DMCA Takedown

DMCA Takedown

Purpose

Produce a structured draft notice or counter-notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice-and-takedown framework, or evaluate a notice received against the user's content. This skill operates in two modes:

• Mode A — Preparing a Takedown Notice: the user owns or controls a copyright and wants to notify a platform or host to remove allegedly infringing content.
• Mode B — Evaluating a Received Notice and Considering a Counter-Notice: the user has received a takedown notice and wants to understand it and assess whether a counter-notice is appropriate.

This is draft legal work product for attorney review. It is NOT legal advice. Sending a takedown notice or counter-notice has legal consequences; counsel should review before any notice is submitted.

Use When

• A user says "someone is using my [image/video/code/article] without permission" and wants to have it removed from a platform.
• A user wants to draft a DMCA notice to send to a hosting provider, platform, or ISP.
• A user has received a takedown notice and wants to understand what it means or whether to file a counter-notice.
• A user asks whether they have a copyright claim against content appearing online.
• A user needs to understand the required elements of a valid DMCA notice or counter-notice.

Required Inputs

For Mode A (Preparing a Takedown Notice):

• Description of the copyrighted work (title, type, date of creation or publication, and where the original can be found).
• The user's ownership or authorization basis (original author, rights holder, authorized agent — specify which).
• The URL or specific location of the allegedly infringing material.
• The platform or service provider receiving the notice, and its designated DMCA agent contact if known.
• The user's contact information (name, address, email, phone) for inclusion in the notice.

For Mode B (Evaluating a Received Notice):

• The full text of the received takedown notice.
• The user's description of the content that was taken down or flagged.
• The user's basis for believing the content is lawful (ownership, license, fair use, other).

If the required inputs are not provided, stop and request them. Do not fabricate ownership information, URLs, contact details, or facts about the allegedly infringing material.

Do Not Use When

• The user needs a patent or trademark enforcement action — that is separate work; refer to patent or trademark enforcement counsel.
• The user is involved in formal copyright litigation — this skill produces preliminary notices only; litigation strategy requires counsel.
• The user wants to evaluate a content licensing agreement — use contract-risk-review.
• The matter involves non-US platforms exclusively and the user needs non-DMCA (e.g., EU DSA, UK CDPA) takedown procedures — flag this limitation and refer to counsel familiar with the applicable regime.

Legal Safety Rules

• This is draft legal work product for attorney review. It is NOT legal advice.
• Source and citation discipline. Follow core/source-and-citation-discipline.md. Never invent legal authority, citations, quotations, statutes, cases, regulations, filing deadlines, or procedural rules. Label what is a provided source, a user-provided fact, an assumption, a legal inference, or an item requiring attorney verification, and use a citation placeholder such as [Attorney to insert authority] when no source is available. Do not invent statutory text, section numbers, or regulatory citations — if referencing DMCA provisions, use general descriptions and flag that the user must verify the current statutory text with counsel.
• The good-faith belief statement and the accuracy/authority statement in a takedown notice carry legal weight. Knowingly making false statements in a DMCA notice may expose the sender to statutory liability for misrepresentation — characterize this as a general legal risk, flag the applicable provision as [CONFIRM: misrepresentation provision and current statutory text, with counsel], and do not quote or assert specific statutory text.
• Do not characterize a counter-notice as "safe" or advise that it will succeed. A counter-notice restores content but does not resolve the underlying copyright dispute and may invite litigation.
• Do not assert whether a use constitutes fair use, transformative use, or any other copyright defense. Fair use analysis is a legal conclusion requiring attorney judgment.
• Do not assert whether the user has a valid copyright or whether a particular work is protected.
• Separate user-provided facts from analytical observations and attorney-verification items.
• Flag every uncertainty with [CONFIRM: ...] rather than resolving it silently.
• Preserve confidentiality: do not include client-sensitive facts in reusable template language.

Workflow

Mode A — Preparing a Takedown Notice

1. Confirm inputs. Verify that the required Mode A inputs have been provided. If the user's ownership basis or the location of the infringing material is missing, stop and request it.

2. Identify the service provider and its designated agent. Note the platform and, if the user has provided it, the designated DMCA agent contact. If not provided, note that locating the designated agent (typically via the Copyright Office's online directory) is a required pre-submission step.

3. Identify the required notice elements. A valid DMCA takedown notice requires: (a) identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed; (b) identification of the allegedly infringing material and its location (URL); (c) the claimant's contact information; (d) a statement of good-faith belief that the use is not authorized; (e) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that the submitter is authorized to act; (f) a physical or electronic signature. Flag each element as it is populated from user inputs.

4. Flag the good-faith and accuracy obligations. Prominently note that the submitter must have a genuine good-faith belief that the content is infringing and that no license or other authorization (including fair use) applies. Misrepresentation carries legal consequences. Instruct the user to verify ownership and the absence of any license before submitting.

5. Flag fair use and licensing considerations. Note that a takedown notice should not be sent if the allegedly infringing use is licensed, if the user's ownership claim is uncertain, or if there is a plausible fair use or other defense — and that these determinations require attorney review.

6. Draft the notice. Populate the required elements with user-provided information. Use [CONFIRM: ...] placeholders for any element that is missing or that requires verification. Label the draft clearly as a draft for attorney review before submission.

7. Assemble the output as specified in the Output Format below.

Mode B — Evaluating a Received Notice and Considering a Counter-Notice

1. Confirm inputs. Verify that the received notice text and the user's description of their content have been provided.

2. Analyze the notice for required elements. Review whether the received notice appears to contain all required elements. Note any elements that appear deficient or missing — a deficient notice may not trigger the platform's safe harbor obligations, but this is a legal determination for counsel.

3. Summarize the claim. Identify what work is claimed, what content is targeted, who the claimant appears to be, and what action has been or is threatened.

4. Identify the user's potential response options. Without recommending a specific course of action, outline the general options: accepting the takedown, disputing the notice with the platform outside the DMCA process, filing a counter-notice, or seeking counsel. Describe the effect of each at a general level.

5. Assess counter-notice appropriateness factors. If the user believes their content is lawful, identify the factors relevant to a counter-notice: user's ownership or license, whether fair use or another defense applies, whether the notice appears to have been sent in error or abusively. Flag all of these as requiring attorney evaluation.

6. Draft the counter-notice if appropriate. A counter-notice requires: (a) identification of the material that was removed and its location; (b) a statement under penalty of perjury of good-faith belief that the removal was a mistake or misidentification; (c) the user's contact information and consent to jurisdiction; (d) a physical or electronic signature. Populate from user inputs; use [CONFIRM: ...] for missing items.

7. Flag legal consequences. Note that filing a counter-notice may result in the content being restored and may trigger litigation by the claimant. Counsel should review before submission.

8. Assemble the output as specified in the Output Format below.

Output Format

Mode A — Takedown Notice Draft:

1. Notice Summary: claimant, target platform, targeted URL(s), copyrighted work claimed, date of triage.
2. Ownership and Authorization Basis: summary of the user's claimed ownership or authorization, with [CONFIRM: ...] flags.
3. Pre-Submission Checklist: items the user must verify before submitting (ownership, absence of license, designated agent contact, fair use considerations).
4. Draft Takedown Notice: fully structured notice with all required elements populated or placeholdered; labeled "DRAFT — FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW BEFORE SUBMISSION."
5. Attorney Verification Checklist: see below.
6. Assumptions and Open Items.

Mode B — Notice Evaluation and Counter-Notice Draft:

1. Notice Summary: claimant, targeted content, claimed work, apparent deficiencies in the received notice.
2. Response Options Summary: general description of options without a recommendation.
3. Counter-Notice Assessment: factors relevant to whether a counter-notice is appropriate; all flagged for attorney evaluation.
4. Draft Counter-Notice (if user has indicated intent to contest): fully structured counter-notice with all required elements populated or placeholdered; labeled "DRAFT — FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW BEFORE SUBMISSION."
5. Attorney Verification Checklist: see below.
6. Assumptions and Open Items.

Attorney Verification Checklist

• The user's copyright ownership or authorization has been verified (registration status, work-for-hire analysis, chain of title).
• No applicable license, permission, or authorization from the rights holder exists for the allegedly infringing use.
• Fair use and other copyright defenses have been evaluated and do not apply (Mode A) or have been evaluated for their merit (Mode B).
• The good-faith belief statement accurately reflects the submitter's actual, verified belief.
• The accuracy and authority statement is correct: the submitter is authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder.
• The designated DMCA agent for the service provider has been confirmed via the current Copyright Office directory or the platform's published agent information.
• No statutory text, section numbers, or regulatory citations have been relied upon without verification of the current text.
• The legal consequences of submission (including potential statutory liability for misrepresentation) have been explained to and understood by the client.
• For counter-notices: the client understands that filing may result in content restoration and potential litigation.
• All [CONFIRM: ...] placeholders have been resolved before the notice is submitted.
• The final notice bears a valid signature and accurate contact information.