Draft

Draft a DMCA notice a reviewer can clear in 90 seconds

Produces a § 512(c)(3) takedown notice with all six statutory elements labeled, item-level URLs, an internal memo recording the fair-use consideration Lenz requires, and a counter-notice plan you make before you send.

About 12 minintermediateIP

Your prompt4,721 characters

Still to fill in: Owner and work, Infringing material, Platform and who reviews the notice, Sender and authority, Fair-use consideration

RoleYou are a copyright lawyer who has sent hundreds of § 512 notices and handled the counter-notices that came back. You write for a reviewer with eight hundred notices in the queue and ninety seconds for yours: every element labeled, every URL resolving. You will not draft one before the fair-use analysis is written down, because § 512(f) exposure attaches to the notice, not the lawsuit.What I needDraft a § 512(c)(3) takedown notice for the work and material below, addressed to Platform and who reviews the notice and signed by Sender and authority. Then give me the internal memo and the counter-notice plan.InputsOwner and work: Owner and work Infringing material: Infringing material Fair-use consideration: Fair-use consideration Platform and reviewer: Platform and who reviews the notice Sender and authority: Sender and authorityHow to work this1. Build the notice around the six elements of § 512(c)(3)(A) in statutory order, each under its own bolded numbered label so a reviewer can tick them off. 2. One resolvable URL per infringing item, each on its own line. A channel or profile link is context, not identification. If I gave you only a channel, say so and ask for item URLs. 3. State the ownership chain in one sentence. If registered, give the number and effective date; if not, say the work is unregistered and identify first publication. 4. Describe only what the recipient can verify: dates, running times, file names, what portion was copied. No characterization of the uploader's motives. 5. Keep the fair-use reasoning in the internal memo, out of the notice. If Fair-use consideration is thin on any factor, name the factor and say the record does not yet support sending. 6. Claim nothing beyond what Owner and work covers. No adjacent uploads, no trademark theory, no "related content."Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual and legal assumption behind the notice, each marked [verify] or [safe]. If you assumed the registration is effective, that this platform is a US service provider covered by § 512, or that my client owns rather than licenses the work, say so. Where this is weakest. The two or three points a reviewer or the uploader's counsel hits first: a URL that resolves to a playlist, a gap in the ownership chain, a portion of the use that reads as commentary. Name the sentence. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs. At minimum: send the formal notice (removal usually inside 24 to 72 hours, but it publishes to a public transparency database and hands the uploader a strike and a grievance) or open with an informal email to the uploader (slower, unenforceable, but no public record and no amplification). And: whether the client will actually sue if a counter-notice lands, decided before sending, because the platform restores in 10 to 14 business days unless suit is filed. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: the registration certificate, a timestamped capture of each URL, confirmation that every element of the work is owned rather than licensed, and the client's answer on litigation appetite.Output formatThe notice, formatted to send: letterhead placeholder, date, designated-agent address and delivery method, a § 512(c)(3) subject line, the six labeled elements, signature block. Then the internal memo, a three-bullet counter-notice checklist, and the four closing sections.Never do this- If this notice could have been generated for any work on any platform, it is too generic and a reviewer will treat it that way. Name this work, these URLs, this date. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it appears that," and "it should be noted." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am counsel signing this. - Every registration number, effective date, URL, timestamp and agent address must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - confirm before sending]. Never invent a registration number or an agent address. - If my inputs do not show whether my client owns or merely licenses the work, say you do not know and stop. Do not write a statement under penalty of perjury over a gap. - Do not pad. A notice for one video is one page. Length is not value.Before you answer- Are all six statutory elements present, labeled, and in order? - Does every infringing item have its own resolvable URL, and does the notice claim anything beyond the work in my inputs? - Is the fair-use reasoning in the memo and out of the notice? - Would this notice fit any other work? It should not.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The platform's trust-and-safety reviewer has no legal training, no context for this dispute, and no reason to guess at what a notice means. Grade mine as the reviewer would. Name the two things that would make you mark it incomplete and move on: a URL that does not resolve to a single item, an ownership statement you cannot verify, a missing element. Then switch to the uploader's counsel drafting a § 512(f) demand: which sentence in my notice is the one they quote back at me? Rewrite all three so the notice clears review on the first pass.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

If the platform stalls or the uploader fights back, the response should already exist. Draft the two follow-ups: the escalation email if the platform has not acted within five business days, addressed past the queue to the agent of record; and the response if a counter-notice arrives asserting the added commentary makes the upload a parody. The second one should walk the four factors against that specific claim and end with a recommendation on whether to file within the statutory window.

Before you run it

What to gather first

Who owns the work, and whether the sender owns it or acts as authorized agent
Registration number and effective date, if the work is registered
A resolvable URL for each infringing item, plus a timestamped capture
The platform's designated agent from the Copyright Office directory
Whether the client would actually sue if a counter-notice arrives

Watch for

A knowingly false or materially misleading notice creates liability under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), including fees. Overclaiming scope is the usual way this happens.
Lenz requires the sender to consider fair use before sending. Document that consideration in the file at the time, not after a demand letter arrives.
Send to the service provider's designated agent as listed in the Copyright Office directory. A notice to a general support address may not carry statutory effect.
Notices are routinely published to public transparency databases along with the URLs and the sender's name. Assume the uploader, the press, and the client's customers can read it.
If a counter-notice is filed the platform must restore the material in 10 to 14 business days unless the sender files suit. Make that decision before the notice goes out, not after.

What comes back

A send-ready notice with letterhead placeholder, date, designated-agent address and delivery method, a § 512(c)(3) subject line, six labeled statutory elements, and a signature block; a four-to-six-sentence internal cover memo recording ownership confirmation, the fair-use consideration, and the decision to send; a three-bullet counter-notice readiness checklist; and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

NOTICE OF CLAIMED INFRINGEMENT under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) April 27, 2026, to the DMCA Designated Agent, Google LLC / YouTube, via the copyright webform and copyright@youtube.com 1. Identification of the copyrighted work. The audiovisual work "Fighting Resistance" (5:42), first published March 2, 2026 at https://www.northshorepharma.com/fighting-resistance. U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA-2-468-911, effective April 1, 2026. 2. Identification of the infringing material and its location. A verbatim copy of the entire work, preceded by approximately 30 seconds of added introductory commentary, posted April 18, 2026 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbCdEf12345 3. Contact information. Maya Reyes, Reyes & Chen LLP, 123 Main Street, Suite 400; (555) 123-4567; m.reyes@reyeschen.com. 4. Good-faith belief. I have a good-faith belief that use of the material described above is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. 5. Accuracy and authority, under penalty of perjury. The information in this notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. 6. Signature. /s/ Maya Reyes, Counsel for Northshore Pharmaceutical, April 27, 2026 --- Internal memo. Ownership confirmed against Reg. PA-2-468-911 and the March 2 publication record; Northshore is the author-owner, not a licensee. Fair use considered before sending: 30 seconds of commentary sits in front of an unaltered full-length copy, so the use is overwhelmingly reproductive rather than transformative; the work is creative and unpublished commercially before March 2; the entire work was taken; the channel is monetized and the upload displaces a pre-launch awareness campaign. Concluded the use is not fair and the notice is supportable. Counter-notice plan approved by the client before sending. Counter-notice readiness. - Preserve the April 22 page capture, view counts, and channel metadata now; they become exhibits. - If a counter-notice arrives, check completeness under § 512(g)(3), then decide within 10 business days whether to file. - Loop in communications before any restored copy goes back up. --- Assumptions I made. The registration is effective and covers the full audiovisual work [verify - pull the certificate]. YouTube is a covered US service provider [safe]. Northshore owns rather than licenses the footage, including any stock or music beds [verify - a licensed music bed would narrow what you can claim]. Where this is weakest. Element 2: the added 30 seconds of commentary is the uploader's whole counter-notice. If any part of the underlying film was itself licensed rather than owned, the perjury statement in element 5 is the sentence that gets quoted back at you. What only you can decide. Send this notice: removal typically inside 24 to 72 hours, but it publishes to a transparency database with your client's name on it and gives @PharmaWatchdog a strike plus a public grievance, or send an informal email to the uploader first, which is slower and unenforceable but leaves no public record and no story. Second call, and it has to be made now: will Northshore actually file if a counter-notice lands? Say no and the video returns in two weeks with more attention than it had. What would make this materially better. (1) The registration certificate and the deposit copy, which closes the ownership question. (2) Confirmation that all footage and music in the film are owned rather than licensed. (3) The client's written decision on litigation appetite. (4) Evidence of monetization on the channel, which strengthens the market-harm factor if this is ever litigated.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Six elements, labeled.** Signature; identification of the copyrighted work; identification of the infringing material and its location; contact information; good-faith belief that the use is not authorized; statement under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and the sender is authorized. 2. **Item-level URLs.** One resolvable link per infringing item. A channel or profile URL is not an item URL and gets the notice rejected. 3. **Ownership chain in one sentence.** Who owns the work, and how the sender is authorized to act for them. 4. **Fair use gets considered before sending.** Lenz requires it. The analysis lives in the internal memo, not in the notice. 5. **Never overreach.** § 512(f) creates liability for knowing material misrepresentation. Claim only the work you own and only the uses that infringe it. 6. **Factual tone.** The notice is read by a platform reviewer, not by the uploader. No adjectives about motive. 7. **Right address.** Send to the service provider's designated agent as registered with the Copyright Office, plus the webform if the platform runs one. 8. **Decide the litigation question before sending.** A counter-notice restores the material in 10 to 14 business days unless suit is filed.