[Announcement] DMCA Designated Agent

Status
Not open for further replies.

DGStaff

DG Staff
Staff member
Credits
8,110
#1
Rate Post
5.00 star(s)
DMCA Designated Agent

Service Provider Designation of Agent to Receive Notifications of Claimed Infringement
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) provides safe harbors from copyright infringement liability for online service providers. In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, certain kinds of service providers—for example, those that allow users to post or store material on their systems, and search engines, directories, and other information location tools— must designate an agent to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement. To designate an agent, a service provider must do two things: (1) make certain contact information for the agent available to the public on its website; and (2) provide the same information to the Copyright Office, which maintains a centralized online directory of designated agent contact information for public use. The service provider must also ensure that this information is up to date.

In December 2016, the Office introduced an online registration system and electronically generated directory to replace the Office’s old paper-based system and directory. Accordingly, the Office no longer accepts paper designations. To designate an agent, a service provider must register with and use the Office’s online system.

Notifications of Claimed Infringement
When a copyright owner’s work is being infringed on or through a service provider’s service, the copyright owner may send a notification of claimed infringement (often referred to as a “takedown notice”) to the service provider’s designated agent. For takedown notices to be legally effective, they must be provided to a service provider’s designated agent in writing and include substantially the following:
  1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
  2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
  3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
  4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
  5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
  6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A). Upon receipt of a compliant takedown notice, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity. If a service provider fails to do so, it may lose its safe harbor protection and be subject to an infringement suit.
source:
https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/
https://www.copyright.gov

False DMCA Takedown Notices: Ninth Circuit Holds that Copyright Owners Must Consider Fair Use Before Issuing Take-Down Notices...

A takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is often a cost-effective way to remove copyright-infringing content on the internet without having to get a court order. However, this has given rise to large and small companies alike sending false take-down notices, without considering factors like whether the alleged infringer’s use is a “fair use” under the Copyright Act. Sending a false DMCA take-down notice can hold severe penalties, as one copyright owner, Universal Music, may soon find out.

In likely the “biggest” copyright decision handed down this year, the Ninth Circuit held that copyright owners must consider “fair use” before filing a copyright take-down notice. This decision has potentially far-reaching consequences for copyright owners enforcing their rights on online service providers like YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter and more.

When Stephanie Lenz saw her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy,” she grabbed her camera and recorded a 29-second video and posted it on the most popular video-sharing website in the world, YouTube. Soon after, Universal Music, the owner of the Prince catalog, filed a Digital DMCA take-down notice alleging that Lenz’s video infringed on Universal’s copyrighted work. YouTube took down the video and, later, reposted the video after Lenz filed a DMCA counter-notice, claiming that the take-down was improper. Lenz, represented by fair-use advocates the Electronic Freedom Foundation, filed a lawsuit against Universal for damages related to the allegedly improper take-down notice on the grounds that Universal’s employees violated the DMCA when they did not analyze Lenz’s “fair use” of the copyright video when issuing the take-down notice. Universal argued that it was not required to do a fair-use analysis before issuing the DMCA take-down. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with Universal and held that “fair use” issues must be considered before a right-holder files a DMCA take-down notice with an online service provider. It remanded the case back down to the district court to decide whether or not Universal properly considered these issues.

Under the DMCA take-down policy, copyright owners may file a notice with participating service providers to have allegedly infringing materials removed from a service provider’s website. In exchange, the service provider is immune from the liability of its users’ potentially infringing actions. The notice must include specific information, including a statement made under penalty of perjury that the copyright owner is not filing a fraudulent take-down notice. The penalties for misrepresentation can include actual damages and attorney’s fees. Specifically, Section 512(f) of the DMCA states that:

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

In the present case, Universal argued that, due to the fact-intensive analysis of “fair use,” such analysis was not required. However, the Ninth Circuit stated that, because the “fair use” doctrine is codified in the U.S. Copyright Act, “[f]air use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.” It found that service providers like Universal could not shirk their responsibilities to at least consider whether a potential infringement was, in fact, authorized under U.S. Copyright Law.

To be clear, this decision did not analyze whether Lenz’s video clip was protected under fair-use. Instead, it specifically addressed the copyright owner’s responsibility to consider whether an alleged infringement was, in fact, protected under “fair use.” The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that it was up to a jury, not the Ninth Circuit, to decide whether or not Universal properly analyzed fair use when removing Lenz’s video. It held that “ecause the DMCA requires consideration of fair use prior to sending a takedown notification, a jury must determine whether Universal’s actions were sufficient to form a subjective good faith belief about the video’s fair use or lack thereof.” But it held that if a copyright owner “ignores or neglects [the Ninth Circuit’s] unequivocal holding that it must consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, it is liable for damages” under the DMCA.

While parts of this decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court by both sides, it is a huge win for fair-use advocates. While it will likely remain up to a jury (and, we imagine, more cases challenging take-downs) to determine exactly what level of fair-use analysis is needed, this may have a lasting impact on the often over-reaching takedown requests issued on popular video sharing and social media platform. However, it opens other questions, such as, what level of analysis must be done, how long does the analysis have to be, what level of training (legal or otherwise) do those analyzing complex copyright law have to have? Courts consider, among other factors, the amount of the original material used by the alleged infringer, the “newsworthiness” of the material, the non-commercial nature of the allegedly infringing material, and the material’s market effect on the original material. This is a complex analysis of many different factors. Regardless, this decision effectively forces copyright owners to use some restraint when issuing take-down requests. Otherwise, like in this case, they may be liable for monetary damages incurred by a mom posting a cute video of her child.
Source:
https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/fals...er-fair-use-before-issuing-take-down-notices/


Take Down Abuse: Fighting Back Against False Copyright Claims on the Internet
https://www.fisherbroyles.com/take-abuse-fighting-back-false-copyright-claims-internet/


How Does DMCA Protection extend to “Service Providers?”

Am I required to have an attorney? We do not offer legal advice, however, according to copyright.gov, they say the following; person authorized to act on behalf of the owner; Your attorney can act on your behalf. If google were to send us a legal takedown notice, then it would not come from an avg joe, their DMCA request would be sent from google's legal department that is making the DMCA request....

Due to the legal nature of DMCA; We only accept DMCA requests from legal professionals. Your attorney is authorized to act on your behalf when it comes to your Digital/IP claims of infringement. Digital Global℠ is not a legal team, and we will send your attorneys DMCA request to our attorney so that we can resolve this matter ASAP. Digital Global℠ reserves the right to take immediate action against copyright infringement if it should be 100% clear, if the DMCA request is not clear, then we will forward this to our attorney.
Digital Global℠ reserves the right to remove content, or marketplace listings for any reason, without cause, reason, or notice....


The penalties for making false copyright infringement claims can be severe! for more information, please consult an IP Attorney for legal advice!!!

Digital Global℠ shall cooperate with US Law Enforcement Agencies.
Digital Global℠ shall cooperate with US Court Orders.

DMCA Designated Agent:

Yours Truly,
Digital Global℠
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top