Do we have to take down the material for 14 days even if the DMCA notice is erroneous? A very large site and my site are both licensed to use product images created and photographed by the same vendor. Now the large site comes after my site and sends a DMCA notice to my hosting provider, asking us to take down quite some of our most popular products. While it's absolutely a false claim and it's possible that they had no idea we were licensed just as they were, it seems I have to take down the infringing materials and send back a counter-notice and wait for 14 days? My question is is this fair? 14 days are enough for Google to de-index the page and for it to lose all the ranking juices. Not to mention the sales losses. What if they actually know we are licensed but just wanted to ruin our site rankings and keep coming after us in future? Do we still have to follow the legal procedures to take down whatever products they claim infringing for 14 days? What better options do we have here? Update After I first posted this question, my host restored the allegedly infringing product after 14 days of my providing the counter DMCA notice. Now the same complaint is after us again on another of our popular products. This is really annoying and stupid. How can I end this once and for all? We are not physically in United States, can we still find someone to win the lawsuit for us? Or is there any other way to stop them?
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 to court and potentially lose tons of money, they will take down your content. Until you send a counter notice. Now you can only legally create a DMCA notice as the copyright holder or their agent. Whoever sends the takedown notice must under threat of perjury declare that they are the copyright holder of material that they believe you are infringing upon. It seems that company is not the copyright holder, therefore perjury. (If they make a mistake, and your material is not their copyrighted material, that's legally Ok. But if they are not copyright holder, that is perjury). If you are sure that happened, a good lawyer will love to take them apart.
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 continuing to host the infringing work, and you can sue them. (Prior filing suit, though, I imagine a letter from a lawyer that says, "Hey, my client sent you a valid DMCA notice a while ago; kindly comply at once, or we will actually sue you," should be sufficient.) The requirement to submit a photo appears to be totally unnecessary. A valid DMCA notice includes a signature (electronically including your name in an email is sufficient) and an assertion, under penalty of perjury, that the writer is authorized to control the copyright work and that the work is being used illegally. Beyond a signature and contact information, no further identity verification is necessary. The DMCA handles this by opening the submitter to perjury charges if the takedown was submitted illegally. Of course, any site might choose to ignore your DMCA takedown, at their own peril. They might bet that you won't actually hire a lawyer and follow through on your legal right to file suit, or they might not understand that identity verification is not a legal requirement listed in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). Your options are either: follow the law as written and file a valid takedown notice, and then hire a lawyer when they don't don't comply with the rules written in 17 U.S.C. § 512 follow their additional rules to get them to comply, which may be more difficult but might not require hiring a lawyer
There's no "common law copyright" in the US. There's common law trademark, but copyrights and trademarks are different things. All copyright is based on federal copyright statutes, and an unregistered copyright is just called an unregistered copyright. What an unregistered copyright gives you is almost the same thing as a registered copyright: the exclusive right to exercise various rights (reproduction, distribution, public performance/display, etc.) Registration is required before you can actually file an infringement lawsuit, but it's OK if you only registered it after learning about the infringement. The main reason to register the work early is that you might be able to collect higher damages if it was registered before the infringement. If the work was unregistered when the infringement happened, you can only collect actual damages. If it was already registered, you can instead opt to collect statutory damages. Statutory damages don't require you to show actual loss; instead, the court awards between $750 and $30,000 per work based on what it considers fair. The lower limit can go down to $200 if the infringer had no reason to think they were infringing, and the upper limit can go up to $150,000 if the infringement was willful. You can also collect attorney's fees if it was already registered. In the comments, the question was raised of whether someone else might be able to register the copyright for your work before you and what would happen then. When I say "registration is required before filing a lawsuit," the requirement is that you submit the registration paperwork properly, pay the fee, and wait for the Copyright Office to act on the application. If they accept the registration, you're all set. Even if they refuse, though, you can still file an infringement claim -- you just have to also serve the head of the Copyright Office, who has the option of jumping into the case to argue about whether the work could legally be registered. You can also sue the Copyright Office to get judicial review of a denial under the Administrative Procedure Act (refusal still lets you file infringement lawsuits, but you can't get statutory damages or attorney's fees against an infringer unless the Copyright Office actually accepted the registration).
In all likelihood, the judge's order related to data collection and reselling is not legally enforceable. They weren't parties to the expungement action, so the judge doesn't have jurisdiction over them. And, the First Amendment protects the right to say truthful things pretty absolutely. Arguably, if the sites provided the information without making clear that it might not be current because records were expunged or corrected, there might be a claim for negligent misrepresentation, false light, or even defamation, but I seriously doubt that even those claims would hold up. The language in the order might cause sites to comply out of not legally justified concern, or just a desire to be accurate, even if it is not enforceable. So, it doesn't hurt to bring that information to the attention of such sites and ask them to take down the information. But, when push comes to shove, I very much doubt that you would prevail in court enforcing that order against them. Certainly, if you do nothing, they will do nothing, because they are not psychic and have no idea that the court order related to those records has been entered. Even a valid and enforceable order directed at a party over whom a court has jurisdiction is not effective until the person ordered to comply with it has notice of the order. And, there is no system that gives sites like that notice without you taking action to inform them of an order.
In the US, the author would be able to wind an infringement lawsuit against the re-publisher. Title 17, the US copyright law codified, grants the author the exclusive right to authorize republication, and does not require that a person use their real name. The argument "It was on the internet, it's in the public domain" is utterly without legal merit. The same goes for the assertion that a person loses his rights if he is uncontactable. The author has stated the terms of the license, so there isn't even a reasonable argument that the infringement is innocent (unknowing: "I thought it was with permission). There is no requirement that you have to allow a potential user to hassle you about the license terms. The one thing that is special regarding anonymous and pseudonymous works is that under 17 USC 302, "copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". For a work whose author is identified, copyright "endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death". This assumes that the host site has not preempted author's license: Stack Exchange, for example, preempts an author's exclusive right, so you can copy stuff from here accorting to the SE terms of usage.
I'm curious to know, because Google allowed their ownership of the domain to expire, why do they still have the rights to it even when it was bought by another individual. You're making an incorrect assumption here. The domain was never allowed to expire. An error in Google's domain registration interface allowed him to make an order for the domain. The domain was never actually purchased, but the act of ordering the domain gave Mr. Ved access to the domain in Google's Webmaster Tools. As the domain was never actually available for purchase, Mr. Ved had no rights to it. (The domain is not even registered through Google's domain registration interface; it's under a completely separate company, MarkMonitor, that specializes in high-value domains.)
There is language, but not a mechanism, covering this. Section 3(a)(3) of version 4 licenses says If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. If you become aware of a person using your material and attributing you, and you want the attribution removed, you would accordingly notify them (somehow), and they are required to remove the offending material. The removable informations includes: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); ii. a copyright notice; iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
In general, using content provided by another who incorrectly posted it under a permissive license, such as a CC license, does not grant a valid license from the real copyright holder. That is, if A writes some code (or a song, or creates an image, or whatever else), it is protected by copyright. If B then posts it to the web, with a statement that it is released under a particular license, without having obtained permission from A, then B's &quot;release&quot; is of no value, because B had no rights to grant. If C downloads and uses this content, relying on B's license, then A could take legal action against C. C would probably be considered (in the US) an &quot;innocent infringer&quot; which reduces the minimum statutory damage amount, but does not otherwise change C's legal position. A could, if it chose, bring suit and possibly obtain a judgement including some damages. But to return to the practical case of code posted on one of the SE sites. Given the comparatively short code sections usually posted, and that they do not usually form a complete working program, and given further the stated educational purpose of SE, it is likely that in US law such a posting would constitute fair use, and in the law of other countries fall under one or another exception to copyright. That is a general conclusion, the details would matter. I have not heard of a case similar to that suggested in the question. I find it unlikely that an SE poster would post copyright-protected code without permission, that is valuable enough to be worth an infringement suit, and substantial enough and having enough effect on th market for the original to be outside the protection of fair use. Such a situatiion is, of course, possible, even if unlikely. Note that a cease-and-desist letter is not a court order, and is really only a threat of court action. its only legal effect is to put the recipient on notice, so that continued infringement is not without awareness of the copyright claim. To have legal effect the claimant must actually bring an infringement suit, which is not without cost.