Security, Abuse & Privacy

DMCA Takedown

Definition

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act created a safe harbour: a host is not liable for what its users publish, provided it removes infringing material promptly once properly notified. A valid notice must identify the copyrighted work, identify the specific URL of the material to be removed, give the sender's contact details, state a good-faith belief that the use is not authorised, state under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and that the sender is the owner or their agent, and carry a signature. Hosts publish a designated agent address for receiving these. The European equivalent is not the DMCA but notice-and-action under the Digital Services Act, which follows a similar shape with different deadlines and appeal rights. This is a description of the mechanism, not legal advice.

Why It Matters

From the publisher's side, the first sign is usually a live page becoming a removal notice with no warning — the statute rewards acting first and arguing afterwards. If you have the rights, the remedy exists and it works, but it takes time: a counter-notice restores access typically between ten and fourteen business days after it is forwarded, unless the claimant files suit. That is a fortnight of a dead link in whatever you sent to customers, which is a good reason to keep an original copy and a second address ready. From the host's side, ignoring a valid notice risks the safe harbour for every file on the platform, which is why removal is quick and the conversation happens afterwards.

How It Works

The notice arrives at the designated agent. The host checks it for the statutory elements — a complaint with no specific URL, or no perjury statement, is not a valid notice and can be rejected as incomplete. On a valid notice the host disables access to the identified material and notifies the uploader with a copy. The uploader may send a counter-notice stating under penalty of perjury a good-faith belief that the removal was a mistake or a misidentification, giving contact details and consenting to the jurisdiction of a federal court. The host forwards that to the claimant and, if no lawsuit is filed within the statutory window, may restore the material. Repeat-infringer policies apply in parallel: accounts that accumulate notices are terminated regardless of the outcome of any single one.

Real-World Example

A photographer's images are republished without permission as a gallery at an address on 99helpers. The photographer sends a notice naming the exact public URL of the gallery and the original work, and access is disabled within a day, with the uploader told which file and which claim. Had the uploader in fact licensed those images, their route would be a counter-notice with the licence details, not a new upload under a different name — republishing during a dispute is what turns one removal into an account-level action.

Common Mistakes

  • Sending a complaint that names a whole site rather than the specific URL — hosts cannot act on a notice that does not identify the material
  • Using a takedown for something that is not copyright, such as a defamatory statement or a trademark dispute, which needs a different process entirely
  • Filing a counter-notice without actually holding the rights — it is sworn under penalty of perjury and consents to a court's jurisdiction
  • Re-uploading removed material to a fresh address while the dispute is open, which triggers repeat-infringer handling

Related Terms

Put a file online in seconds

Drop in a document, an image, a page or a whole static website and share the link — free, with no build step and no server to set up.

Host a file free →