Skip to content

Generated Source Mirror

This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site.

📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed

  • Status: draft
  • Sources: 5
  • Relationships: 8
  • Research debt items: 4

DMCA Takedown and Counter-Notification

Summary

This page documents U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice-and-takedown and counter-notification procedure under 17 U.S.C. § 512. For fair use analysis of the underlying material, see Fair Use and Video.

Verified Facts

  • The statute is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512.1
  • 17 U.S.C. § 512 creates safe harbor immunity from copyright liability for service providers who respond expeditiously to notices claiming hosted or linked material is infringing.2
  • The EFF legal guide states that the DMCA does not require ISPs to remove content, but gives them a strong incentive to take content down.2
  • To remove allegedly infringing material, a copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with: the complaining party's name, address, and physical or electronic signature; identification of the infringing material and its Internet location; identification of the copyrighted work; a statement of good faith belief that the use is not authorized; and a statement under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.2
  • The EFF legal guide states that a service provider is not required to respond to a DMCA notice that does not contain substantially all of these elements.2
  • A subscriber may send a counter-notification stating that material was removed by mistake or misidentification.2
  • The EFF legal guide states that a proper counter-notification must include: the subscriber's name, address, phone number, and physical or electronic signature; identification of the material and its location before removal; a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification; and consent to local federal court jurisdiction (or, if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body).2
  • The EFF legal guide states that an ISP may put material back up after a counter-notification and retain immunity, and that material may be restored after 10 business days unless the copyright claimant files a lawsuit.2
  • 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) creates liability for any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing, or that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification.2
  • The EFF legal guide states that a person harmed by an erroneous takedown demand may sue for DMCA misuse under § 512(f) and recover damages and attorneys' fees.2
  • In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., the Ninth Circuit held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification.3
  • Because fair use is authorized by law under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Lenz court held that a copyright holder's § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) good-faith statement requires consideration of whether the use is fair use.3
  • The Lenz court held that a plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal damages for injury caused by a § 512(f) misrepresentation.3
  • The U.S. Copyright Office maintains an index of Section 512 resources at https://www.copyright.gov/512/.4

Historical Context

Lenz v. Universal arose after Universal Music sent a DMCA takedown notification to YouTube over a home video; Lenz sent a counter-notification and YouTube reposted the video about six weeks later.3 Lenz then sued Universal under § 512(f).

The Lenz court held that failure to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.3 The opinion does not require copyright holders to reach the correct fair use conclusion.3

Statutory text of § 512(c)(3) and § 512(g) has not yet been quoted directly from GovInfo on this page. See STAT-DMCA-512.

Relationships

  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE cites SRC-USC-17-512-LII.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE cites SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE cites SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE related_to STAT-DMCA-512.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE related_to TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE related_to CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE related_to TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR.
  • TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE related_to ORG-EFF.

Sources

  1. SRC-USC-17-512-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 512.
  2. SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP: EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers — Intellectual Property.
  3. SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015).
  4. SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX: U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources.

Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes):

Research Debt

  • Quote § 512(c)(3) and § 512(g) directly from GovInfo rather than relying on the EFF summary.
  • Add platform-specific enforcement documentation with official policy sources.
  • Add CASE-* page for Online Policy Group v. Diebold cited by the EFF guide regarding § 512(f).
  • Document non-DMCA platform copyright enforcement separately from statutory procedure.

Document metadata

  • Last verified: 2026-07-19

  1. SRC-USC-17-512-LII — 17 U.S.C. § 512. Primary authority. ↩

  2. SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP — EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers — Intellectual Property. Official educational guide summarizing § 512 requirements; secondary source. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  3. SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9 — Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015). Primary authority. ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  4. SRC-COPYRIGHT-512-INDEX — U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Resources. Official government index. ↩