DMCA & Copyright Policy

Article 1 Introduction, Scope and Definitions

This Article sets out what this Policy covers, the two capacities in which we act, how it fits with our other terms, and its defined terms.

1.1 Purpose and Scope of This Policy

This DMCA & Copyright Policy (the “Policy”) sets out the rules and procedures we follow when we identify, report and remove unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, and when we receive copyright complaints about our own Site and Services. It is written under United States federal copyright law, in particular the notice-and-takedown provisions enacted by Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998), and codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512.

This Policy applies to:

1. Clients and other Rights Holders on whose behalf we act;
2. Platforms and other recipients of Notices and Claims we submit, and persons whose material is identified in them;
3. anyone who sends us a Notice or Counter-Notification concerning material on or transmitted through our Site or Services; and
4. visitors to the Site, including anyone who submits a Scan Request.

This Policy addresses copyright only. Trademark, right-of-publicity, impersonation, privacy and other non-copyright complaints are handled as described in Article 8 and are never submitted as Notices.

1.2 Who We Are and the Two Roles We Play

We are a United States copyright-protection agency. We act in one of two distinct capacities, and the rights and obligations of everyone involved depend on which applies.

(A) Authorized agent of Rights Holders. When we monitor Platforms, submit Notices or Claims, review Counter-Notifications or coordinate escalation, we act solely as the authorized agent of a Rights Holder, within the limits of a Client Authorization and never on our own account except for works we ourselves own. These activities are governed by Articles 3 through 6.

(B) Service Provider for our own Site and Services. When a third party alleges that material stored on or transmitted through our own Site or Services infringes its copyright, we act as a Service Provider responding to that complaint. That role is governed by Article 7.

1.3 Relationship to Our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Client Agreements

This Policy forms part of, and should be read together with, our Terms of Service, which govern access to and use of the Site and Services generally, and our Privacy Policy, which governs personal information, including personal information contained in Notices, Counter-Notifications and Scan Requests.

Where a Client has signed an Order Form, that Order Form governs the commercial relationship, including scope of engagement, fees, term, confidentiality, indemnities and allocation of liability. This Policy governs the procedure by which Notices, Claims and Counter-Notifications are prepared, submitted, received and resolved. If there is a conflict:

1. on commercial matters, the Order Form controls;
2. on notice procedure, this Policy controls, except that an Order Form may impose additional or stricter review requirements, which will then also apply; and
3. in every case, mandatory requirements of applicable law prevail over this Policy, the Order Form and the Terms of Service.

1.4 How to Read This Policy; No Legal Advice

Article 2 summarizes the governing United States copyright framework. Articles 3 to 6 describe our work as agent for Rights Holders. Article 7 describes our role as a Service Provider. Article 8 covers non-copyright claims, international matters, abuse and general provisions. The key-points summary at the top of this page, the article summaries and the headings are aids to reading only and do not limit or alter the operative text.

Any litigation, including an action filed in response to a Counter-Notification, is conducted by independent counsel licensed to practice in the relevant United States jurisdiction, engaged separately by the Rights Holder.

1.5 Definitions

Capitalized terms have the following meanings. Terms defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 that are not defined here have their statutory meaning.

Company, we, us, our

The Operator identified in the table in Section 1.1, which provides the Site and Services under the name Copyright Library, and, where the context requires, its personnel acting on its behalf.

Client

A person or entity, including an individual creator, brand, studio, publisher or game company, that has engaged us to provide Services under an Order Form or other written agreement.

Rights Holder

The owner of a copyright, or of an exclusive right under a copyright, in a Work, including an exclusive licensee to the extent of the licensed right. A Client is usually, but not always, the Rights Holder; see Article 3.

Client Authorization

The written, signed authorization, which may be electronic, by which a Rights Holder appoints us as its agent and defines the Works, Platforms, permitted actions and term of our authority, as described in Section 3.2.

Work

Any original work of authorship within the subject matter of copyright under 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, including audiovisual works, sound recordings, musical works and software.

Infringing Material

Material that a Rights Holder, or we as its agent, in good faith claims infringes a Work or is the subject of infringing activity. Use of this term does not concede that the material actually infringes.

Notice

A written notification of claimed infringement that complies with 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A), including notifications concerning links or cached copies. Its elements are set out in Section 4.2.

Counter-Notification

A written notification under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3) by a person whose material was removed or disabled, seeking its replacement. Its elements are set out in Section 6.2.

Platform

Any website, online service, application, hosting provider, content delivery network, search engine, domain registrar or other intermediary on which material may be found or to which a Notice or Claim may be directed, including YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Twitch, X and Facebook.

Service Provider

An entity that meets the definition of “service provider” in 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(A) or (B), as applicable to the safe harbor concerned.

Designated Agent

The agent a Service Provider has designated under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) to receive Notices. Our Designated Agent is identified in Section 7.2.

Rights-Management Tool

A content-identification, matching or claiming system a Platform makes available to eligible rights holders under its own terms, distinct from the statutory notice procedure.

Claim

An assertion made through a Rights-Management Tool to block, track, monetize or otherwise act on matching material. A Claim is not a Notice.

Order Form

A signed order form, statement of work or other written commercial agreement between us and a Client describing the Services and their terms.

Services

Our monitoring, detection, Notice preparation and submission, Rights-Management Tool administration, revenue-recovery and escalation-coordination services, and related support.

Site

Our website, including its landing page, marketing pages and any forms on them.

Scan Request

A request submitted through the Site’s scan field, which accepts only a YouTube channel URL, asking us to review that channel. A Scan Request is neither a Client Authorization nor a Notice.

Repeat Infringer

A user or account holder of our Services who, under the criteria in Section 7.6, is subject to our policy adopted under 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A).

Business Day

Has the meaning given in Section 1.6.

1.6 Interpretation, Business Days and Statutory References

In this Policy, unless the context requires otherwise:

1. “including”, “include” and “such as” mean including without limitation;
2. the singular includes the plural and vice versa, and “person” includes an individual and any form of entity;
3. “Business Day” means Monday through Friday, excluding any legal public holiday listed in 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a), and “day” means a calendar day;
4. a reference to a statute or regulation is to it as amended or re-enacted from time to time and includes regulations issued under it, and a reference to a section of title 17 is to 17 U.S.C. unless stated otherwise;
5. a reference to an Article or Section is to an Article or Section of this Policy; and
6. “written” and “in writing” include electronic communications.

The Business Day definition above applies to our own commitments under this Policy. Statutory periods that run on a Platform, including the restoration window in 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2)(C), are calculated by each Platform under its own rules, time zone and holiday calendar. We do not control and cannot extend those periods.

If this Policy is translated, the English version controls.

Article 2 The United States Copyright Framework

This Article summarizes, as of the Effective Date, the federal law against which every Notice and Claim is prepared and judged; it is not legal advice (Section 1.4), and our procedures begin in Article 3.

2.1 Protected Works and the Exclusive Rights of Copyright Owners

Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including literary, musical and dramatic works, pantomimes and choreographic works, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures and other audiovisual works, sound recordings and architectural works (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)). A live transmission is “fixed” if it is recorded simultaneously (§ 101), so a recorded livestream is protected as it airs. Originality requires independent creation and a modicum of creativity; effort alone does not suffice, and facts are unprotected, though an original selection or arrangement of them may be (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)). Protection attaches on fixation; registration is not a condition of protection (§ 408(a)).

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

17 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Works of the United States Government, meaning works prepared by federal officers or employees as part of their official duties, are not protected (§§ 101, 105).

Subject to §§ 107–122, the owner has the exclusive rights to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, perform and display the work publicly (for the categories specified), and, for sound recordings, perform the work publicly by digital audio transmission (§ 106(1)–(6)). An unauthorized reupload ordinarily implicates the reproduction and public performance rights. Separately, § 106A gives authors of a narrowly defined “work of visual art,” such as a signed limited-edition print, rights of attribution and integrity whether or not they own the copyright.

2.2 Ownership, Works Made for Hire, Transfers and Exclusive Licenses

Copyright vests initially in the author, and joint authors are co-owners (§ 201(a)). A co-owner may generally grant non-exclusive licenses without the others’ consent, subject to a duty to account, but courts generally hold that it cannot grant an exclusive license alone.

For a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the author and, absent a signed written agreement otherwise, owns all rights (§ 201(b)). Under § 101, a work is made for hire only if it is:

1. prepared by an employee within the scope of employment, with employee status determined under the common law of agency (Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)); or
2. specially ordered or commissioned for one of nine uses listed in § 101, such as a contribution to a collective work or part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, and the parties expressly agree in a signed writing that it is a work made for hire.

A commissioned work outside those categories, such as a freelancer’s standalone illustration, is not a work made for hire even if the contract says so; the commissioning party obtains ownership, if at all, only by assignment.

Each exclusive right, or any subdivision of one, may be transferred and owned separately (§ 201(d)). A “transfer of copyright ownership” includes an assignment or exclusive license, even if limited in time or place, but not a non-exclusive license (§ 101). Accordingly:

• Writing. A transfer other than by operation of law is invalid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of it, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or its duly authorized agent (§ 204(a)). Non-exclusive licenses may be oral or implied.
• Standing. The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right may sue for infringement committed while it is the owner (§ 501(b)), so an exclusive licensee may enforce its licensed rights; a non-exclusive licensee may not.

How we verify chain of title and licensee status is described in Section 3.3.

2.3 Fair Use and Other Limitations on Exclusive Rights

Fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is not an infringement. Courts must consider:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

17 U.S.C. § 107

The factors are non-exhaustive and weighed together case by case; fair use is an affirmative defense.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), held that a commercial parody may be fair use and rejected any presumption against commercial uses; the first factor asks whether the new work merely supersedes the original or adds something new, with a further purpose or different character. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), clarified that this is a matter of degree and that new meaning or message is not enough on its own: where the original and the secondary use share substantially the same purpose and the use is commercial, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use absent another justification. The Court examined only the specific use challenged, so fair use is assessed use by use. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), assuming copyrightability, held that copying Java SE declaring code to the extent needed for a new and transformative platform was fair use as a matter of law, the factors applying differently to functional works.

Other limitations include the first-sale rule, which lets the owner of a lawfully made copy sell or display it but not reproduce it (§ 109(a), (c)), and §§ 108 and 110–122. How fair use is considered before any Notice is sent is addressed in Section 3.5.

2.4 Infringement, Secondary Liability and Remedies

Anyone who violates an exclusive right is an infringer (§ 501(a)). A plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements of the work (Feist, 499 U.S. at 361), usually shown through access and substantial similarity of protected expression, tested differently across circuits. Intent is not an element; innocence bears on remedies only.

Courts also recognize secondary liability for another’s direct infringement. Contributory infringement has traditionally required knowledge and inducement of, or material contribution to, the infringement; its application to general-purpose services continues to be litigated. Vicarious infringement generally requires the right and ability to supervise the activity and a direct financial interest in it. Under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe, shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting infringement by third parties.

Statutory damages and fees depend on timely registration (Section 2.5). Willful infringement is also a federal crime where it is committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, involves reproducing or distributing within any 180-day period copies with a total retail value of more than $1,000, or involves distributing a work being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to the public (§ 506(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2319). Only the government may prosecute.

2.5 Registration: Prerequisites, Timing and Effects

A Notice under § 512 does not require that the work be registered. Registration nonetheless matters in the following ways.

Prerequisite to suit. Under § 411(a), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any “United States work” (as defined in § 101) may be instituted until preregistration or registration has been made, or registration has been refused and the Register of Copyrights notified. Works that are not United States works are exempt. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019), held that registration occurs when the Copyright Office registers the work, not on application; the owner may then sue for infringement before and after registration. Expedited processing is discussed in Section 6.5.

Evidentiary weight. A certificate of registration made before or within five years after first publication is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in it; the weight of a later certificate is for the court (§ 410(c)).

Remedies. Under § 412, statutory damages and attorney’s fees are unavailable for infringement of an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of registration, or for infringement commenced after first publication and before that date, unless registration is made within three months after first publication. Courts generally date a continuing series of infringements from the first act.

Inaccuracies. An inaccurate certificate remains effective unless the inaccuracy was knowing and would have caused the Register to refuse registration (§ 411(b)). Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 595 U.S. 178 (2022), held that this requires actual knowledge, so a good-faith mistake of fact or law does not invalidate a registration, though willful blindness may count as knowledge.

2.6 The Limitations Period for Civil Claims

No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

17 U.S.C. § 507(b)

Under Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), each infringing act starts its own three-year period, and laches cannot bar damages for acts within it, although delay may affect equitable relief. Most courts of appeals apply a discovery rule, under which a claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringement. The Supreme Court has not decided whether that rule is permissible, and the circuits differ in its formulation and application. In Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024), the Court assumed without deciding that the discovery rule applied and held that a plaintiff with a timely claim may recover damages for infringement no matter when it occurred; there is no separate three-year cap on damages.

2.7 The DMCA Safe Harbors in Outline

Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998), enacted § 512. It does not define infringement; it limits a qualifying Service Provider’s liability for monetary relief and, except as § 512(j) allows, injunctive relief, for four functions:

Every safe harbor also requires the provider to adopt, reasonably implement and inform users of a policy terminating repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances, and to accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures (§ 512(i)).

Protection under § 512(c) or (d) is lost if the provider knows of infringement, or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent (“red flag” knowledge), and fails to act expeditiously. Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012), held that both standards concern specific infringements, red-flag knowledge meaning subjective awareness of facts that would make specific infringement objectively obvious, and that willful blindness may establish knowledge.

The safe harbors are not conditioned on a provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringement, except as consistent with a standard technical measure (§ 512(m)), so identifying specific infringing material falls largely to copyright owners and their agents. Failing to qualify does not prejudice a provider’s other defenses (§ 512(l)).

Notice contents are covered in Article 4, Platform practice in Article 5, Counter-Notifications in Article 6, and our own role as a Service Provider in Article 7.

2.8 Anti-Circumvention and Copyright Management Information

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A)

Section 1201 also bars trafficking in tools primarily designed to circumvent access controls (§ 1201(a)(2)) or measures protecting a copyright owner’s rights, such as copy controls (§ 1201(b)(1)); circumventing a copy control is not itself prohibited. In triennial rulemakings, the Librarian of Congress, on the Register’s recommendation, exempts classes of works whose users are adversely affected in making noninfringing uses (§ 1201(a)(1)(C)). The exemptions, at 37 C.F.R. § 201.40, are limited to their stated conditions, lapse unless renewed, and never excuse trafficking. Section 1201(c)(1) preserves infringement defenses, including fair use, but courts have generally held that fair use is not a defense to a § 1201 claim.

Section 1202 protects copyright management information, defined in § 1202(c) to include the title, author, owner, notice information, terms of use and identifying numbers conveyed with a work. It prohibits knowingly supplying false information with intent to facilitate or conceal infringement (§ 1202(a)), and intentionally removing or altering such information, or distributing works knowing it was removed, knowing, or for civil purposes having reasonable grounds to know, that this will facilitate or conceal infringement (§ 1202(b)).

An injured person may sue in federal court and elect statutory damages of $200 to $2,500 per act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer or performance of service under § 1201 (§ 1203(c)(3)(A)), or $2,500 to $25,000 per violation of § 1202 (§ 1203(c)(3)(B)). Willful violations for commercial advantage or private financial gain are also crimes (§ 1204).

Relevance to our work. A claim resting solely on § 1201 or § 1202, such as circumvention of a Client’s paywall or removal of a watermark from a copy that is not otherwise infringing, is not a § 512 Notice, and we do not present it as one. Where the facts support it and the Client Authorization permits, we raise it through a Platform’s separate policies or with independent US litigation counsel. If the same material also infringes, any Notice is prepared under Article 3 and Article 4.

Article 3 Acting for Rights Holders: Authorization, Ownership and Good-Faith Review

Before we draft any Notice, we confirm that we are authorized to act, that our Client holds the rights it asserts, and that we believe in good faith, after considering fair use, that the use is not authorized.

3.1 The Scope of Our Agency

When we enforce copyrights for a Client, we act solely as its authorized agent and only within its Client Authorization. A Notice must be signed by “a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed” (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)), so our authority can be no broader than the Client’s own rights. Accordingly:

1. We do not enforce copyrights on our own account, except in Works the Company owns, to which we apply this Article as if we were a Client.
2. Engaging us transfers no ownership interest, exclusive license or right to sue to the Company, and we require no such transfer.
3. We do not confer Platform eligibility. Each Platform decides who may use its Rights-Management Tools. Where the Client or its partners are eligible, we operate only within the access and permissions they hold (see Section 5.5).
4. No Client instruction displaces the good-faith obligations the law places on whoever submits a Notice.

3.2 Client Authorization

We take no enforcement step until we hold a written Client Authorization signed by the Client or a person with authority to bind it. An electronic signature is sufficient (see Section 4.8). It may form part of an Order Form and must specify:

1. Parties. The Rights Holder, the signatory and the capacity in which the Rights Holder holds its rights (author, employer, assignee or exclusive licensee).
2. Works. The Works or catalogs covered and how each is identified.
3. Platforms. The Platforms, websites and intermediaries to which our authority extends.
4. Permitted actions. Whether we may submit Notices, place or release Claims, elect monetization or tracking where offered, respond to disputes, retract Notices and refer matters to litigation counsel. An action not expressly authorized is not authorized.
5. Exclusions and approvals. The allowlist (Section 3.6) and any matters requiring the Client’s case-by-case approval.
6. Term and revocation. The start date, any renewal and the method of revocation.
7. Sub-agents. Whether, and on what terms, we may engage sub-agents, local agents or counsel.

We resolve ambiguity by asking the Client, never by assuming broader authority. A Client may revoke or narrow its Client Authorization in writing at any time. On receipt, we stop initiating actions within the revoked scope and handle pending matters, including any retraction, as the Client directs (see Section 6.6). Our authority also lapses as to any Work in which the Client’s rights end. We may show a Client Authorization to a Platform that asks for evidence of our authority.

3.3 Verifying Ownership, Chain of Title and Exclusive Licenses

Every Notice states, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act for the owner of the exclusive right allegedly infringed (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi)). The law on ownership and transfers is summarized in Section 2.2. Only “the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right” may sue for its infringement (§ 501(b)), and under § 101 the “copyright owner” of an exclusive right is the owner of that particular right. We therefore confirm that the Client holds the specific right the targeted use implicates, in the relevant medium, territory and period. We may request:

A written confirmation may suffice for material created by the Client’s own personnel. For acquired, licensed or commissioned material, we ordinarily require documents showing an unbroken chain of title from the author to the Client. We apply these rules:

• Licensees. A non-exclusive license is not a “transfer of copyright ownership” under § 101, and its holder lacks standing under § 501(b). We act only for the owner or an exclusive licensee, and for the latter only within the scope of its license (§ 201(d)(2)).
• Co-owners. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of its copyright (§ 201(a)). Because a co-owner may generally license the work non-exclusively without the others’ consent (Section 2.2), we ask the Client to confirm that no co-owner has authorized the use.
• Competing claimants. When another party asserts rights in the same Work, we do not adjudicate the dispute; we pause action, request the Client’s documents and may decline to proceed.
• Bare right to sue. An assignment of only the right to sue for past infringement, without the underlying exclusive right, confers no standing (Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). We do not act for a party whose only interest is an assigned claim.

We may re-verify ownership at any time.

3.4 Identifying Works and Evaluating Potential Matches

Monitoring, which may combine searches, automated matching or fingerprinting, Client reports and manual review, identifies candidate uses of a Client’s Works. A candidate match is a lead, not a finding of infringement. Our process is designed so that, before any Notice is prepared, each candidate is evaluated for:

1. whether the matched material is the Client’s protected expression, rather than unprotected ideas or facts (§ 102(b)) or third-party, stock or public-domain material embedded in the Work;
2. whether the uploader is the Client, an affiliate or an allowlisted party;
3. the amount, duration and prominence of the matched portion, and its context;
4. whether the location is specific and still live; and
5. whether the use calls for escalation under Section 3.5.

Partial or low-confidence matches receive closer review. A Scan Request submitted on the Site produces only candidate results. No enforcement follows unless the requester becomes a Client and a Client Authorization covers the relevant Works.

3.5 Good-Faith Belief and the Fair-Use Assessment

Every Notice must state a good-faith belief that the use is “not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law” (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)). In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that fair use is authorized by the law and that a copyright holder must consider it before sending a takedown notification. In Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of America, Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004), the same court held that the good-faith belief is measured subjectively, by what the sender actually believed, not by what a reasonable person would have concluded. A subjective standard still requires an actual inquiry. Although these decisions bind only courts within the Ninth Circuit, we follow them for every Notice.

Our process is designed so that no Notice is submitted unless a trained reviewer has considered fair use under the four factors in 17 U.S.C. § 107 (see Section 2.3), and so that bulk items falling outside defined criteria are escalated for individual review. The following indicators call for closer review:

• commentary on or criticism of the Work;
• parody targeting the Work or its author;
• news reporting in which the Work or its use is part of the story;
• review, teaching or scholarship using short excerpts;
• a further purpose or different character, bearing in mind that new meaning or message alone is not enough where the use serves substantially the same purpose as the original (Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023)); and
• use of a small or peripheral portion that is unlikely to substitute for the Work or for its licensing markets.

By contrast, complete or near-complete reuploads, copies altered to evade detection, compilations with little added material, live-stream rebroadcasts and pre-release leaks ordinarily weigh against fair use.

Where the indicators conflict, we refer the item to the Client with our assessment and submit no Notice without the Client’s informed instruction. That instruction does not oblige us to act: we will decline any Notice for which we cannot hold the required good-faith belief. We may instead recommend no action, a license, contact with the uploader or a non-removal option such as tracking. We record the basis of each decision. Misrepresentation is addressed in Section 4.7.

3.6 Licensed, Permitted and Excluded Uses

Allowlists. Each Client maintains an allowlist of the channels, accounts and domains authorized to use its Works, such as its own channels, affiliates and licensees. Allowlisted uses are excluded even when they match. To have us act against a listed party, the Client must first remove it and confirm in writing that its authorization has ended.

Licensees. Uses within a license the Client has granted are authorized. Where a use may exceed a license’s term, territory or media, we act only on the Client’s written confirmation that it falls outside the license.

Public-domain and government works. We do not enforce against public-domain material. Works of the United States Government are not protected (17 U.S.C. § 105; Section 2.1). Section 105 does not govern works of state or foreign governments, and works prepared by federal contractors may be protected. Where a Client’s Work incorporates public-domain or government material, we enforce only the Client’s original contribution.

Open and Platform licenses. Uses that comply with a Creative Commons or other license under which the Client released a Work, or with rights granted through Platform features such as embedding, are authorized. Current Creative Commons licenses are expressed to be irrevocable, so a later change of license does not withdraw permission already given under them. Whether breach of a license condition, such as attribution, is infringement depends on the license and the facts; we refer those cases to the Client.

De minimis uses. Because federal courts differ on whether and how de minimis copying defeats a claim, we generally do not pursue incidental or fleeting appearances, such as background music in a public place, unless the Client instructs otherwise after review under Section 3.5.

Other limitations. Where one of the limitations in §§ 108–122 plausibly applies (see Section 2.3), we treat the use as potentially authorized by law.

3.7 Client Representations, Cooperation and Our Right to Decline

By signing a Client Authorization, and with each instruction, the Client represents and warrants that:

1. it owns or exclusively controls the relevant rights in each Work, or is authorized by the owner to instruct us;
2. the information and reference materials it provides are accurate, complete and contain only material in which it holds the relevant rights;
3. its allowlist is current, and it has disclosed every license, permission or co-owner authorization that may cover a targeted use;
4. each person instructing us on its behalf has authority to do so;
5. it will not instruct us to suppress lawful criticism, commentary or competition (see Section 8.3); and
6. it will promptly notify us of any sale, license termination, competing claim, litigation or other change affecting its rights.

The Client must answer our requests for documents and decisions promptly; delay may postpone or prevent action. We may rely on the Client’s representations, but reliance does not replace our own review under this Article. We may decline, pause or withdraw from any action where:

1. authority or ownership has not been adequately established;
2. we cannot form the good-faith belief described in Section 3.5;
3. the use appears permitted under Section 3.6, or a competing claim remains unresolved;
4. the action would breach applicable law, a Platform’s terms or this Policy;
5. the Client has not cooperated or a representation appears inaccurate; or
6. we reasonably believe the request is abusive or made in bad faith.

A decision not to act is not a legal opinion that the use is lawful and does not prevent the Client from pursuing its own remedies. Indemnities, fees (including for declined or withdrawn matters) and limitations of liability are governed by the Client’s Order Form and our Terms of Service, which this Policy does not modify.

Article 4 Takedown Notices: Required Elements, Accuracy Controls and Misrepresentation

This Article explains when we send a statutory Notice, what every Notice must contain, how we check Notices before they are sent, and the liability that follows a knowing misrepresentation.

4.1 When We Use a Statutory Takedown Notice

A Notice is a written notification of claimed infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 512. We prepare one only after the review in Article 3 and within the Client Authorization, choosing the instrument according to where the Infringing Material is made available:

1. Hosted material (§ 512(c)). Where material resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for a Service Provider at the direction of a user, such as an upload to a Platform, a compliant Notice engages the condition in § 512(c)(1)(C) that the provider respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.
2. Links (§ 512(d)). Where a Service Provider refers or links users to Infringing Material through an information location tool, such as a directory, index, hyperlink or search engine, the Notice targets the reference or link (Section 4.4).
3. Cached copies (§ 512(b)). Where a provider holds an intermediate and temporary copy made through system caching, a Notice is effective only in the circumstances described in Section 4.4.
4. Rights-Management Tools. A Claim operates under the Platform’s own terms. It is not a § 512 Notice, even where it results in blocking (Section 5.5).
5. Cease-and-desist letters. A demand sent directly to an alleged infringer is not a notification to a Designated Agent. It has no safe-harbor consequence and triggers no counter-notification procedure. We send one only where the Client Authorization permits.

Transmission through a conduit under § 512(a) is not subject to notice and takedown; see Section 5.4.

4.2 The Six Required Elements of a Notice

To be effective, a notification must be a written communication provided to the Service Provider’s Designated Agent that includes “substantially” the six elements in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)–(vi). Each Notice we send contains all six on its face, without depending on any other communication. Section 7.3 applies this table to Notices sent to the Company.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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)(v)–(vi)

The grammar of clause (vi) matters. “Under penalty of perjury” attaches to the statement of authority to act for the owner, not to the statement that the information is accurate. The accuracy statement remains subject to § 512(f) (Section 4.7), and we hold it to the same standard: every factual statement in a Notice must be one we believe true after the review in Section 4.6.

4.3 Representative Lists, Locating Information and Multiple Works

1. Item-level identification. Each item is listed by its specific URL or Platform identifier. We do not send Notices naming only a channel, account, domain or search term and leaving the provider to find the infringing items.
2. Representative lists cover Works, not material. The statute allows a representative list only under element (ii), for multiple works at a single online site covered by one notification. It does not relax element (iii). A Notice never reaches an item it does not list; items found later receive a further Notice.
3. Why specificity matters. The actual-knowledge and red-flag provisions of § 512(c)(1)(A) turn on knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, not general awareness that infringement occurs on a service. Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012). A Notice that leaves the provider to decide which items infringe invites rejection.
4. No piecing together. In Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit held that a copyright owner may not assemble adequate notice from separately defective communications, and placed the burden of identifying infringing material and documenting infringement on the copyright owner. We therefore never rely on an earlier Notice, a separate spreadsheet or general correspondence to supply a missing element; where supplementation is needed, we send a complete replacement Notice.
5. Multiple Works. One Notice may cover several Works and many items at the same provider where its procedure permits. Each item is paired with the Work it allegedly infringes, and we observe any per-submission limits a Platform sets.

4.4 Notices Concerning Links, Search Results and Cached Copies

Information location tools. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d)(3), a notification to a provider of an information location tool follows § 512(c)(3), except that element (iii) becomes identification of the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing that is to be removed or disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the provider to locate that reference or link. The other five elements apply unchanged. Our link Notices identify each link, how to find it and the destination it points to; the underlying material is pursued separately with its host where appropriate. Search-engine practice is addressed in Section 5.3.

Cached copies. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b)(2)(E), where the original poster made material available without authorization, a caching provider must act on a § 512(c)(3) notification only if (i) the material has been removed or disabled at the originating site, or a court has ordered that, and (ii) the notification includes a statement confirming it. We send a caching Notice only after verifying removal or holding the order, and include the confirming statement.

4.5 Substantial Compliance and Defective Notices

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(B)(i), a notification that does not comply substantially with § 512(c)(3)(A) is not considered in deciding whether a Service Provider has actual knowledge or red-flag awareness. Section 512(c)(3)(B)(ii) qualifies that rule: if the notification substantially complies with elements (ii), (iii) and (iv), the provider may exclude it from that inquiry only if it promptly attempts to contact the sender or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of a substantially compliant notification. A notice deficient in element (ii), (iii) or (iv) receives no such protection.

When a provider reports a defect, we correct it and resubmit a complete, self-contained Notice under Section 4.3(d), rather than answering piecemeal. Where a Platform requires fields beyond the statute, we follow them where we reasonably can (Section 5.1).

4.6 Accuracy Controls and Quality Assurance

Our controls are designed to prevent inaccurate Notices and to correct any that are sent:

1. Pre-submission review. Our process is designed so that no Notice is submitted unless a trained reviewer has confirmed that the Client Authorization covers the Work, Platform and action; examined each item directly rather than relying solely on its title, thumbnail, metadata or a match score; run the checks in Section 3.6; considered fair use under Section 3.5; and confirmed all six elements.
2. Second review for bulk batches. Items submitted together in volume are examined by a second reviewer before release, with attention to partial matches, short excerpts and transformative contexts.
3. Sampling audits. We periodically audit samples of submitted Notices and use the findings to revise guidance, allowlists and escalation criteria.
4. Volume controls. Automated tools may queue candidates but are not intended to release Notices by themselves. We set internal submission limits and pause a campaign when audits, disputes or Counter-Notifications indicate a problem.
5. Audit trail. For each Notice we record the Client Authorization relied on, the Work and items, the reviewers and dates, the basis for the good-faith determination, the submission and the Platform’s response (retention: Section 8.4).
6. Prompt retraction. If we learn that an item was identified in error, we retract the Notice as to that item through the Platform’s channel, inform the Client and record the cause (Section 6.6).

These controls reduce error but cannot eliminate it. We do not promise any accuracy rate.

4.7 Liability for Misrepresentation Under § 512(f)

The rule. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), any person who “knowingly materially misrepresents” under § 512 (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, is liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, a copyright owner or its authorized licensee, or a Service Provider injured as a result of the provider relying on the misrepresentation in removing or restoring material. Article 6 and Section 8.3 refer to this Section.

Knowledge. In Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of America, Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit held that § 512(f) requires actual knowledge of misrepresentation; an unknowing mistake, even an unreasonable one, does not suffice. In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016), it held that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a notification (Section 3.5), that willful blindness may establish knowledge, and that a plaintiff may seek nominal damages. Outside the Ninth Circuit the case law is less developed.

Materiality. Because recovery is tied to the provider’s reliance, a misstatement that could not have affected the decision to remove or restore material is unlikely to support liability.

Who may be liable. Section 512(f) reaches “any person,” so an agent that submits a Notice may be liable alongside the Rights Holder, which is why we maintain the controls in Section 4.6 and the Client representations in Section 3.7.

Counter-Notifications. Under § 512(f)(2), the same liability applies to a knowing, material misrepresentation that material was removed by mistake or misidentification, a statement that a Counter-Notification, unlike a Notice, makes under penalty of perjury (Section 6.2). Where a Counter-Notification appears knowingly false, we document the grounds for the Client, which decides whether to pursue a claim through independent US litigation counsel (Section 6.4).

Other consequences. A false statement of authority may also carry consequences under perjury law, and whether other claims for a wrongful Notice lie alongside § 512(f) depends on the claim and jurisdiction.

4.8 Signatures, Delivery and Designated Agents of Recipients

Signatures. Element (i) expressly permits a physical or electronic signature, consistent with the general rule in 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a) that, in a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a signature or record may not be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic. Our Notices are signed by a named individual authorized by the Company, in the form the channel accepts, such as a typed full name or a Platform signature field, stating that individual’s capacity as agent for the named Rights Holder. We never sign for a person who has not approved the Notice.

Delivery. A notification is effective only if provided to the provider’s Designated Agent. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), a provider seeking the § 512(c) safe harbor must designate an agent, make the agent’s contact information available through its service, including on its website, and provide it to the Copyright Office, which maintains an electronic directory of designated agents under 37 C.F.R. § 201.38. We identify the correct channel from the provider’s published copyright procedure and that directory, and use any webform or dedicated address a Platform designates. General support or press addresses are not substitutes unless designated, because a notice sent elsewhere may be ineffective. Where no designation exists, we use the best available contact and record the absence.

No timelines. The statute requires providers to respond “expeditiously” but fixes no period, and Platforms act on their own schedules. We do not promise that any recipient will act, or when. See Section 8.6 on response times and Section 5.7 on forwarding and publication of Notices.

Article 5 Platform Procedures, Rights-Management Claims and Transparency

Each Platform runs its own complaint and rights-management systems on top of the statute, and this Article explains how we work within them, how a Claim differs from a Notice, and where a Notice may end up once sent.

5.1 Platform Rules Operate Alongside the Statute

Section 512 sets the conditions a Service Provider must meet to keep its safe harbor. It does not prescribe intake forms or tools, and it does not stop a Platform from adopting additional rules under its own terms. Every enforcement step we take is therefore governed by three layers:

1. The statute. A statutory Notice contains every element of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A), whatever the Platform’s form asks for (see Section 4.2).
2. The Platform’s terms and policies. These govern submitter verification, required fields, channels, bulk submission, tool eligibility and consequences for uploaders. Where a Platform requires more than the statute, we comply.
3. The Client Authorization and Order Form. These define which available actions we may take for a particular Client (see Section 3.2).

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(m), safe-harbor protection is not conditioned on a Service Provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringement, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure. Any filtering a Platform performs is voluntary and runs under its own rules, so Notices and Claims remain the principal means of bringing infringement to its attention.

Platform decisions are not ours to control (see Section 8.7).

5.2 Video, Streaming and Social Platforms

YouTube, Meta’s services (including Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Twitch, X and similar services generally accept copyright complaints through dedicated webforms, and some also accept email or postal submissions to their designated agent. We use the channel each Platform designates for the complaint involved. A webform that collects the § 512(c)(3)(A) elements generally serves as the Platform’s mechanism for receiving notifications to which it responds under § 512(c)(1)(C).

Some Platforms verify agent status, limit bulk or automated submission to approved submitters, or offer optional features such as delayed removal or prevention of future copies. We use such features only where the Client Authorization permits.

Account-level consequences. Each Platform decides, under its own repeat-infringer and community policies, whether a valid Notice leads to a warning, strike, feature restriction, demonetization or termination. We do not request any particular penalty, cannot promise one and cannot remove one (see Section 6.6). A Notice may therefore have consequences for the uploader beyond removal.

Live streams. Unauthorized retransmission of live content is time-critical. A Notice must still identify the Work and the stream’s location, and we use any dedicated live-reporting route a Platform offers. Because a stream may end before the Platform acts, we also review recordings, clips and re-streams, each of which requires its own identification.

Pre-release leaks. Where unreleased films, episodes, music or games leak, the Client may need to establish ownership of a Work that is not public. We identify the Work by title and other identifying details rather than republishing it; registration is not a prerequisite to a Notice (see Section 2.5). Leaks are prioritized (Section 8.6) and usually require parallel steps with search engines (Section 5.3) and hosts (Section 5.4).

5.3 Search Engines and Delisting Requests

A search engine provides an information location tool within 17 U.S.C. § 512(d). A delisting request asks it to remove or disable access to a reference or link to Infringing Material. Delisting does not remove the material from its host, which remains reachable directly and through other services, so we treat delisting as a complement to Notices sent to the host, not a substitute. The statutory requirements for link and cached-copy requests are set out in Section 4.4. In practice:

• we request removal only of individually reviewed URLs (Section 3.5) and do not seek delisting of a home page or entire domain on the strength of a sample;
• search engines may notify the site operator, accept counter-notifications under their own procedures and forward requests to transparency databases (Section 5.7); and
• each search engine decides under its own policies whether removal requests affect its treatment of a site more generally, and we make no prediction about any such effect.

5.4 Hosting Providers, CDNs, Domain Registrars and Other Intermediaries

Not every intermediary that touches Infringing Material stores it, and the DMCA treats each function separately:

Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for purposes of applying this section.

17 U.S.C. § 512(n)

Qualification under one subsection depends solely on that subsection’s criteria, so we direct each submission to the party and function that can address it:

1. Hosting providers. Web hosts, cloud storage and file-sharing services that store material at users’ direction operate under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). They receive Notices through their designated agents and are expected to respond expeditiously under § 512(c)(1)(C).
2. Conduits. Access and transit providers transmit, route or provide connections under 17 U.S.C. § 512(a) without storing material beyond what transmission requires. Section 512(a) has no notice-and-takedown condition, so they may forward a complaint to their subscriber rather than remove anything.
3. Content delivery networks. Depending on what they do, these may act as conduits, system caches under 17 U.S.C. § 512(b) or hosts. Many do not hold the origin content. They commonly forward complaints to their customer and may identify the origin host, to which we then direct a Notice.
4. Domain registrars and registries. These do not host content. Registrars generally publish abuse contacts but typically forward copyright complaints to the registrant or refer complainants to the host. Suspending a domain is the registrar’s decision under its own agreements and policies, not a § 512 remedy. We use registrar channels only where the Client Authorization permits and, for example, the host cannot be identified or does not respond. Registrant data is often redacted, and disclosure may require legal process (Section 6.7).
5. Payment and advertising intermediaries. Payment processors and ad networks act under their own acceptable-use and brand-safety policies, not the DMCA. A complaint to them is not a § 512 Notice, and we submit one only with Client authorization and supporting evidence, without overstating its legal effect.

Intermediaries outside the United States may not follow § 512; see Section 8.2.

5.5 Rights-Management Tools and Claims

Some Platforms offer Rights-Management Tools, such as YouTube Content ID and Meta Rights Manager, that let eligible rights holders supply reference files, set match policies (for example, block, monetize or track) and place manual Claims.

Eligibility and access. Each Platform decides who may use its tools. Nothing in this Policy represents that the Company holds partner, multi-channel network, content-management-system or similar status with any Platform, and engaging us confers no eligibility (Section 3.1). Where the Client, or a partner with which it has an arrangement, is eligible, we may operate the tool on the Client’s behalf through access the account holder grants. For enterprise Clients, administration of the Client’s content-management account is provided under the Order Form. The account holder remains responsible to the Platform.

Reference-file hygiene. A defective reference generates erroneous Claims at scale. Our process is designed so that:

1. references cover only material in which the Client holds the relevant exclusive rights for each territory claimed;
2. third-party elements, such as licensed music, stock footage and samples, are excluded or segmented out;
3. public-domain material and United States Government works (17 U.S.C. § 105) are excluded (Section 3.6);
4. material the Client has openly licensed, including content under a published creator or gameplay-video policy, is excluded or set to a non-restrictive policy;
5. references are updated when rights expire, revert or are licensed exclusively to others; and
6. matches are audited periodically, and ownership conflicts are supported by chain-of-title documents (Section 3.3).

Over-claiming. Claiming public-domain or licensed material diverts revenue from those entitled to it, invites disputes, may lead a Platform to penalize the account holder or withdraw tool access, and can expose the Client to claims by licensees or uploaders. Whether 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) reaches a misrepresentation in a Claim is not settled. We apply the same good-faith standard, including consideration of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, to Claims as to Notices (Sections 3.5 and 4.7).

Revenue. The Platform pays revenue from monetized Claims to the account holder under its terms; the Order Form governs how it reaches the Client, and we guarantee no revenue.

5.6 Claim Disputes, Appeals and Conversion to Formal Notices

Platforms let uploaders dispute Claims and sometimes appeal a rejected dispute. These are contractual processes, distinct from the statute. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2), a Service Provider’s protection for removing material depends on notifying the subscriber, forwarding any counter-notification to the sender of the Notice, and restoring the material within the statutory window unless an action is filed (Article 6). A Claim dispute has none of those features; its deadlines, stages and outcomes are set by the Platform.

When a Claim is disputed, we review the uploader’s grounds, including any license, public-domain or fair-use argument, and report to the Client with a recommendation. We release Claims we cannot support in good faith. A Platform may release a Claim automatically if no timely response is made, and we promise no response times (Section 8.6).

Escalating a disputed Claim to a Notice, through a Platform’s escalation path or by separate submission, requires:

1. the Client’s express authorization for that Work and use;
2. a fresh review under Section 3.5, including the 17 U.S.C. § 107 factors, that takes the uploader’s dispute into account, because the original automated match is not enough; and
3. a Notice meeting every requirement of Article 4.

A Notice can lead to removal and account penalties and gives the uploader the counter-notification rights in Article 6, including restoration unless the Client sues in time, so Clients should decide whether they are prepared to litigate before authorizing escalation. We do not escalate to extract payment or suppress a legitimate dispute, and we do not resubmit materially identical requests to circumvent a Platform’s rejection.

5.7 Transparency Databases and Publication of Notices

Many Platforms and search engines send copies of notices they receive to Lumen, a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University that collects and studies requests to remove online material. Lumen may publish a notice in full or in part under its own practices; some contact details may be redacted, but the names of the sender and Rights Holder and the listed URLs often remain visible. Platforms also publish transparency reports, which may identify the organizations and rights holders submitting requests.

Platforms commonly forward a Notice, or a summary, to the uploader, usually including the complaining party’s name (for a Notice we submit as agent, typically both the Company’s and the Rights Holder’s) and sometimes contact details, so that the uploader can respond under Article 6.

We include only the information the statute or the Platform requires and, where permitted, use the Company’s business contact details as agent in place of the Client’s. Once a Notice is submitted, we cannot control its forwarding or publication or recall it from third-party databases. Clients, particularly individual creators, should assume their name may become public. Our handling of personal data is described in our Privacy Policy; our confidentiality commitments to Clients are in Section 8.5.

Article 6 Counter-Notifications, Restoration and Escalation

If a user disputes a takedown, the Platform will restore the material within a short statutory window unless the Rights Holder first files suit, and the Client alone decides how to respond.

6.1 What a Counter-Notification Is and How It Reaches the Rights Holder

A Counter-Notification is the statutory response available to a person whose material a Platform has removed, or disabled access to, in response to a Notice. It is sent to the Platform’s Designated Agent and asserts mistake or misidentification. Section 512(g)(1) of title 17 protects a Service Provider from liability for good-faith removal. Under § 512(g)(2), that protection depends, for material stored at a subscriber’s direction and removed under a Notice given under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(C), on the Service Provider following the notify-and-restore steps in Section 6.3.

The statutory put-back procedure does not extend to links or search results removed under § 512(d). Where a Platform accepts counter-notices for those removals, its own policy governs the procedure (Section 5.3). Disputes of Claims made through a Rights-Management Tool are likewise contractual processes (Section 5.6).

Under § 512(g)(2)(B), the Service Provider must promptly send a copy of the Counter-Notification to the person who submitted the Notice. When we submitted the Notice as the Client’s agent, that copy ordinarily comes to us. Our policy is to forward it to the Client promptly, with any restoration date the Platform has stated and our preliminary review under Section 6.4. Counter-Notifications concerning our own Site and Services are governed by Section 7.5.

6.2 Required Elements of a Counter-Notification

Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3), a Counter-Notification must be a written communication provided to the Service Provider’s Designated Agent that includes substantially the following:

1. a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber (§ 512(g)(3)(A));
2. identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled, and the location at which it appeared before removal or disabling (§ 512(g)(3)(B));
3. a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled (§ 512(g)(3)(C)); and
4. the subscriber’s name, address and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber (i) consents to the jurisdiction of the federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located or, if the address is outside the United States, for any judicial district in which the Service Provider may be found, and (ii) will accept service of process from the person who provided the Notice or that person’s agent (§ 512(g)(3)(D)).

Unlike the corresponding statement in a Notice (Section 4.2), the subscriber’s statement of mistake or misidentification is itself made under penalty of perjury. Element (d) gives the Rights Holder a known federal forum for the action that stops restoration, but it does not displace other prerequisites to suit, such as registration (Section 6.5).

The Platform decides whether a Counter-Notification is complete; if one appears deficient, we will tell the Client and may raise it with the Platform. Liability for a knowingly false Counter-Notification is addressed in Section 4.7. We use the subscriber’s personal information only to evaluate the Counter-Notification and support any escalation the Client authorizes, as described in our Privacy Policy.

6.3 The Ten-to-Fourteen-Business-Day Restoration Window

Once a Service Provider receives a compliant Counter-Notification, the statute prescribes this sequence:

… unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.

17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2)(C)

1. The Platform runs the clock. The window runs from the Platform’s receipt of the Counter-Notification, not ours, and each Platform counts business days under its own rules (Section 1.6). The Company cannot extend or suspend it.
2. Only a filed action stops restoration. The Designated Agent must receive notice that an action has actually been filed before the material is restored. A threat to sue, a demand letter, a pending registration application or a message to a general support channel does not suffice.
3. Restoration carries no finding. Under § 512(g)(4), a Service Provider that complies with § 512(g)(2) is not thereby liable for infringement with respect to the material identified in the Notice, so Platforms restore as a matter of course. Restoration does not establish that the material is non-infringing and does not bar a later suit within the limitations period (Section 2.6).

6.4 Our Review of a Counter-Notification and the Client’s Decision

Our policy is to review each Counter-Notification promptly and give the Client a written recommendation. The review is designed to consider whether the required elements appear to be present; the grounds asserted, such as license, fair use, public-domain status or misidentification; the original Notice in light of those grounds, including the fair-use assessment under Section 3.5; whether the Work is a “United States work” and its registration status; and the evidence preserved and time remaining.

Our recommendation will identify the options: allowing restoration; approaching the subscriber about a license or voluntary removal; retracting the Notice (Section 6.6); referring the matter to litigation counsel (Section 6.5); or another path in Section 6.7.

The decision belongs to the Client alone. Only the Client may decide whether to sue, release the claim, license the use or retract. We do not file actions or instruct counsel to file without the Client’s written authorization. If no instruction reaches us before the restoration date, restoration will occur in the ordinary course.

We do not re-submit a Notice for the same material after a Counter-Notification unless, after a fresh review, materially new facts support it, such as a separate upload or an altered version, and the Client so instructs. Re-noticing restored material without new facts would circumvent § 512(g).

6.5 Filing an Action Within the Window: Registration and Practical Prerequisites

Registration. Under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in a “United States work” may be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made, subject to limited exceptions. Registration is made when the Copyright Office registers the copyright, not when the application is filed (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019)). Ordinary examination takes far longer than the window, so an unregistered United States Work generally cannot support a timely action. Other works are outside § 411(a) (Section 2.5; Section 8.2).

Expedited routes. The Copyright Office offers special handling, for an additional fee, for applications connected with pending or prospective litigation. It accelerates examination but guarantees neither registration nor timing. If registration is refused, § 411(a) permits suit once notice of the action, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. Preregistration under 17 U.S.C. § 408(f) is available only for certain classes of unpublished works being prepared for commercial distribution.

What the action must seek. The action must seek a court order restraining the subscriber’s infringing activity relating to the material on the Platform. Counsel will ordinarily request an injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502, which authorizes temporary and final injunctions to prevent or restrain infringement. A complaint seeking damages alone may not satisfy § 512(g)(2)(C).

Practical prerequisites. Counsel will typically need the Client Authorization and chain-of-title documents (Section 3.3); the registration certificate or refusal; dated copies of the Work and of the challenged material; and the Notice and Counter-Notification. Counsel makes its own pre-filing inquiry. Once the action is filed, counsel, or we at counsel’s direction, send notice of the filing, ordinarily with the file-stamped complaint, to the Platform’s Designated Agent before the restoration date.

6.6 Retracting or Withdrawing a Notice

Duty to correct. If we or the Client conclude that a Notice was submitted in error, for example because the use was licensed or fair, the material was misidentified or the Client does not control the Work, our policy is to retract the Notice promptly in writing, through the Platform’s retraction mechanism where one exists, and to inform the Client. We never make retraction of an erroneous Notice conditional on payment, a license or any other concession.

Commercial withdrawal. The Client may instruct us to withdraw a valid Notice, for instance after a license or settlement. Such a withdrawal does not by itself waive the Client’s rights in the Work.

Platform penalties. Whether the Platform restores the material, removes a copyright strike or reverses any other account-level consequence after a retraction is the Platform’s decision under its own policies. We cannot remove strikes or guarantee reinstatement. Retractions are recorded as described in Section 8.4.

6.7 Other Escalation Paths: Identification Subpoenas, the Copyright Claims Board and Litigation Counsel

Identification subpoenas. A copyright owner, or a person authorized to act on its behalf, may ask the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a Service Provider to identify an alleged infringer (17 U.S.C. § 512(h)(1)). The request must include (i) a copy of a notification described in § 512(c)(3)(A), (ii) a proposed subpoena, and (iii) a sworn declaration that the purpose is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that the information will be used only to protect rights under title 17 (§ 512(h)(2)). If the filing is in order, the clerk is to issue the subpoena expeditiously, and the Service Provider must expeditiously disclose information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer, to the extent available to it (§ 512(h)(3)–(5)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing subpoenas duces tecum apply as far as practicable (§ 512(h)(6)). With the Client’s authorization, we may help counsel prepare a request.

In Recording Industry Ass’n of America, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the court held that a § 512(h) subpoena may not issue to a Service Provider acting solely as a conduit under § 512(a), because it stores no material it could remove in response to a notification. Identifying a conduit provider’s subscriber generally requires suing an unnamed defendant and obtaining court leave for early discovery.

The Copyright Claims Board. The Board, established within the Copyright Office by 17 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1511, offers lower-cost adjudication. Participation is voluntary: a respondent may opt out, ending the proceeding without prejudice. Monetary relief is capped at $30,000 per proceeding, and respondents residing outside the United States generally cannot be named. Because the Board is not a court and cannot order a respondent to stop an activity absent agreement, a Board claim should not be relied on to prevent restoration.

Litigation counsel. Litigation is escalated to independent, licensed US litigation counsel engaged by and representing the Client (Section 1.4). We hand over the evidence file and coordinate as the Client directs, on the terms and fees in the Order Form, and guarantee no outcome. Subpoenas and legal process served on the Company itself are addressed in Section 7.8.

Article 7 Our Own Services: Designated Agent, Notices to Us and Repeat Infringers

This Article explains how to complain about material stored on our own Site or Services, how the person who stored it can respond, and how we deal with users who repeatedly infringe.

7.1 When We Act as a Service Provider

This Article concerns the second role described in Section 1.2: our position as a Service Provider operating the Site and Services, a “provider of online services” within 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B). The safe harbor in § 512(c) covers only infringement “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” On our Site and Services, such material is limited and may include:

1. Scan Requests, each consisting of a YouTube channel URL and the details submitted with it. The videos at that URL are hosted by YouTube, not by us, so a complaint about them belongs in YouTube’s own copyright process (see Section 5.2);
2. files, messages and other material sent to us through the Site; and
3. if you have an account or portal access under an Order Form, content that you or your authorized users upload.

Material we create, select or publish ourselves, such as the Site’s text and graphics, is not stored at the direction of a user and falls outside the § 512 safe harbors. We nonetheless accept complaints about it under Section 7.3 and remove or modify material where a complaint is well founded.

This Article does not govern material on third-party Platforms; to dispute a Notice we sent for a Client, see Article 6.

7.2 Our Designated Agent and the Copyright Office Directory

Section 512(c)(2) conditions the § 512(c) safe harbor on a Service Provider designating an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement, publishing the agent’s name, address, telephone number and email address on its website in a location accessible to the public, and providing the same information to the U.S. Copyright Office. Our Designated Agent is:

The Copyright Office maintains the public directory of designated agents as an electronic system, through which designations are filed, amended and renewed under 37 C.F.R. § 201.38. Under that regulation, a designation expires and becomes invalid three years after registration unless renewed, and a lapsed designation does not satisfy § 512(c)(2). Our practice is to renew before expiry and to amend whenever the information changes. If the details above ever differ from the directory, send your Notice to the directory details and copy the email address above. A telephone call is not a Notice.

7.3 How to Send Us a Notice

A Notice concerning our Site or Services must contain substantially all six elements of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A), which are set out in the table in Section 4.2. To be effective, it must be “a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider.”

Delivery. Email your Notice to Designated Agent email or post it to Designated Agent postal address. A Notice sent anywhere else, including a contact form, a sales or support address, an employee or a social-media account, may not reach the Designated Agent and may not be effective.

Helpful optional information. Although not required, the following helps us act quickly: the subject line “DMCA Notice”; the exact URL or other visible identifier of each item; the Work’s registration number, if any (see Section 2.5); and whether you are the owner or an agent and, if an agent, the owner’s name.

If your Notice substantially complies only with § 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)–(iv), we will attempt to contact you as described in Section 4.5. Senders are bound by the standards governing our own Notices, including liability under § 512(f) for knowing material misrepresentations (Section 4.7).

7.4 How We Process Notices About Our Services

Section 512(c)(1)(A)–(C) conditions the safe harbor on the provider lacking knowledge of infringement or acting expeditiously once aware, receiving no directly attributable financial benefit from infringement it can control, and responding expeditiously to compliant notifications. On receiving a Notice that substantially complies with § 512(c)(3)(A), we:

1. log the Notice, assign a reference number and locate the material;
2. remove, or disable access to, the material expeditiously, as § 512(c)(1)(C) requires; what is expeditious depends on the circumstances, and we promise no fixed period (see Section 8.6);
3. take reasonable steps promptly to notify the user who stored the material, as § 512(g)(2)(A) requires, ordinarily by email with a copy or summary of the Notice and a reference to Section 7.5; and
4. preserve the material, the Notice and related correspondence so that the material can be restored after a valid Counter-Notification and the policy in Section 7.6 can be applied (retention: Section 8.4).

We act likewise, without waiting for a Notice, on knowledge or awareness of the kind described in § 512(c)(1)(A). Under § 512(g)(1), good-faith removal creates no liability “regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing,” and removal is not a finding of infringement. Removals for violating our Terms of Service are governed by the Terms, not this Article.

7.5 How to Send Us a Counter-Notification

If material you stored with us was removed in response to a Notice and you believe in good faith that this resulted from mistake or misidentification, you may send a Counter-Notification to our Designated Agent at the details in Section 7.2. The four required elements in 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(A)–(D) are set out in Section 6.2. Please use the subject line “DMCA Counter-Notification” and include our reference number and the identifier of the removed material. This procedure applies only to material removed under a Notice described in § 512(c)(1)(C), not to removals under our Terms of Service.

On our own Services, we, not a Platform, run the statutory clock. On receiving a Counter-Notification that substantially complies with § 512(g)(3), we:

1. promptly give a copy to the person who sent the Notice and inform that person that we will replace the material, or cease disabling access to it, in 10 Business Days (§ 512(g)(2)(B)); and
2. replace the material not less than 10, nor more than 14, Business Days after receipt, unless our Designated Agent first receives notice from that person that it has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on our system or network (§ 512(g)(2)(C)).

Business Days are counted under Section 1.6. Under § 512(g)(4), our compliance with § 512(g)(2) does not expose us to infringement liability for the material identified in the Notice. We do not judge the merits of the underlying dispute.

7.6 Repeat-Infringer Policy

A Service Provider is eligible for the safe harbors only if it:

has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers

17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A)

We adopt this Section as that policy and inform users of it through this Policy and our Terms of Service. It applies to anyone with an account or portal access and, to the extent we can identify them, to anyone who submits Scan Requests or material through the Site.

In BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018), the court held that repeat infringers under § 512(i) are not limited to adjudicated infringers, and that a policy must be reasonably implemented in practice, not merely on paper. In deciding whether termination is appropriate, we weigh:

1. the number of valid, unretracted Notices identifying material the user stored, and the period over which they arrived;
2. whether the user counter-notified and whether the sender then sued; a Notice followed by restoration under Section 7.5 without suit will ordinarily not count on its own, though we may consider the underlying facts;
3. any credible claim of ownership, license or fair use;
4. any court judgment or other final determination of infringement against the user;
5. the number of Works and Rights Holders affected, and whether the conduct appears deliberate or commercial; and
6. whether the conduct continued after a warning.

We do not count Notices we determine were defective, mistaken, retracted or abusive (see Section 8.3). No fixed number of Notices triggers termination automatically: a single flagrant instance may justify it, while several Notices may not where the user’s defenses are substantial. We may warn, restrict, suspend or terminate, and a terminated user may not return under another identity. For a Client, termination of the Order Form follows its terms. We keep records sufficient to apply this policy consistently, and a user may ask the Designated Agent in writing to reconsider.

7.7 Standard Technical Measures

Section 512(i)(1)(B) further requires a Service Provider to accommodate, and not interfere with, “standard technical measures.” Under § 512(i)(2), these are technical measures used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works that have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process; are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.

We accommodate, and do not interfere with, any measure meeting that definition. As a matter of policy, we do not remove or alter copyright notices, watermarks or other copyright management information in material submitted to us (see Section 2.8). Whether any particular technology qualifies is unsettled, and we do not represent that any does, including any Platform’s Rights-Management Tool. Under § 512(m)(1), we need not monitor our Services except as consistent with a qualifying measure; our monitoring of Platforms for Clients is a contracted Service, not an undertaking to monitor our own systems.

7.8 Subpoenas and Other Legal Process Directed to Us

The identification-subpoena procedure of 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) is described in Section 6.7. On receiving a properly issued § 512(h) subpoena that accompanies or follows a Notice meeting § 512(c)(3)(A), we will expeditiously disclose the information it requires, to the extent we hold it. Our Privacy Policy describes what we hold.

We also respond, as the law requires, to civil subpoenas under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, court orders and valid government requests. To the extent the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., applies to our Services, it restricts voluntary disclosure (§ 2702) and governs compelled disclosure to government (§ 2703), and we disclose only what it permits. We may object to overbroad or defective process.

Unless prohibited by law or court order (for example, under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)), or unless notice would be futile or create a risk of harm, we make reasonable efforts to notify the affected user before disclosure so that the user can seek a protective order or move to quash. Process must be served as applicable law requires; a courtesy copy may be sent to legal contact email or mailing address, but email is not effective service unless the law or a written agreement provides otherwise. Complaints that a Client has misused our Services are addressed in Section 8.3.

Article 8 Non-Copyright Claims, International Notices, Abuse and General Provisions

This Article covers non-copyright complaints, foreign matters and abusive submissions, and sets out our rules on records, confidentiality, timing, disclaimers, changes and contact.

8.1 Trademark, Right-of-Publicity and Other Non-Copyright Complaints

The notice-and-takedown system in 17 U.S.C. § 512 applies only to claimed infringement of copyright, not to trademarks, names, likenesses, reputations or private information. We therefore never send a Notice, or use a Platform’s copyright channel, for a claim that does not rest on copyright. Presenting such a grievance as copyright infringement may be a misrepresentation of the kind addressed in § 512(f) (see Section 4.7).

Where the Client Authorization extends to non-copyright matters, we route them as follows:

The right of publicity is a matter of state law, protected by statute, at common law or both, and the attributes protected, the commercial-use requirement and post-mortem rights vary from state to state. California’s statute, for example, addresses the knowing use of another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on products or for advertising or selling without consent; New York’s addresses use of a living person’s name, portrait or picture for advertising or trade purposes without written consent.

47 U.S.C. § 230 generally shields Platforms from liability for user content, subject to an intellectual-property carve-out:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2)

Federal courts of appeals have divided on whether the carve-out reaches state-law intellectual-property claims such as the right of publicity. The Ninth Circuit has limited it to federal intellectual property, Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), while the Third Circuit has applied it to a state right-of-publicity claim, Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204 (3d Cir. 2021). Because no statutory notice-and-takedown procedure comparable to § 512 exists for these claims, a Platform’s response depends largely on its own policies. Where one item raises both copyright and non-copyright issues, such as a reupload that also misuses a Client’s logo, we file separate complaints, each confined to its own legal basis.

8.2 Notices From or Concerning Other Countries

We do not advise on foreign law. Within that limit:

1. Foreign works. Under 17 U.S.C. § 104, foreign works are protected in the United States on several bases, including where the author is a national or domiciliary of a treaty party or the work was first published in one. The United States has adhered to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works since March 1, 1989. A foreign work that is not a “United States work” is exempt from the registration prerequisite to suit in § 411(a), although registration remains relevant to the remedies described in Section 2.5.
2. Foreign Platforms. US copyright law does not generally reach infringing acts occurring entirely abroad. Platforms may restrict material only in certain territories, and foreign hosts may follow local procedures rather than § 512.
3. European Union. Hosting services offered in the European Union must operate notice-and-action mechanisms under Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (the Digital Services Act). Online content-sharing service providers are also subject to Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790, which applies through each Member State’s national law, with differing details.
4. Other systems. Some countries, such as Canada, use a notice-and-notice system under which an intermediary forwards a rights holder’s notice to its user rather than removing material on receipt.

Where a matter turns on foreign law, we may engage independent local counsel at the Client’s direction and on the terms of the Order Form. Notices about our own Services that come from abroad or cite foreign law are processed under Article 7, without conceding that any foreign law applies to us.

8.3 Abusive, Fraudulent and Bad-Faith Submissions

Liability for misrepresentation is addressed in Section 4.7. This Section describes our response to abuse by anyone, including:

• requests from persons impersonating a Rights Holder or its representative, including through forged authorizations or spoofed email domains;
• requests to use Notices to suppress criticism, commentary, reporting or lawful competition rather than to remedy infringement;
• false Counter-Notifications, including those submitted by someone other than the affected user or giving fictitious identifying information;
• Scan Requests for YouTube channels that the requester neither owns nor is authorized to represent; and
• communications that falsely claim to come from us.

A Scan Request does not authorize us to take any action. We may limit the information we provide in response to a Scan Request until ownership or authority is verified under Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

Where we reasonably believe a submission is abusive, we may, in our discretion and without prior notice:

1. refuse or stop processing it;
2. suspend or terminate the engagement or access under our Terms of Service and any Order Form;
3. retract any affected Notice under Section 6.6 and inform the Platform concerned;
4. preserve the submission and related records as evidence;
5. refer the matter to law enforcement where we believe in good faith that the conduct may be unlawful; and
6. pursue the remedies available to us by law or contract.

If you receive a Notice or other communication that purports to come from us and you doubt its authenticity, contact us using the details in Section 8.8.

8.4 Records and Retention

We keep records sufficient to show the basis for each action we take, including Client Authorizations and their amendments or revocations; chain-of-title documents; each Notice, Claim, Counter-Notification and retraction with related Platform correspondence; records of the review described in Section 3.5; and records of abusive submissions.

We apply no single fixed retention period. We retain each record as long as reasonably necessary to demonstrate our authority, respond to disputes, meet Order Form obligations, and support or defend claims. Civil copyright claims are subject to the three-year limitation period in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), and because accrual may be disputed (see Section 2.6), we may keep records well beyond three years from the underlying event. When litigation is pending or reasonably anticipated, or legal process requires it, we suspend deletion of relevant records until the hold is released. At the end of the applicable period we delete or de-identify records, or return them to the Client where the Order Form so provides.

Personal information in these records is handled under our Privacy Policy, including any rights you may have under applicable state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq., subject to the exceptions those laws provide, including for the exercise or defense of legal claims.

8.5 Confidentiality of Client Information

“Client Information” means non-public information that a Client provides to us or that we generate for the Client, including unreleased content, reference files, chain-of-title documents, revenue data and enforcement strategy. We use Client Information only to deliver the Services to that Client and as required by law, and limit access to personnel and contractors who need it and are bound by confidentiality obligations.

Some disclosure is inherent in enforcement. A Notice must identify the complaining party and the Work; Platforms commonly forward Notices to the uploader, and some submit them to databases such as Lumen (see Section 5.7). Notices may also be produced in litigation. To minimize disclosure, we:

• identify ourselves as the authorized agent and give our own contact details, rather than the Client’s, where the Platform permits;
• describe Works in no more detail than the Platform and the statute require; and
• do not submit unreleased material to a Platform without the Client’s instruction.

Contractual confidentiality obligations are set out in the Order Form, which controls in the event of conflict. Legal process seeking Client Information is handled under Section 7.8, and we notify the Client where the law allows.

8.6 Response Times

Except as expressly committed in an Order Form, we do not guarantee any turnaround time for reviewing a match, preparing or submitting a Notice, or answering an inquiry. Timing depends on factors including:

• the completeness of the information supplied;
• whether ownership, chain of title or authority must first be verified;
• the difficulty of the fair-use and licensing assessment;
• the volume of matches and any additional review required for bulk batches (see Section 4.6);
• the availability and limits of the Platform’s channel; and
• language, jurisdiction, Business Days and US federal holidays.

We prioritize urgent matters, including unauthorized live streams, pre-release leaks and time-limited releases, without dispensing with the review required by Article 3.

8.7 No Legal Advice; Disclaimers

As stated in Section 1.4, this Policy is not legal advice. In addition:

1. No guarantee of Platform action. Platforms decide independently whether to remove, restrict, restore or monetize material and whether to impose account penalties. We do not guarantee any removal, Claim outcome, revenue recovery or damages, or that monitoring will detect every infringing copy.
2. Summaries of law. Our descriptions of the law are general and current as of the Last Updated date; the governing text controls.
3. No waiver; no third-party rights. Nothing in this Policy waives any right, defense or remedy of the Company or any Client, or creates contractual rights in favor of any person except as stated in our Terms of Service or an Order Form.

Warranty disclaimers and limitations of liability are set out in our Terms of Service and, for Clients, the Order Form.

8.8 Changes to This Policy and How to Contact Us

This Policy is effective October 1, 2026 and was last updated October 1, 2026. We may amend it by posting a revised version here with a new Last Updated date. Unless the revision states otherwise, changes take effect on posting and apply prospectively; a matter already in progress continues under the version in effect when it began. Clients receive notice of material changes as their Order Form provides.

Questions about this Policy may be directed to Company legal name as follows: