DMCA Counter-Notices
& Demand Letter Response

A DMCA counter-notice is a formal response under §512(g) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act telling the platform that the takedown was filed in error. The platform must restore your content within 10 to 14 business days unless the original notifier files a federal lawsuit in that window. The counter-notice carries a perjury statement and consents to federal jurisdiction, which is why it is not a casual move.

Six elements are required by §512(g)(3): your physical or electronic signature, identification of the removed content and where it appeared, a sworn statement that the removal was a mistake or misidentification, your name and address, consent to federal court jurisdiction in your district (or where the platform is located if you are outside the U.S.), and acceptance of service from the original notifier. We draft all six in the format the platform expects.

When you own the content, when you have a license, when your use qualifies as fair use, or when the claimant does not actually own what they claim. If none of those apply, the counter-notice can backfire because it consents to federal jurisdiction and starts the lawsuit clock. We review the underlying claim before any filing and surface the option that protects you, including options other than counter-notice when those are stronger.

Fair use is a defense codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 and applies to commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, education, and other transformative uses. Courts evaluate four factors: purpose, nature of the work, amount used, and market effect. The Ninth Circuit's Lenz v. Universal Music decision held that copyright owners must form a good-faith belief that the use is not fair use BEFORE sending a takedown.

The platform must restore your content within 10 to 14 business days unless the original notifier files a federal infringement lawsuit in that window. If a suit is filed, your counter-notice's jurisdictional consent applies and the case proceeds in your home district (or where the platform is located if you are outside the U.S.). If the matter escalates beyond settlement to a federal complaint, we coordinate referral to litigation counsel.

These letters typically reference a photograph reverse-image-matched to your site and ask for a four-figure settlement. The right reply depends on the registration status of the work, the actual nature of the use, any fair-use posture, and whether the claimant can actually prove ownership. Settling at the wrong number sets a precedent for further demands; ignoring can escalate to a federal complaint. We map the response that closes the matter at a defensible number.

A fair use opinion letter is a written legal analysis applying the four §107 factors to a specific use, with case-law citations and a risk assessment. Distributors and E&O insurance carriers typically require one before they will clear a film, documentary, or substantial creator work for distribution. The opinion also strengthens a counter-notice or demand letter response by documenting the good-faith fair-use posture the Lenz court requires copyright holders to consider.

§512(f) makes anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing liable for damages, costs, and attorney's fees incurred by the alleged infringer. The bar in most circuits is subjective bad faith. We surface the §512(f) angle when the takedown looks abusive and document the basis for a misrepresentation claim; pursuing the actual recovery requires federal court litigation, which we coordinate through referral counsel.

A counter-notice is the statutory §512(g) procedure for restoring content removed under the DMCA. A platform appeal is the platform's internal review process under its own terms of service. Strikes can be challenged through both paths in parallel, and the order matters when the channel is one strike away from termination. Channel-termination defense work flows through our Platform Account Reinstatement & Appeals page; this page handles the §512 statutory side.

When automated matching triggers a takedown on AI-generated or AI-assisted content that is your own, the §512(g) counter-notice procedure applies the same way it does for human-flagged work. The 2025 USCO Part 2 Copyrightability Report clarifies how AI-authored work is treated for ownership; the misrepresentation rules under §512(f) apply when the original notifier knew or should have known the match was wrong.