IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Mass.: Subjective good faith belief, not objective reasonableness, applies to DMCA takedown notices, (Aug 20, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Operators of a nonprofit public access channel sent takedown notices after considering the possibility of fair use.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires that a copyright holder consider fair use before sending a takedown notice, not that the copyright holder conduct “a perfect or even reasonable fair use analysis,” the District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held. The court, in granting summary judgment to the operators of a non-profit public access channel over takedown notices it sent to YouTube, also emphasized that it did not matter whether those operators were motivated by political considerations in taking on the operators of the YouTube channel (Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corp., No. 1:24-cv-11927-PBS (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2026)).

The lawsuit arises out of a dispute over the coverage of local politics. Waltham Community Access Corporation operates a non-profit public access channel that airs unedited recordings of the entirety of Waltham city government meetings. The channel’s board is appointed by the mayor and city officials either serve on the board or work on some of the channel’s programs. The channel is funded, under a deal negotiated by the city, by cable providers who share a portion of their subscription fees.

In 2021, a group of Waltham residents created Channel 781, a YouTube-based news outlet focusing on local affairs in Waltham. The YouTube channel makes its material available at no cost, does not sell subscriptions or advertising, and does not compensate its volunteer members. Much of the channel’s content is critical of the local government and unflattering to city officials. As part of its program, the YouTube channel posts excerpts of city government meetings from the public access channel’s footage.

The dispute arose when the public access channel sent takedown notices to YouTube over certain reposts of government meeting content. The YouTube channel operators, in turn, sued the public access channel, arguing that the takedown notices were made in bad faith under the DMCA because they did not adequately consider the possibility that the YouTube videos constituted fair use. The district court denied the channel’s motion to dismiss, leading to discovery and eventually cross-motions on summary judgment.

Good faith takedown notice. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the public access channel. Under the DMCA, anyone who brings a takedown notice that “knowingly materially misrepresents” that the work at issue is infringing can be liable for any injury resulting from the takedown. 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). In applying that statute here, the court had to resolve three questions. First, was the public access channel required to have an objective good faith belief that the YouTube videos were not fair use, or was a subjective belief enough? Second, assuming a good faith subjective belief was enough, did the channel operators form such a belief? Third, would it matter if the public access channel operators were motivated by hostility to the political views of the YouTube channel? The court answered all of these questions in favor of the public access channel.

The court first found that the public access channel had to have only a subjective, rather than objective, belief that the material was not fair use. The parties agreed that a person bringing a takedown notice must represent that it had a “good faith belief” that the material in question was not covered by fair use doctrine. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear, the court noted, that this “good faith belief” requirement encompassed “a subjective, rather than objective, standard.” And while that decision was not binding here, the court noted, it reflected largely the “consensus” of district courts in other jurisdictions as well. The rule was also correct, the court found. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “good faith” to mean, in relevant part, a “state of mind consisting in... honesty in belief or purpose.” This definition “reflects a subjective standard,” the court emphasized. Moreover, the court noted, Section 512(f) imposes liability only when a takedown notice contains a knowing misrepresentation. “This knowledge requirement makes clear that a copyright owner cannot be liable simply because an unknowing mistake is made, even if the copyright owner acted unreasonably in making the mistake,” the court reasoned.

The court also found that the public access channel’s operators formed a subjective good faith belief on the fair use question. Prior to issuing the takedown notices, the court noted, the public access channel operators reviewed guidance on fair use law and came to the conclusion that while using excerpts accompanied by commentary might qualify as fair use, reposting excerpts without editing or commentary might not. Thus, the court noted, the public access channel deliberately selected for takedown only those uses that they believed fell into the latter category. And while it was true that the public access channel did not consider all of the applicable fair use factors, the court noted, the YouTubers’ argument on this point was merely an attempt “to smuggle an objective reasonableness inquiry into the applicable subjective standard.” The key question remained whether the public access channel operators considered fair use before sending the takedown notices and formed a subjective good faith belief that the YouTube videos were not a fair use of its recordings. “Any reasonable jury would answer this question in the affirmative,” the court found.

Finally, the court found, the political motives of the public access channel operators did not change the outcome. The YouTube channel operators pointed to the public access channel’s close connections to Waltham government officials and argued that the channel was “politically motivated to send the takedown notices in order to censor [the YouTubers] and protect incumbent city interests.” But liability under Section 512(f), the court emphasized, “focuses on whether the copyright holder knowingly misrepresented that it had formed a subjective good faith belief that the use of its material was infringing.” While a party’s motivation for sending a takedown notice may be relevant to discerning whether it formed such a good faith belief, the court noted, the record here “clearly reflects” that the channel did consider the fair use doctrine “and subjectively concluded that the clip videos that were the subject of its takedown notices were infringing.” Because no reasonable jury could find otherwise, the court reasoned, summary judgment was warranted here.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-11927-PBS.

Judge: Saris, P.

Attorneys: Marcus T. Strong (Brown Rudnick LLP) for Channel 781 News. Jeffrey Jackson Pyle (Prince Lobel Tye LLP) for Waltham Community Access Corp.

Companies: Channel 781 News; Waltham Community Access Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright MassachusettsNews GCNNews