Draft a DMCA takedown notice, triage one you received, or draft a §512(g) counter-notice. Use when asserting copyright through a §512(c)(3) takedown with the fair-use and perjury gates, when an incoming takedown needs triage into comply / counter / engage / ignore options, or when drafting a §512(g)

/takedown Three modes. Pick one: /ip legal:takedown send — draft a §512(c)(3) takedown notice. Fair use gate ( Lenz ) + loud perjury / §512(f) gate before delivery. /ip legal:takedown respond — triage a takedown someone sent you. Options: comply / counter / engage / ignore. /ip legal:takedown counter — draft a §512(g)(3) counter notice. Loud gate for the federal jurisdiction admission and the perjury statement. Instructions 1. Read the practice profile. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude for legal/ip legal/CLAUDE.md . If it contains [PLACEHOLDER] markers or does not exist, stop and say: "This plugin needs setup before it can give you useful output. Run /ip legal:cold start interview — the takedown skill depends on your approval matrix and practice profile." 2. Check matter workspaces. Per Matter workspaces : if Enabled is ✗ , skip. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /ip legal:matter workspace switch <slug or say practice level ." 3. Dispatch on $ARGUMENTS : send → run send mode (below). Walk identify the work, identify the infringing material, fair use gate ( Lenz ), good faith belief, accuracy/authority, draft the §512(c)(3) notice, run the loud gate, write output. respond → run respond mode (below). Read the incoming notice, assess (license, fair use, defects, host §512(g) compliance, sender credibility), present the four options, recommend, write the triage memo. counter → run counter mode (below). Confirm the predicate (taken down in response to a §512 notice, good faith belief of mistake/misidentification, ready for federal jurisdiction admission, attorney in the loop), draft the §512(g)(3) counter notice, run the loud gate, write output. No flag → ask once: "Are we sending a DMCA takedown, triaging one we received, or drafting a counter notice?" 4. Respect the gates. In send and counter , the loud gate runs before any final output is written. The fair use gate in send is separate and runs earlier; "debatable" or "likely" fair use stops the draft and routes to attorney review. 5. Jurisdiction note. DMCA §512 is US federal law. If the service provider, content, or infringer sits outside US jurisdiction, flag before drafting — you may need an EU DSA notice, UK OSA notice, or local regime instrument instead of (or in addition to) a DMCA notice. 6. Hand off where appropriate. respond with a counter notice recommendation chains into /ip legal:takedown counter — but only after the triage memo has been reviewed and the decision to counter has been made deliberately. Examples Notes The outgoing notice and counter notice do not carry the work product header. Internal drafts, fair use analyses, and triage memos do. §512(c)(3) and §512(g)(3) are element by element statutes — every required element must be present or the notice is defective. Counter notices consent to federal court jurisdiction in the claimant's district (or a designated district for non US subscribers). This is not a formality. Non lawyer users get a one page brief for the attorney conversation before the gate clears — particularly important for counter notices, which are the step before litigation. Purpose The DMCA §512 notice and takedown system is fast, cheap, and consequential in equal measure. A takedown is a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that gets content pulled with no judicial review. A counter notice is another sworn statement that consents to federal jurisdiction and puts the content back. Both decisions can become litigation. This skill handles all three moves with the guardrails each warrants. Three modes: send — draft a §512(c)(3) takedown notice respond — triage a takedown someone sent you; produce options counter — draft a §512(g)(3) counter notice If the user does not pass a flag, ask once: "Are we sending a DMCA takedown, triaging one we received, or drafting a counter notice?" External deliverables (send and counter modes): the outgoing notice/counter notice goes to the service provider's designated agent. Do NOT include the PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT header on the outgoing document. The notice itself is not privileged — it's a statement made in a statutory process. Internal drafts, pre send briefs, fair use analyses, and triage memos keep the header per plugin config Outputs . Jurisdiction assumption DMCA §512 is US federal law . It runs against service providers subject to US jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions have their own notice and action regimes — EU Digital Services Act Art. 16, UK Online Safety Act, India IT Rules 2021, etc. — that differ materially in required elements, counter notice mechanics, and liability for misuse. If the service provider, content, or infringer sits outside US jurisdiction, flag it — a US DMCA notice may be the wrong instrument, or may need to be paired with a local regime's notice. Copyright subsistence itself is Berne multilateral, but enforcement mechanics are jurisdiction specific. Load context ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude for legal/ip legal/CLAUDE.md → IP practice profile (copyright registrations if any), Enforcement posture → Approval matrix → DMCA takedown (ordinary) row, Outputs (work product header, role), Who's using this (role — lawyer vs. non lawyer) Matter context. Check Matter workspaces in the practice level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (in house default), skip matter machinery. If enabled and no active matter, ask: "Which matter? Run /ip legal:matter workspace switch <slug or say practice level ." Write outputs to the active matter's folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude for legal/ip legal/matters/<matter slug /takedown/<slug / (or takedown/<slug / at practice level). Never read another matter's files unless Cross matter context is on . Send mode — drafting a §512(c)(3) takedown notice Step 1: Identify the copyrighted work What is the copyrighted work? Title / description — what is the work (software, image, text, video, audio)? Registration status — US Copyright Office registration number and date (if any). Registration is NOT required to send a takedown, but it is required to file suit on a US work and its pre infringement timing controls statutory damages and fees. Ownership — do we own it outright, or hold an exclusive license with takedown authority? (Non exclusive licensees typically cannot send takedowns on the licensor's work.) Prior licensing — have we ever licensed this use, or a broader use that might cover it? Ownership and authority are the first things §512(f) cases look at. Get them clearly on the record before drafting. Step 2: Identify the infringing material and its location Where is the infringing material? Platform / service provider — YouTube, Twitter/X, GitHub, Reddit, Amazon, a web host, etc. URL(s) — specific permalinks to the infringing material. One notice can cover multiple URLs if they're all from the same service. Description — what is the infringing material and how does it infringe (verbatim copy, substantially similar, derivative)? Screenshots / evidence — preserved with timestamp and URL visible §512(c)(3) requires "information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material." URLs alone are usually enough; be precise. Step 3: Fair use gate Under Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. , 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a takedown. This is not a judgment about fair use — it is a consideration step that the sender must take and can prove they took. Ask: Before we draft the notice, walk through fair use. Under Lenz , you have to consider it before sending — even if the conclusion is "not fair use." The four factors: 1. Purpose and character — commercial? transformative? criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research? 2. Nature of the copyrighted work — factual or creative? published or not? 3. Amount and substantiality — how much of the work is used? is it the heart of the work? 4. Effect on the market — does the use substitute for the original or harm a derivative market? Your read on each? And your conclusion — fair use unlikely, debatable, likely? Record the answer in the notice file. If "debatable" or "likely," do not draft. Stop and route to attorney review: "Fair use is debatable/likely on these facts. Sending a takedown on a use that is protected by fair use is the exact §512(f) exposure the statute creates. Route this to counsel before any notice goes out." Step 4: Good faith belief §512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires "a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." The sender forms this belief on the record. Have they: Confirmed the work is theirs (or they have takedown authority via exclusive license)? Confirmed the use is not licensed (no prior deal, no implied license, no Creative Commons grant that would cover it)? Considered fair use (Step 3)? Reviewed the accused content directly (not just a report about it)? If yes on all four, the good faith belief is colorable. If no on any, pause. Step 5: Accuracy and agent authority §512(c)(3)(A)(vi) requires "a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." This is the perjury statement. It applies to the accuracy of the identification and the authority — not to the fair use determination itself, though §512(f) liability reaches both. Confirm signer: who is sending this on behalf of whom, and do they have authority to do so? Step 6: Draft the notice §512(c)(3)(A) elements — every one must be present: 1. Signature (physical or electronic) of the rights holder or authorized agent 2. Identification of the copyrighted work — "Copyrighted work: [title, description, registration no. if any]" 3. Identification of the infringing material with location information — "Infringing material: [URL(s), description, how it infringes]" 4. Contact information — address, phone, email of the complaining party or agent 5. Good faith belief statement — verbatim, adapted: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." 6. Accuracy and authority statement under penalty of perjury — verbatim, adapted: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this 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." Structure: Sender address block / date Recipient: designated DMCA agent at [service provider] (find via Copyright Office's DMCA Designated Agent Directory — https://www.copyright.gov/dmca directory/ ) Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §512(c) The six elements above, numbered or clearly set apart Signature line Most service providers publish a preferred form or a web intake (YouTube Content ID / Copyright webform, Twitter / X copyright report, GitHub DMCA repo, etc.). The skill produces the notice content; the user submits through the provider's path. Note in the output which intake path is expected for the named service provider. Step 7: The loud gate before delivery If the user is a non lawyer (per Who's using this ), add: A DMCA takedown is sworn under penalty of perjury and creates §512(f) exposure for bad faith or overbroad use. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If not, here's a brief to bring to them: [generate a short summ