Preface- Someone has filed a copyright claim in regards to images hosted on my site, this person is not a celebrity or known by anyone on the internet for that matter, a regular person. The DMCA complaint did not include an address which is required when filing a DMCA complaint, only the persons full name and a cellphone number, my host made me disable the content and i then filed a counter claim. It was approved valid (i did not include my address) by my host and i waited about 14 days I think without any legal advances by the claimant. It's been about a a week and my host emails me informing me my counter claim was not valid since I did not include my address, thus they disabled the content themselves and told me to refile a counter claim with my address if i wish. I would like to know how the original DMCA filed against me can be considered valid in the first place considering no address was included in the copyright claim thus making it invalid to begin with. I'm unsure who this person is but I certainly won't be providing them with my address if they aren't going to be providing their own. Any advice on this issue?
The real question to ask yourself is "are they my images" if they are not, then you should not be filing a counter claim. What does that have to do with anything? It makes me think you do not understand the process.
i thought my use of the material falls under the fair use provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107? my site is non profit, i make nothing from it. merely hosting pictures of someone is grounds for a DMCA even if the person filing the copyright does not identify him/herself as per the DMCA requirements? yes, they are not my images but i too have no proof the claimant is he/she claims to be. feel free to enlighten me if you are more knowledgeable on the subject.
Do you want to risk being sued? Forget about technicalities of a DMCA complaint - they can still sue you for infringement even if there were mistakes made in the filing (they could have sued you without any notice). Do you want to risk spending thousands of dollars in legal fees for a site that makes generates zero income (no ads, no donations, no links to other sites you own, etc) - and even if you win, you are still out legal costs? They aren't your pictures, take them down and move on. Buy photos to use or take your own.
1. I have no idea what your site is, so any comment on your fair use claim is just a guess. Most people think they are within fair use but in reality they are not. It is a very limited exception. 2. While you might be able to challenge a defective DMCA notice, that would be true whether or not you are violating someone's copyright. It is a separate and distinct issue. You would have to research how to challenge a defective notice. The fact that you call your site non profit, and make no money, does not mean you can just use any copyright material you want. I have no idea if the person filing the DMCA against you is the actual copyright holder and merely filed a defective notice, or maybe they don't even have the copyright. If this is just some random image, then this seems like an awful waste of time to fight about it. Especially since you make no money and acknowledge that the image is not yours.