DMCA counter-notice document pack

Most DMCA takedowns are wrong, fair use, or sent in bad faith. The counter-notice is the federal procedure for getting your content back — strict in form, generous in spirit, and underused.

Who this pack is for

Your content was removed from a platform — YouTube, Vimeo, Etsy, Shopify, Twitter, Instagram, Bandcamp, GitHub — because someone sent a DMCA takedown notice claiming the content infringes their copyright. You believe the takedown was wrong: you own the rights, the use is fair use, the complainant misidentified the work, or you have a license. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act gives you a counter-notice procedure (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)) that requires the platform to restore your content unless the complainant files a federal copyright lawsuit within 10–14 business days.

When to use it

Send the counter-notice as soon as you confirm the takedown was wrong — there's no formal deadline, but every day your content is down is a day of lost reach, traffic, or revenue. Read the original takedown notice carefully first; it must include the complainant's contact information and a description of the infringing work. The counter-notice has strict required elements (the pack drafts all of them) and you sign under penalty of perjury, so be sure of your position before filing. Do not file a counter-notice for content that was actually infringing or where your fair-use argument is weak; the complainant can sue you in federal court, and frivolous counter-notices have led to attorney-fee awards under the DMCA's misrepresentation provision.

What it doesn't cover

This is the federal DMCA counter-notice procedure for content hosted by U.S. service providers. It does not handle takedowns under non-DMCA frameworks (right-of-publicity removals, content moderation policy violations, terms-of-service strikes that aren't copyright-based). It does not work for hosted content outside the DMCA's safe-harbor scope. It does not address EU Article 17 / DSA takedowns, UK CDPA takedowns, or other international IP regimes. It does not advise on whether a particular use is fair use — that's a four-factor analysis under 17 U.S.C. § 107 that depends on facts (purpose, nature of the work, amount used, effect on the market). If your fair-use case is borderline, talk to an IP attorney before filing.

Common questions

What information must the counter-notice contain?

Per 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3): your physical or electronic signature; identification of the material removed and where it appeared; a statement under penalty of perjury that you have a good-faith belief the material was removed by mistake or misidentification; your name, address, telephone number; and consent to federal court jurisdiction in the district where you reside (or a U.S. district where the service provider is located, if you're outside the U.S.). The pack form includes all of these in the standard order.

What happens after I send it?

The platform forwards your counter-notice to the original complainant, then waits 10–14 business days. If the complainant files a federal copyright lawsuit and notifies the platform, your content stays down. If the complainant doesn't file within the window, the platform must restore your content. The waiting period is a feature: it gives the complainant time to put up or shut up, and most don't sue.

Will the original complainant get my address?

Yes — the DMCA requires the counter-notice to include your contact information and consent to jurisdiction. The platform forwards the entire counter-notice to the complainant. This trips up some users who are uncomfortable having their address shared with someone who's already attacked their content. If you're concerned, you can use a registered agent or a legitimate business address (P.O. boxes are not always accepted), but you cannot file a counter-notice anonymously.

What's a good-faith reason for the counter-notice?

The most common: (1) the use was fair use (commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, education) under 17 U.S.C. § 107; (2) you actually own the work (the takedown was filed by someone who didn't have rights to it); (3) you have a license to use the work; (4) the complainant misidentified the material — you uploaded something different, or the takedown attached an incorrect URL; (5) the work is in the public domain (e.g., U.S. government works, expired copyrights). Pick the one that fits and write a one-paragraph explanation. The pack's letter draft has a free-form field for this.

Can I sue the complainant for a bad-faith takedown?

Yes — 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) creates a cause of action for misrepresentation in DMCA notices. A complainant who knowingly misrepresents that material is infringing is liable for damages, costs, and attorney fees incurred by the alleged infringer (you) and the service provider. Successful § 512(f) claims are uncommon — courts require actual knowledge of the misrepresentation — but the right exists. The famous Lenz v. Universal case (the 'dancing baby' case) established that complainants must consider fair use before sending takedowns.

What if the platform won't restore my content even after the waiting period?

Document the timeline (when you filed, how the platform acknowledged, when the 10–14 business day window expired) and escalate within the platform first (most have a DMCA appeals or trust-and-safety contact). If the platform refuses to restore content where the complainant didn't sue, they may lose their DMCA safe-harbor protection — meaning they're potentially liable to you for taking down non-infringing content. Most large platforms ultimately restore in this scenario; small platforms vary.

Should I get a lawyer first?

If your content is high-value (commercial channel, e-commerce listing with significant revenue, original work being commercialized), yes. If your fair-use argument is anything other than obvious, yes. The pack's draft is a competent first pass, but the perjury declaration and the consent to federal jurisdiction are real legal commitments. For low-stakes content, the pack's draft is enough; for higher stakes, an IP attorney's review for $200–$500 is worth it.

Sources

Primary legal sources cited above. These link to free, public versions of the statutes, regulations, and case law referenced in this pack.

Pike provides plain-language legal information, not legal advice. State and local rules change. If money, custody, or your housing is on the line, talk to a licensed attorney or your local legal aid office.