A 512(f) Case Survived a Motion to Dismiss. Guess What Happened Next–Channel 781 v. WCAC

The court describes the case:

Plaintiff Channel 781 News (“Channel 781”) is a YouTube-based news outlet focusing on local affairs in Waltham, Massachusetts. Channel 781 posted clips from Waltham municipal government meetings that it believed to be newsworthy. Channel 781 took these clips without permission from recordings of the meetings produced by Defendant Waltham Community Access Corporation (“WCAC”) for the city’s public access channel. The clips Channel 781 posted were accompanied by titles and captioning but otherwise consisted entirely of excerpts from WCAC’s recordings. In September 2023, WCAC sent three notices to YouTube asking YouTube to take down fifteen of Channel 781’s clip videos on the basis that they infringed WCAC’s copyrights. YouTube complied and temporarily deactivated Channel 781’s account. Channel 781 subsequently sued WCAC under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), alleging that WCAC failed to adequately consider that Channel 781’s videos were fair use and, thus, knowingly misrepresented in its takedown notices that it had a good faith belief that the videos were infringing.

It seems weird that anyone could restrict Channel 781’s ability to clip-farm videos of local government meetings. However, the videographer WCAC is an independent contractor to the local government, not the local government itself. This contractual arrangement interposes copyright interests into coverage of government functions. Unsurprisingly, WCAC then essentially uses its copyright ownership to act as a censorship proxy for the local government. Sad, but entirely predictable.

In a prior ruling, the court said Channel 781’s 512(f) claim survived WCAC’s motion to dismiss. Now, on summary judgment, the court dismisses the 512(f) claim. This becomes yet another 512(f) case that gets a little traction and then predictably goes splat.

The court adopts the Rossi standard, which means WCAC is liable for a 512(f) violation only if it subjectively believed its takedown notices were unjustified.

(In a footnote, the court disgrees with the Moonbug decision, treating 512(f)’s scienter requirement as negligence, saying that standard “appears to be inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Rossi and Lenz”).

Applying this standard, the court holds that “no reasonable jury could find that WCAC failed to form a subjective good faith belief that the Channel 781 clip videos for which WCAC sent takedown notices did not constitute fair use.” The court explains:

Sheehan asked Wangler to assess whether Channel 781 had the right to post clips from WCAC’s recordings. To do so, Wangler read the email Kastorf sent to Sheehan about the fair use doctrine and watched a YouTube video on the same topic. He then emailed Sheehan that “[i]t’s possible [Channel] 781 … Zoom videos using short clips qualify as [f]air [u]se” but that “[w]hat does not qualify are the large number of videos taken directly from us and reproduced verbatim with zero editing or commentary.” He attached to his email a screenshot from the YouTube video he watched describing facts that make a use “less likely to qualify for fair use.” Wangler and Sheehan then agreed to send takedown notices only for the clip videos reproducing WCAC’s recordings with no editing or commentary except for the addition of a title. When Wangler later decided which videos to include in the takedown notices, he chose clip videos that consisted solely of excerpts from WCAC’s recordings, which he believed did not qualify for fair use protection. Given Wangler’s viewing of YouTube video about fair use, his determination that some of Channel 781’s videos may have qualified as fair use while others did not, and the fact that WCAC only sent takedown notices for the latter set of videos, the record does not support a reasonable finding that WCAC failed to consider fair use or form a subjective good faith belief that the clip videos posted by Channel 781 were not fair use.

In light of Rossi, the fact that WCAC developed an overreaching fair use policy doesn’t support 512(f). “Channel 781’s arguments are a misguided effort to smuggle an objective reasonableness inquiry into the applicable subjective standard.” Per Lenz, WCAC did, in fact, consider fair use before sending takedown notices, so it satisfied the requirements:

Wangler expressly researched the fair use doctrine; made an effort to apply the doctrine to Channel 781’s clip videos; and determined before sending the takedown notices that the relevant videos were not fair use.

Channel 781 argued that WCAC took down its videos as part of a censorship agenda. The court says that motivation, even if true, would be irrelevant because WCAC properly considered the fair use considerations. The judge summarizes:

While Wangler’s fair use analysis may have been deficient, he did not intentionally fail to consider the possibility that Channel 781’s clip videos were fair use.

When I blogged the Lenz case over a decade ago, I wrote:

Let’s look at a hypothetical deposition transcript of a notice sender: Q: Did you consider fair use?
A: Yes
Q: What steps did you take to evaluate the possibility of fair use?
A: I thought about it and decided it probably didn’t apply Where does a 512(f) plaintiff go from here? It seems like the sender can legitimately claim that they considered fair use, albeit not in a “searching or intensive” way. 512(f) case apparently over.

This case is an excellent illustration of that hypothetical transcript and the inevitable futility of most 512(f) cases.

In my opinion, the secret “villian” is this story is the Waltham local government, which outsourced the videographing to a third-party rather than treating government transparency as a social value that should be funded by taxpayers.

Case Citation: Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corporation, 2026 WL 2409846 (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2026)

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* Do DMCA Takedown Notices Need to Expressly Refer to the Lack of Fair Use?–Take-Two v. PlayerAuctions
* Does 512(f) Apply Differently to Counternotices Compared to Takedown Notices?
* It Takes a Lot for 512(f) Claims to Survive a Motion to Dismiss–Cordova v. Huneault
* Copyright Takedown Notices May Be Affecting Your Washing Machine Options–Ningbo Yituo v. GoPlus
* 512(f) Claim Sent to Trial (Which Didn’t Happen)–Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube
* 512(f) Doesn’t Support Preliminary Injunction–BViral v. TheSoul
* In 512(f), the “F” Stands for “Futility”–Shaffer v. Kavarnos
* Does Anyone Still Care About NFTs? (Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ripps) — Guest Blog Post
* Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?
* Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps
* The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein
* Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos
* Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG
* Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases
* 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial
* 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox
* Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps
* You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas
* 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless
* Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA
* 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus
* A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court
* 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal
* 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
* Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
* 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America
* 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
* Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe
* Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin
* How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)
* Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo
* Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret
* A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo
* DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk
* Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church
* ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
* 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal
* Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership
* It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner
* Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran
* 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music
* 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom
* Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning
* 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment
* Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG
* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals
* Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI
* Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path
* Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal
* YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman
* Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal
* 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici
* Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
* Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
* Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal
* Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks
* New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
* Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
* Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment

The post appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.