Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Chilling Effects
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Notices > Notices > Blog Posts DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google (NoticeID 504643, Printer-friendly version

Blog Posts DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google

August 02, 2012


Sender Information:
Canal+ (Digital+ PRISATV-DTS)
Sent by:
WHC Hestia Consultores


Recipient Information:

Google, Inc. [Blogger]

Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA

Sent via: online form: Form
Re: Infringement Notification via Blogger Complaint

Google Form: copyright DMCA Complaint of alleged copyright infringement

1. Complainant's Information
Company name: WHC Hestia Consultores
Full legal name of the copyright holder: Canal+ (Digital+ PRISATV-DTS)
Country of residence: ES

2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

En el blog
aparecen diferentes apartados desde los que se retransmite en streaming de
manera no autorizada diferentes señales de TV editadas y cuya titularidad
corresponde a mi representada (Canal+) con el subsiguiente perjuicio
patrimonial que conlleva tal actividad. Con dicha actividad se produce una
puesta a disposición y una comunicación pública de los contenidos editados
y/o producidos por Canal+ y que están embebidos en la señal audiovisual que
ha sido abierta y subida a la red de manera no autorizada, posibilitando el
blog citado el acto ilícito de retransmisión de los mismos. De manera
adicional se reproducen de manera no autorizada en la home del citado blog
varios signos distintivos correspondientes a diferentes marcas legalmente
registradas por mi representada.

Description of the copyrighted work:

Diversos apartados del blog han sido creados por su administrador de
manera específica para poner a disposición de sus usuarios y retransmitir
de manera ilícita los contenidos editados y dispuestos por Canal+ a través
de diversos canales de TV editados y/o producidos por el mismo, y cuya
titularidad ostenta mi representada de manera directa (Canal +1, Canal+
Fútbol, Canal+ Liga, Canal+ Deportes, Canal+ Comedia, Canal+ Acción, Canal+
Dcine, Canal+ Xtra, entre otros), además de reproducirse de manera ilícita
en la home del sitio diversos signos distintivos registrados por mi
mandante. De manera similar se están retransmitiendo en streaming otras
señales audiovisuales de canales de TV Premium que forman parte de la
oferta comercial de Canal+.

3. Allegedly Infringing Material:
URL of the allegedly infringing material in our search results:


Sworn Statements
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]

Signed on this date of:


FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]

Question: Why does a web host or blogging service provider get DMCA takedown notices?

Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)m a safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." This safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by materials its users post, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?

Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.

Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.

Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?

Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.

Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?

Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.

For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.

Topic maintained by Chilling Effects

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse -
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts