A federal court in Massachusetts has issued a ruling that allows copyright holders to send online takedown notices based on a subjective belief of infringement, even if that belief is deemed unreasonable. This decision emerged from a lawsuit brought by **Channel 781 News**, a citizen journalism group, after takedown notices temporarily disabled their **YouTube** channel. **Channel 781** comprises independent, volunteer journalists who report on local affairs in Waltham, Massachusetts. Their reporting often includes short, newsworthy excerpts from recordings of city government meetings produced by **Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC)**, the city's public access television station. In September 2023, **WCAC** sent three copyright takedown notices to **YouTube**, targeting fifteen of **Channel 781**'s videos. **YouTube** subsequently removed the videos and, under its three-strikes policy, temporarily disabled **Channel 781**'s entire account just days before a local election. Represented by the **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** and **Brown Rudnick LLP**, **Channel 781** sued **WCAC** under Section 512(f) of the **Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)**. This section provides a remedy when a copyright holder knowingly makes material misrepresentations in a takedown notice. ### When is a Copyright Holder Responsible for a Wrongful Takedown? **Fair use** is a legal right that permits the use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, commentary, or creating something new. Courts have consistently recognized that copyright holders must consider fair use before utilizing the **DMCA**'s powerful notice-and-takedown process. **Channel 781** argued that **WCAC** accused them of copyright infringement without conducting a good-faith assessment of whether their videos constituted fair use. The evidence presented indicated that **WCAC**'s analysis was significantly deficient. The court noted that **Chris Wangler**, the **WCAC** employee who sent the notices, failed to consider several facts relevant to fair use. For instance, **Channel 781** used relatively small portions of **WCAC**'s recordings, and the underlying recordings were factual public meetings, not creative works. **WCAC** also gave little or no weight to whether **Channel 781**'s use harmed any market for the recordings. Furthermore, there was strong evidence suggesting that **WCAC** had motivations unrelated to copyright. **WCAC** reportedly objected to its footage being used to criticize local officials and advance political viewpoints. The takedown notices were also sent during a local election, shortly after **Channel 781** posted a campaign statement by Waltham's mayor that **WCAC** had mistakenly made available online. Despite this evidence, the court concluded that **WCAC** had a subjective good-faith belief that **Channel 781**'s videos were infringing. ### A Subjective Belief Should Not Be a Free Pass **Channel 781** contended that a copyright holder’s belief of infringement must be both genuinely held and objectively reasonable. **WCAC**, however, argued that a subjective good-faith belief was sufficient. The court ultimately sided with **WCAC**. The court emphasized that **Wangler** had researched fair use, watched a short **YouTube** video explaining the doctrine, and distinguished between videos he thought might qualify as fair use and those he believed did not. This was deemed enough to establish subjective good faith, even though **Wangler**'s analysis ignored important facts relevant to fair use. As the court stated, Section 512(f) does not require “a perfect or even reasonable fair use analysis.” This ruling sets an alarmingly low bar for copyright holders seeking to remove content from the internet. A **DMCA** takedown can lead to the almost immediate disappearance of lawful speech. As **Channel 781** experienced, multiple notices can even result in an entire channel being disabled. If a copyright holder can avoid liability despite a cursory, incomplete, and objectively unreasonable analysis that ignores important facts—even with evidence of intent to suppress critical speech—the obligation to consider fair use risks becoming a mere box-checking exercise. This interpretation threatens to strip Section 512(f) of much of its protective force. ### Even Under a Subjective Standard, WCAC Fell Short Even accepting the court’s subjective standard, **WCAC**'s superficial consideration of fair use should arguably not have been sufficient. **WCAC** disregarded key fair use considerations, and the record included statements suggesting a general belief that permission was needed to reuse its footage – an understanding inconsistent with fair use principles. Furthermore, evidence indicated **WCAC** objected to **Channel 781**'s political use of its footage, implying motivations for the takedowns unrelated to copyright. Collectively, these facts raise serious questions about whether **WCAC** genuinely considered fair use, or if copyright was used as a pretext to remove material it disapproved of. ### The Court Did Not Find That Channel 781's Videos Infringed Crucially, the court's analysis acknowledged **Channel 781**’s strong fair use argument: the group used short excerpts from factual recordings of public government proceedings, selected clips for their newsworthiness, and made them more accessible to the public and journalists. The opinion even stated that **WCAC**'s fair use analysis “may have been deficient.” However, under the purely subjective standard it adopted, the court concluded it could not reject **WCAC**'s professed belief—even if the court itself “would have reached the opposite conclusion” on fair use. This decision is slated for appeal to the **First Circuit Court of Appeals**. Copyright law should not permit a rights holder to suppress critical reporting or political speech via the **DMCA** and evade accountability simply by claiming a subjective belief of infringement. Section 512(f) is intended to provide protection against wrongful takedowns, and advocates will continue to fight to ensure this safeguard effectively protects online expression.