised? (b) Is a service provider allowed to take down a work if they receive something that looks roughly like a DMCA notice, but isn't one? As Jimsug said, a requirement for a proper DMCA notice is "17 U.S. Code § 512(c)(3)(A)(i) A physical or ...


3

DMCA is a united states law. So it has very little effect on businesses unless they are either hosted in the US or legally reachable by US law. If this seems odd, it's a bit like how the average US blogger website would react if told that a blog post insulted the King of Thailand or promoted an antisocial view by criticising Putin, and got a takedown ...


3

DMCA applies as long as the the website is being hosted inside the U.S. The location of the copyright holder is irrelevant. For step-by-step help drafting a valid DMCA notice, see Step 2 of https://nppa.org/page/5617. If the site fails to comply with a valid notice, they lose the benefit of DMCA's safe harbor provisions and become themselves liable for ...


3

Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 688 (D. Md., 2001) touched on this. The court distinguishes Playboy Ent. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 503 (N.D.Oh.1997) which held that "contributory liability could attach where infringing performances enhance the attractiveness of the venue to potential customers." (internal quotes omitted) This ...


3

Copyright vests in the photographer that takes the photograph, or their employer. If the subject of a photograph does not own copyright over the photograph, then they can't bring a claim of copyright infringement against you. The DMCA safe harbors only protect you against copyright infringement claims. Further, personality rights are recognised at state ...


3

Under the DMCA, counter-notices are not often seen. They give people who are not infringing or are only engaging in fair use a way of saying "prove it or I won't stop doing it". So, typically a copyright holder will swear out an affidavit under the penalty of perjury that they are the copyright holder and that another work, a site, or a search engine is ...


3

But also consider the possibility that the Photograph Vendor is at fault here. If a photographer is commissioned by a Client (e.g. Very Large Site) to make a number of photographs for them, it is not uncommon for the contract to include an assignment of copyright to the Client. Then, if photographer overlooks this and subsequently sells licences for the ...


3

To answer part of your question, the takedown and restoration process of the DMCA is not required. It is a legal way a hosting site can stay in the clear for copyright infringement. Therefore, if the site didn't take down what you complained about, they're participating in copyright infringement (if that's what's happening). Since they did not take down ...


3

If your app is published under US law, then the DMCA would apply, just as if it was a web site. The DMCA doesn't say anything about what particular technology the distributor is using. TO be protected by by the DMCA's "safe harbor" provision, you will need to include a notice in your app that you accept takedowns, and provide an address or method by which ...


3

There is no fixed amount or proportion of a copyrighted text which may be quoted without infringement. Whether quoting without permission is a fair use (which is what this question asks) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the purpose of the use, the effect of the use on the market or potential market for the original, and the nature of ...


3

You are not supposed to "explain" anything. See this site: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content What you have to do is to state, under penalty of perjury, that you have a good faith belief that your material was wrongly removed. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Google (or whoever the host is) doesn't ...


2

I drafted this answer many days ago but did not complete it. My intention is to define red flag notice. However, I'm hitting Submit because I think it's a good question and hope this will inspire other answers. It seems like your immediate question, regarding the DCMA notices which Google is forwarding, is not a legal question. It is a question that can ...


2

If a person illegally uploads material to a service provider, the service provider is in principle liable for contributory infringement. However, there are those "safe harbors" that reduce the probability of getting legally hammered. The relevant law is in 17 USC 512, which I must point out, is a masterpiece of un-integrated conceptual complexity. Some of ...


2

Anyone can write such a letter, but it must be sent by the copyright holder or by the holder's attorney. As Nate Eldridge points out in a comment, it is generally prohibited to practice law unless one has been licensed to do so and/or admitted to the bar. Sending the letter to protect your own interests, however, doesn't constitute the practice of law. A ...


2

What makes for an effective DMCA takedown notice specifically in regards to websites that host pornographic material Whether it's pornographic doesn't matter. The DMCA lists the elements of an effective takedown notice: To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated ...


2

Counter notices are described in 17 USC 512(g)(3). It starts with the requirement for "A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber" (and a statement under penalty of perjury...). Supposing that you can't get anywhere with finding the contributor even via a subpoena, then you're stopped there: you can't swear on behalf of someone else. Paragraph (f)...


2

You have the cart before the horse here, tiger. Copyright holders do not enforce licence terms, they sue for breach of copyright. Copyright works that have been used with permission (which is what a licence is)are not breaches of copyright. Those that have not been used with permission are breaches. If C's work does not contain any of A's copyright ...


2

Since DMCA takedown is not a court process, the question of “standing” is not relevant. Anyone “can” submit such a notice, the relevant issues would be (a) will it achieve the desired effect of takedown and (b) will there be legal repercussions for submitting the notice? The basic logic of the DMCA is that a person submits a notice; the ISP takes the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible