Timeless Production v. Dong — False YouTube Counter-Notices Help Support $177,500 Award

Background

Timeless Production FZ LLC produces copyrighted videos and thumbnails for the Tekniq YouTube channel. It alleged that Pham Tien Dong, an operator of the WOW Tech and WOW TV YouTube channels, copied five Tekniq videos and a thumbnail, removed Tekniq branding, and incorporated the material into videos on his own channels.

Timeless sent infringement notices to YouTube, which temporarily removed the challenged videos. According to the complaint, Pham then submitted counter-notices falsely asserting that the material was his original content. Those counter-notices required Timeless to show that it had taken legal action to prevent the videos from being restored. After the court authorized service by email on Pham in Vietnam, he did not appear, and the clerk entered default.

The Court’s Holding

The court entered default judgment on copyright infringement, removal of copyright management information, and misrepresentation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court found that Pham reproduced protected audiovisual material without authorization and deliberately removed Tekniq’s logo or branding. The false counter-notices also supported liability under the DMCA because they misrepresented that the challenged uploads were original content.

The court did not accept every theory or requested remedy. It dismissed or denied claims that were duplicative or inadequately supported, including the separate public-display count and a claim alleging falsified copyright management information. It also rejected some requested relief while allowing Timeless to seek attorney fees and costs through a later motion.

For damages, the court calculated awards work by work and violation by violation. It awarded statutory damages for infringement, removal of copyright management information, and the false DMCA counter-notices, reaching a total of $177,500. The court declined other relief beyond fees and costs, which Timeless was directed to substantiate separately.

Key Takeaways

• Reusing copyrighted video clips can create liability not only for infringement but also for removing embedded branding or other copyright management information.
• A DMCA counter-notice is a legal representation, not merely a platform appeal; a knowingly false assertion of ownership can support damages under Section 512(f).
• Default does not guarantee every pleaded claim or requested remedy. Courts still examine jurisdiction, service, the sufficiency of each claim, and the proof supporting damages.
• Online creators should preserve copies of uploads, takedown notices, counter-notices, and branding changes because those records can support separate statutory awards.

Why It Matters

The decision shows how several parts of the Copyright Act can apply to the same platform dispute. Copying the underlying work, stripping identifying information, and using the DMCA process dishonestly are distinct acts with potentially cumulative consequences.

For video publishers, the ruling also demonstrates the practical value of registering works and documenting platform enforcement. For users responding to takedowns, it is a warning that counter-notices must be accurate and made in good faith; the process can generate independent liability when it is used to restore copied material through false ownership claims.