Newsgator Daily

<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that copyright holders can issue online takedown notices based on a subjective belief of copyright infringement, even when that belief is unreasonable and self-serving. The case was brought by our client, Channel 781 News, after takedown notices temporarily shut down the citizen journalism group&#039;s YouTube channel. We think the court set the bar far too low for copyright takedowns, and we plan to appeal.</p> <p>Channel 781 is a group of independent, volunteer journalists who report on local affairs in Waltham, Massachusetts. That includes posting short, newsworthy excerpts from recordings of city government meetings produced by Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), the city&#039;s public access television station.</p> <p>In September 2023, WCAC sent three copyright takedown notices to YouTube targeting fifteen of Channel 781&#039;s videos. YouTube removed the videos and, under its three-strikes policy, temporarily disabled Channel 781&#039;s entire account—just days before a local election.</p> <p>Represented by EFF and Brown Rudnick LLP, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/fair-use-right-ignoring-it-has-consequences">Channel 781 sued WCAC under Section 512(f)</a> of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provides a remedy when a copyright holder knowingly makes material misrepresentations in a takedown notice.</p> <h3><strong>When Is a Copyright Holder Responsible for a Wrongful Takedown?</strong></h3> <p>Fair use is the legal right to use copyrighted material without permission, when doing so serves purposes like criticism, commentary, or creating something new. Fair use is not copyright infringement, and courts have recognized that copyright holders <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/important-win-fair-use-dancing-baby-lawsuit">must consider fair use</a> before using the DMCA&#039;s powerful notice-and-takedown process.</p> <p>In this case, Channel 781 argued that WCAC accused it of copyright infringement without making a good-faith assessment of whether its videos were fair use.</p> <p>The evidence showed that WCAC&#039;s analysis was seriously deficient. The court noted that Chris Wangler, the WCAC employee who sent the notices, didn’t consider several facts relevant to fair use. For instance, Channel 781 used relatively small portions of WCAC&#039;s recordings, and the underlying recordings were factual public meetings, not a creative work. WCAC also gave little or no weight to whether Channel 781&#039;s use harmed any market for the recordings.</p> <p>There’s also strong evidence that WCAC had motivations unrelated to copyright. WCAC objected to its footage being used to criticize local officials and advance political viewpoints. And WCAC sent the takedown notices during a local election, shortly after Channel 781 posted a campaign statement by Waltham&#039;s mayor that WCAC had mistakenly made available online.</p> <p>Despite this evidence, the court concluded that WCAC had a subjective good-faith belief that Channel 781&#039;s videos were infringing. We disagree.</p> <h3><strong>A Subjective Belief Should Not Be a Free Pass</strong></h3> <p>Channel 781 argued that a copyright holder’s belief that material is infringing must be both genuinely held and objectively reasonable. WCAC argued that a subjective good-faith belief is good enough. Unfortunately, the court agreed with WCAC.</p> <p>The court emphasized that Wangler had read up on fair use, watched a short YouTube video explaining the doctrine, and distinguished between videos he thought might qualify as fair use and those he believed did not. That was enough, the court concluded, to establish subjective good faith—even though Wangler’s analysis ignored important facts relevant to fair use. As the court put it, Section 512(f) does not require “a perfect or even reasonable fair use analysis.”</p> <p>That is an alarmingly low bar for copyright holders seeking to remove someone else’s speech from the internet. A DMCA takedown can cause lawful speech to disappear almost immediately. As Channel 781 experienced, multiple notices can even result in an entire channel being disabled.</p> <p>If a copyright holder can avoid liability despite a cursory, incomplete, and objectively unreasonable analysis that ignores important facts—even when there’s evidence that the copyright holder wanted to suppress critical speech—the obligation to consider fair use risks becoming little more than a box-checking exercise. That interpretation threatens to strip Section 512(f) of much of its force.</p> <h3><strong>Even Under a Subjective Standard, WCAC Fell Short</strong></h3> <p>Even accepting the court’s subjective standard, WCAC&#039;s cursory consideration of fair use should not have been enough. WCAC disregarded important fair use considerations, and the record included statements suggesting that it believed people generally needed permission to reuse its footage—an understanding at odds with fair use. There was also evidence that WCAC objected to Channel 781&#039;s political use of its footage, and had motivations for the takedowns unrelated to copyright.</p> <p>Taken together, these facts raise serious questions about whether WCAC genuinely considered fair use, rather than using copyright as a rationale for removing material it did not like.</p> <h3><strong>The Court Did Not Find That Channel 781&#039;s Videos Infringed</strong></h3> <p>Importantly, the court&#039;s analysis recognized Channel 781’s strong fair use argument: the group used short excerpts from factual recordings of public government proceedings, selecting clips for their newsworthiness, and making them easier for the public and journalists to find, share, and discuss.</p> <p>The opinion even states that WCAC&#039;s fair use analysis “may have been deficient.” But under the purely subjective standard it adopted, the court concluded that it could not reject WCAC&#039;s professed belief—even if the court itself “would have reached the opposite conclusion” on fair use.</p> <p>We plan to appeal this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Copyright law should not allow a rightsholder to suppress critical reporting or political speech through the DMCA and escape accountability simply by claiming it believed the speech was infringing. Section 512(f) is supposed to provide protection against wrongful takedowns. We will keep fighting to ensure that safeguard actually protects people. </p> </div></div></div>