5 Warning Signs a Copyright Notice May Be False

A recent article by BIRN, publishers behind the website Balkan Insight, claims that they were hit with two false copyright notices, both of which were aimed at articles critical of Yasam Ayavefe, a man the publication describes as a “Turkish fraudster.”

In their case, the host forwarded the claims on to BIRN directly, who investigated them and found the notices to be false. Though the articles never came down, the organization called for hosts to take a more active role in verifying copyright notices and preventing false notices.

However, that is easier said than done. As someone who serves as a DMCA agent for a large number of sites and organizations, false notices are, in general, very rare. Though I have seen a few notices with issues, it’s nowhere near enough to justify spending significant amounts of time verifying every notice that comes in, especially ones from known filers.

That said, there are warning signs that hosts can and should look out for. These are not sure-fire ways to tell if a notice is false, but rather, warning signs that a notice deserves a closer look.

Ignoring a copyright notice, in general, is risky. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), protects hosts from liability as long as they follow the notice-and-takedown procedure. As such, it’s generally safer to process a notice than not to.

However, I don’t believe that gives hosts a complete pass when it comes to clearly false notices. Hosts should be aware that false notices do exist and be looking for some of the clear warning signs.

To that end, here are a few:

Disclosure: I am not a lawyer. Though I have extensive experience both as a filer of DMCA notices and as a DMCA agent processing ones for sites, nothing in this should be considered legal advice.

1: Notice Was Filed Directly By an Individual

To be clear, individuals can and do file legitimate takedown notices daily. Some file more notices than various companies that operate in that space. However, the vast majority of notices come from either lawyers or services that specialize in filing copyright notices.

The issue with individual-filed copyright notices is less about deliberately filing false takedowns and more about misunderstanding the law, the exact issue that is taking place or the technical challenges of filing a copyright notice.

The vast majority of “false” takedown notices are actually simple errors. Though errors can happen to literally anyone, as YouTube’s data shows, requests filed via their web form (the only way for individuals to file) were many times more likely to be invalid than any other approach. 

This includes filing a copyright claim for non-copyright reasons (such as another abuse issue), misunderstanding copyright law, or simply not understand what the copyright takedown process is meant for.

Mistakes are much more common here, and copyright notices filed by individuals, especially unknown individuals, typically warrant a closer look.

2: The Original Links are On Free Services

In the notices sent to BIRN, the “original links” were both articles hosted on free services. One was Tumblr and the other Blogspot.

Once again, though legitimate content is posted on those sites and can be the subject of a takedown notice, it’s worth noting that these platforms are also routinely abused by those sending false notices. 

Not only is it free to set up a presence on such sites, but it’s also easy to predate posts, making them appear to be newer than they actually are.

Such notices are worth looking into, especially if there are other reasons that a person may want the alleged infringing material removed.

3: The Notice is Vague

Most legitimate copyright notices will contain very specific information about where the original material is, where the alleged infringing material is, and how that material is infringing.

A copyright notice that is vague in these (or other) areas is a clear warning sign. For example, a notice may target an entire website while reporting a single image, or might report a single work as infringing though it’s vague how it copies the (seemingly very different) source material.

To be clear, some vagueness can be allowed and sometimes even encouraged. When reporting numerous works, rightsholders are allowed to submit a representative list of infringements rather than listing each individually. However, at least that representative list should be specific.

Also, vagueness is, once again, not necessarily a sign of malice. Many legitimate rightsholders fail to get complete URLs, either due to confusion about the process or a lack of technical understanding.

No matter the reason, it’s worthwhile for hosts to clarify vague notices to ensure that no non-infringing material is removed. 

4: The Contact Information is Amiss

In a copyright notice, the filer is required to provide information that is reasonable to both identify and contact them. Under the DMCA, this includes “address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address”. 

However, with a dubious notice, this information will almost always be false. 

Sometimes, this can be difficult to see as a malicious filer can just copy legitimate contact information, just not information relevant to them. However, often times, they just put in clearly false information.

This can include addresses that are clearly fake, phone numbers that don’t match the address (such as being from a different country) and contact details that simply appear off.

If the contact information is incomplete or looks unusual, it’s worth investigating further, as this is a common tactic of those filing malicious takedown notices and those who are making mistakes.

5: The Email Address Doesn’t Match

Finally, look at the email address that the actual notice was sent from. Does it match the contact information in the copyright notice? If not, does it at least match the domain/company/law firm?

One of the biggest warning signs that a copyright notice is false is when it comes from an email address that clearly has nothing to do with the rightsholder. Those filing knowingly false copyright notices will often use throwaway email addresses on free services, such as Gmail.

If a notice is billed as coming from a major company, whether a rightsholder or a DMCA notice service provider, but was actually sent from a free email address (or a different domain), there’s good reason to be wary and to follow up on the notice.

Obviously, a legitimate notice can be sent from a free email address, but a major law firm, film studio or other large company is not going to use such an address to send a DMCA notice. So, if the notice claims to be from Sony but is sent from a gmail.com address, there’s reason to be suspicious.

Bottom Line

Fortunately, I haven’t had to deal with any deliberately false DMCA notices as a DMCA agent. The worst I’ve seen is filers who are legitimately confused about either the law or the issue at play.

That said, I do agree that hosts have an obligation to at least be vigilant with the notices they receive. While it is not realistic to expect hosts, especially larger ones, to do a thorough investigation of every notice received, they are the only line of defense against false notices and should be wary of obvious issues.

Obviously, mistakes happen when filing notices. Likewise, mistakes happen on the host side as well and notices get missed, wrong content gets removed and clearly false notices get missed.

The main thing is that everyone involved in the process can and should be making a good faith effort to reduce or eliminate those mistakes. Part of that for hosts should involve increasing awareness of false notices and being aware of the warning signs.

While, obviously, legitimate notices can have some of these issues, these are reasons to investigate a notice or request additional information, not outright reject them. 

Outright rejecting a notice is sometimes appropriate, but it’s an action that should be taken very seriously and, most likely, run by your legal representative. 

Still, in the end, every host and DMCA agent should be able to recognize the warning sings of a problematic copyright notice, including the ones above.