Content and copyright

Takedowns and enforcement.

Removal is the first thing most people try and the only thing many people ever do. It works, up to a point. The point at which it stops working is when the material reappears faster than it is taken down, and the reason is almost always that nothing has reached the person putting it there.

Talk to us › All of content and copyright ›

What this looks like when it goes wrong

The first difficulty is simply volume. Once there are enough copies across enough platforms, removal stops being a legal task and becomes an operational one, and it lands on somebody inside the business who already has a job. It gets done inconsistently, the records are patchy, and by the time anybody wants to escalate there is no coherent history of what was found, when, or what happened to it.

The second is notices that fail. Sent to the wrong party, missing what a particular platform requires, filed under the wrong kind of complaint, or sent by somebody who cannot yet show they are entitled to send it. Each failure costs time, and a pattern of rejected notices makes the ones that follow harder rather than easier.

The third is pushback. The uploader disputes the notice, the material goes back up, and the only route onward is a formal claim against a named person. Most people have not planned for that moment, so they stop. The other side learns something useful about how far you are prepared to go, and behaves accordingly.

The fourth is the notice that should never have been sent. Aimed at commentary, criticism, review, a legitimate resale or somebody with a right of their own, it converts a manageable problem into a dispute with an opponent who now has a grievance and frequently an audience. Enforcement done carelessly at scale produces exactly this, and it is the sort of thing that gets screenshotted.

What actually decides it

Everything downstream depends on being able to show what you hold. Platforms act on notices from rightholders or their authorised representatives, in whatever form each of them sets, and the recurring reason notices fail is that the sender cannot yet demonstrate the right. Where the material has more than one rightholder, or where ownership was never properly documented, that has to be sorted out before any programme starts, not in the middle of one.

Then decide whether this is one problem or many. A single identified infringer is a correspondence problem and is usually settled by a letter to a person. Hundreds of listings across marketplaces, hosts and social platforms is a process problem, and it needs a system: consistent evidence, consistent records, and someone accountable for whether the volume is going up or down. Treating the second as though it were the first is how businesses spend heavily and finish where they started.

The routes after a refusal or a challenge are not all the same, and which of them exists depends on facts you may not have yet. Correspondence with an identified person, formal proceedings, applications aimed at intermediaries in appropriate cases, and pressure on the services an operation depends on are all possibilities. What they have in common is that they need somebody to be identified and reachable, which is why identification usually determines the ceiling on what enforcement can achieve.

The wording of what you send matters more than people expect. Where a complaint also touches registered rights, an unjustified threat of trade mark or design infringement is itself capable of founding a claim against the person making it, so a notice drafted casually can create a problem where there was not one. Accuracy about what you hold and what you are actually alleging is not a formality, and it is the cheapest protection available in any enforcement programme.

What we do

Get the right in order first

Ownership established and evidenced so notices are not refused on the papers before anybody reads them.

Removal at volume

A sustained programme across platforms, marketplaces and hosts, with records that support what comes next.

When a notice is challenged

What the options are after a refusal or a dispute, and whether the item is worth the escalation.

Reach the operator, not the listing

Turning an anonymous account into a person or company that can be dealt with directly.

Pressure the supporting services

Where hosting, payment or advertising is what actually keeps an operation running.

Formal steps where they are needed

Proceedings and applications taken forward with regulated partners where a step requires them.

When to spend nothing

Removal for its own sake becomes a treadmill. If items return as quickly as they go, and nothing else is happening alongside, you are buying activity rather than progress. Decide what the removal is actually for: protecting a launch window, clearing marketplaces before a season, holding a position while something else is prepared, or building the record that a claim will need. Removal with a purpose is worth funding indefinitely. Removal without one is not.

Small uses that make no money are usually best left alone. Fan material, commentary, criticism and review are the clearest examples, and acting against them turns a private irritation into a public one while gaining nothing you would have wanted. The judgement worth making at the start is which material genuinely matters, because a programme that tries to protect everything protects nothing in particular and costs more than one that does not.