Have you been wrongfully targeted by a notice sent by IP Arrow under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? If so, Revision Legal’s copyright lawyers regularly defend against false DMCA notices or takedowns. If you believe that you have been wrongfully targeted by IP Arrow with a DMCA takedown, or if you believe that your use of IP Arrow’s client’s content is protected by fair use law, contact the expert copyright attorneys at Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474.
IP Arrow is a copyright enforcement company that identifies and pursues alleged online copyright infringement on behalf of rights holders. Like other copyright enforcement agencies — Higbee & Associates, Pixsy, ImageRights, and similar firms — IP Arrow uses automated technology to scan the internet for unauthorized uses of its clients’ copyrighted works (typically photographs, illustrations, and video content) and then sends DMCA takedown notices or infringement demand letters to the identified parties.
The DMCA takedown mechanism under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) allows copyright owners to demand removal of infringing content from websites and platforms by sending a notice to the site’s designated DMCA agent. The platform is required to remove the content expeditiously to maintain its safe harbor protection. This creates a powerful, fast-acting enforcement tool that copyright enforcement companies like IP Arrow have deployed extensively.
Yes. Automated copyright detection systems are imprecise. False positives — notices targeting content that does not actually infringe the claimed copyright — occur regularly. Common reasons IP Arrow or similar agencies send wrongful takedown notices include:
If you receive a DMCA takedown notice from IP Arrow, you have several options:
If the content is actually infringing — if you used a photograph without a license and do not have a fair use defense — removing it is the appropriate response. Removal typically satisfies the demand without escalating to a formal demand for money damages. However, be aware that the takedown notice may be followed by a damages demand even after removal, particularly if the enforcement agency’s business model includes seeking retroactive licensing fees.
If the takedown notice is improper — because your use was licensed, constitutes fair use, or was otherwise lawful — you may file a counter-notice with the platform under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g). A valid counter-notice requires: (1) your physical or electronic signature; (2) identification of the removed content and its location before removal; (3) a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification; and (4) your name, address, telephone number, and consent to jurisdiction.
Upon receipt of a valid counter-notice, the platform must wait 10 to 14 business days before restoring the content, during which time the copyright claimant may file a lawsuit to prevent restoration. If no lawsuit is filed, the content is restored. Filing a counter-notice is appropriate when you have a legitimate basis for your use; it should not be filed simply to delay removal of actually infringing content, as knowingly filing a false counter-notice carries liability under the DMCA.
If you receive a demand letter from IP Arrow — separate from the DMCA takedown notice — requesting payment of damages or a licensing fee, do not pay without consulting an attorney. These demand letters often cite inflated damages figures and statutory damages exposure to pressure recipients into quick settlements. An attorney can evaluate the validity of the underlying copyright claim, assess your defenses, and negotiate an appropriate resolution if the claim has merit.
In cases where copyright enforcement companies assert obviously invalid claims, or use the DMCA takedown process as a business model to extract settlements for non-infringing uses, the doctrine of copyright misuse may be available as a defense. Copyright misuse is an equitable defense that limits the copyright owner’s ability to enforce a copyright when it has been used in a manner that violates public policy — for example, by attempting to extend copyright protection beyond its lawful scope through aggressive enforcement of invalid claims.
While copyright misuse is not universally recognized by all federal circuits, it has been applied in several cases involving overclaiming by copyright owners. An attorney experienced in copyright defense can advise on whether this doctrine is available in the relevant jurisdiction.
If you have questions about copyright law or copyright infringement, contact the copyright attorneys at Revision Legal at 855-473-8474 or complete our contact form.
IP Arrow’s business model, like that of similar copyright enforcement agencies, typically involves sending a demand letter following the DMCA takedown notice, requesting a monetary settlement for the alleged infringement. These demand letters often cite the maximum statutory damages figure — $150,000 per work for willful infringement — as the theoretical exposure, then offer to settle for a much smaller amount. The intended effect is to make the settlement seem like a bargain relative to the litigation risk.
Before paying any demand from IP Arrow or a similar enforcement agency, have a copyright attorney evaluate: (1) whether the underlying copyright is valid and registered; (2) whether your use constituted fair use or was otherwise non-infringing; (3) whether the demand amount is proportionate to the actual facts; and (4) whether the agency has a credible basis for the willfulness allegation that would support the higher damages figure they are referencing.
In many cases, the settlement demands from copyright enforcement agencies significantly overstate the available damages, either because the copyright was not registered before the infringement (which eliminates statutory damages) or because the allegedly infringing use was protected by fair use. An attorney who regularly handles these matters can quickly assess the demand’s legal foundation and advise on the appropriate response.
Contact the copyright attorneys at Revision Legal with questions about copyright law or infringement. Call 855-473-8474 or complete our contact form.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem