Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512) built the notice-and-takedown system that is now the primary mechanism for addressing online copyright infringement. A copyright owner who finds infringing material on a platform sends a takedown notice to the platform's designated agent; if the notice substantially complies, the platform must remove or disable the material "expeditiously" to preserve the safe harbor that shields it from monetary liability for its users' infringement. The whole machine runs on sworn statements and statutory deadlines—and everything turns on getting the notice right, because a compliant notice triggers the provider's duty to act while a defective one can be ignored without legal consequence.

This checklist is for the sender. For the full treatment of both sides see how to file a DMCA takedown notice and respond to one and the safe-harbor framework in digital millennium copyright act safe harbors for online service providers. To respond when you are on the receiving end, see responding to a DMCA takedown with a counter-notice checklist.

Phase 1 — Confirm you have a viable claim

  • Confirm you own (or are authorized to act for the owner of) the exclusive right allegedly infringed.
  • Identify the specific copyrighted work and confirm it is your protected expression, not an unprotectable idea, fact, or method.
  • Consider fair use in good faith before proceeding — fair use is a use "authorized by law" (17 U.S.C. § 107), and a sender must consider it (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016)).
  • Confirm the use is not licensed or otherwise authorized.

Why this matters / traps. Section 512(f) imposes liability for a knowing material misrepresentation that material is infringing. The clearest path to liability is targeting a use you know is authorized or obviously fair without even considering fair use — the duty Lenz recognized.

Phase 2 — Identify the right recipient and channel

  • Determine which safe harbor applies — the § 512(c) hosting harbor for user-uploaded content; § 512(d) for search/linking. You cannot send a § 512(c)(3) notice to a pure § 512(a) conduit (a broadband carrier).
  • Find the provider's designated agent in the Copyright Office DMCA Designated Agent Directory (37 C.F.R. § 201.38) or its published DMCA contact.
  • Prefer the platform's designated submission system / web form over a general email inbox.

Why this matters / traps. The duty to act runs only from receipt of a substantially compliant notice sent to the designated agent. A notice sent to the wrong inbox starts no clock.

Phase 3 — Satisfy the six statutory elements of § 512(c)(3)(A)

  • (1) Signature — a physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act for the owner (e.g., /s/ Name).
  • (2) Identify the copyrighted work — name the specific work (or a representative list for many works at one site), ideally with title, first-publication URL/date, and registration number if any.
  • (3) Identify the infringing material and where to find it — provide the exact URL(s); supplement with titles, usernames, post IDs, and timestamps on complex platforms.
  • (4) Contact information — address, phone, and email sufficient for the provider to reach you.
  • (5) Good-faith statement — that the use "is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
  • (6) Accuracy and authorization statement — that the information is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act for the owner.

Why this matters / traps. The exact URL is the single most important line — the provider cannot remove what it cannot find, and the statute does not ask it to go hunting. The perjury oath attaches specifically to the authorization representation; the accuracy statement covers the information generally.

Phase 4 — Scope, document, and send

  • Scope proportionately — ask the provider to remove the specific infringing item (e.g., one image), not an entire lawful page.
  • Attach the original work and a dated screenshot of the infringement (see authenticating website evidence checklist).
  • Submit a clean, well-organized notice through the designated channel.
  • Keep a copy of everything sent.

Why this matters / traps. A proportionate request is more likely to be implemented without friction and far less likely to draw a counter-notice or a § 512(f) headache. A precise notice also does double duty: it can manufacture the provider's knowledge of that specific infringement (§ 512(c)(3)(B)(i)).

Phase 5 — After sending: anticipate the response

  • Confirm the material was removed and the provider notified the user.
  • If a counter-notice arrives, decide quickly: the provider must restore the material 10 to 14 business days later unless you notify it that you have filed suit seeking to restrain the infringement (§ 512(g)(2)(C)).
  • Calibrate the takedown to your actual willingness to litigate.
  • For the same anonymous infringer, consider a § 512(h) subpoena from a district court clerk (attaching your notice) to identify the uploader.
  • For systematic infringement, prepare an infringement suit or escalate; a takedown does not stop re-uploading (the "whack-a-mole" problem).

Why this matters / traps. The counter-notice forces you to put up (sue) or shut up (let the content return). Section 512(h) reaches hosting and linking providers, not mere-conduit ISPs.

Phase 6 — Strengthen your hand upstream

  • Register the work early — before infringement or within three months of first publication — to preserve statutory damages and attorney's fees under 17 U.S.C. § 412 if the dispute escalates (see copyright registration checklist).
  • Maintain an authenticated evidentiary record (dated screenshots, original files with metadata).

Why this matters / traps. A takedown does not itself require registration, but registration is what gives you standing to sue if a counter-notice ripens into litigation — and § 412 timing is the difference between a defendant who shrugs and one who settles.

Common mistakes

  • Failing to provide an exact URL or other locator for the infringing material.
  • Sending to a general inbox instead of the registered designated agent.
  • Omitting the good-faith, accuracy, or perjury statements.
  • Sending a notice when you are neither the owner nor authorized to act.
  • Skipping the fair-use consideration Lenz requires.
  • Over-broad takedowns that sweep in lawful content and invite § 512(f) exposure.

Primary authority

  • 17 U.S.C. § 512 (safe harbors; (c)(3) takedown notice; (c)(3)(B) substantial compliance and knowledge; (f) misrepresentation; (g) counter-notice; (h) subpoena); § 107 (fair use); § 412 (registration as predicate to statutory damages and fees); § 504(c) (statutory damages).
  • 37 C.F.R. § 201.38 (electronic designation of agents).
  • Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016); Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012); Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
  • U.S. Copyright Office, DMCA Designated Agent Directory; Section 512 of Title 17 (2020).

Related resources

This checklist provides general information and is not legal advice. The DMCA and platform procedures change; confirm current law and platform practice before relying on any step here, and consult qualified counsel.