Understanding DMCA Abuse: What Content Creators Need to Know

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted in 1998, was designed to adapt U.S. copyright law to the digital age. Intended as an anti-piracy measure, it provides content creators with legal tools to prevent unauthorized use of their work online. Central to this is the DMCA takedown notice, a formal demand sent to platforms or hosting services to remove infringing content. However, while the DMCA empowers creators, abusing it can result in serious legal consequences.

To legally submit a DMCA takedown request, you must be the copyright owner or an authorized representative. This means:

• If you filmed and distributed content independently (like on your own OnlyFans page), you own the copyright.
• If you performed in a scene for a studio (like Brazzers or Naughty America), and signed a release form, the studio owns the rights. Even if you're the face on camera, you can't claim copyright.

Filing a false DMCA takedown isn’t just unethical—it’s illegal. The DMCA explicitly states that those submitting a notice must do so “under penalty of perjury.” Making a knowingly false statement about ownership is considered federal perjury, which can result in:

• Civil penalties, including defamation lawsuits that can run into millions of dollars.
• Criminal penalties, such as up to five years in prison and substantial fines.

False claims can also have tech-related consequences: platforms like Google may ban your account, including access to Gmail, YouTube, and other services.

Real-World Example: Sapient v. Geller

One of the most prominent cases of DMCA abuse involves Uri Geller, a self-described psychic, and Brian Sapient, a member of the Rational Response Squad. Sapient posted a short clip from a PBS NOVA episode critical of Geller to YouTube. Geller, claiming copyright ownership of just a few seconds of the video, filed a DMCA takedown. YouTube removed the video and suspended Sapient’s account for two weeks.

However, Geller didn’t own the rights to the full video, and Sapient’s use fell under the doctrine of fair use, which allows the use of copyrighted material for criticism, commentary, and education. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit on Sapient’s behalf, accusing Geller of knowingly misrepresenting his claim. The case set a legal precedent warning that DMCA takedown tools cannot be used to silence criticism or free speech.

As with Geller, false or abusive takedown claims can lead to:

• Civil lawsuits for damages
• Permanent injunctions preventing future misuse
• Legal fees and court costs
• Reputational harm and account bans across platforms

Know your rights: Only send takedowns for content you legally own.

Avoid weaponizing the DMCA: Don’t use takedowns to silence criticism, fair use, or rivals.

Keep records: If you own content, keep originals and any contracts proving ownership.

Sapient v. Geller isn't the only time someone has been sued for issuing a false DMCA either.

In 2003, two students at Swarthmore College posted a collection of internal emails from Diebold, a manufacturer of electronic voting machines. The leaked emails raised serious questions about the security and reliability of Diebold's machines. Diebold issued DMCA takedown notices to the students' internet service provider, claiming the publication of their internal emails was copyright infringement. Did Diebold "knowingly misrepresent" its copyright claim to silence public criticism and news reporting? The students' use of the emails was clearly for commentary and news purposes—a classic example of fair use. A federal court ruled that Diebold's takedown notices were a clear abuse of the DMCA. The court found that "no reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of the email archive posted by the students were protected by copyright." Diebold was ordered to pay damages and attorney's fees. This case was crucial in establishing that the DMCA cannot be used as a tool for corporate censorship or to hide embarrassing information from the public.

Filming a false DMCA (takedown notice) is fraud and has potentially serious consequences. This is why when you hire DMCA companies, you need to be careful that they aren't committing fraud on your behalf, because in the end, you are responsible for what they do in your name.

The DMCA is a powerful shield against piracy, but it’s not a sword to be swung recklessly. Content creators, studios, and platforms alike must respect ownership boundaries and act in good faith. As cases like Diebold and Sapient v. Geller show, abusing the DMCA doesn’t just risk losing a takedown; it can lead to real legal consequences.

Be careful out there, because I promise you more lawsuits are coming as the DMCA abuse becomes more commonplace.