Channel 781 News v. WCAC — Subjective Good Faith Defeats DMCA Takedown Claim

Background

Channel 781 News, a YouTube outlet covering local government in Waltham, Massachusetts, posted excerpts from recordings of municipal meetings. Waltham Community Access Corporation, an independent contractor that produced the recordings for the city’s public-access channel, sent YouTube takedown notices targeting fifteen clips. YouTube removed the videos and temporarily disabled Channel 781’s account.

Channel 781 sued under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), which creates liability for knowingly making material misrepresentations in a DMCA takedown notice. It argued that WCAC failed to account adequately for fair use before asserting infringement. After the claim survived an earlier motion to dismiss, both sides sought summary judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted summary judgment to WCAC. Under the governing subjective-good-faith standard, liability required evidence that WCAC did not actually believe the targeted videos infringed. An unreasonable or legally weak fair-use assessment, standing alone, was not enough.

The record showed that WCAC’s representative researched fair use, reviewed explanatory material, distinguished between videos that might qualify and videos he thought merely reproduced meeting footage, and limited notices to the latter group. That process may have produced an overbroad or deficient fair-use conclusion, but no reasonable jury could find that WCAC intentionally ignored fair use or lacked a subjective belief in infringement. Alleged censorship motives did not change the result because WCAC had actually considered fair use. Nor did the evidence establish willful blindness.

Key Takeaways

• A Section 512(f) plaintiff must show a knowing misrepresentation, not merely that the sender’s fair-use analysis was objectively unreasonable.
• A documented, even imperfect, pre-notice fair-use review can defeat an inference of subjective bad faith.
• Evidence of an improper motive does not establish Section 512(f) liability when the sender genuinely considered whether the use was authorized.

Why It Matters

The ruling underscores how difficult it is to recover for erroneous DMCA notices. Online speakers may lose content and account access even where a sender’s copyright position is debatable, yet Section 512(f) generally turns on the sender’s actual belief. Rights owners should document a work-specific fair-use review before sending notices. Platforms, journalists, and public-access advocates should recognize that copyright ownership in recordings of government proceedings can still create removal risk.

Surfaced via Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog.