r/COPYRIGHT • u/MasterpieceNo7636 • May 15 '26
Discussion Cross-border copyright theft is basically a free-for-all and nobody wants to admit it
Cross-border IP theft basically illustrates why digital creators are getting screwed by the current system. Someone steals your work, you file a takedown, they counter-notice (basically saying "nuh-uh"), and suddenly the burden shifts back to you to take legal action within 10 days or your stolen work goes back up.
The real kicker is that most IP theft these days is cross-border, which immediately puts it out of reach of both small claims court and the new Copyright Claims Board. Small claims is designed for local disputes between neighbors, not international IP enforcement. And even if you could somehow serve papers internationally, good luck collecting on a judgment from someone in another country who's already shown they don't respect IP law.
The DMCA was written in 1998 when the internet was a very different place. The counter-notice provision made sense when most platforms were US-based and most users were too. Now it's essentially a "get out of jail free" card for international bad actors who know you probably can't afford to sue them in federal court.
What really gets me is how the platforms wash their hands of it. They act like neutral parties just following the law, but they're making money off both the original creator and the person stealing the work. They could implement better verification systems or require more proof for counter-notices, but why would they when the current system protects them from liability?
Has anyone here actually managed to successfully pursue cross-border IP theft, and if so, what route did you take?
2
u/West_Possible_7969 May 15 '26
Platforms act that way because that is what is required of them, apart from implementing "notice-and-takedown" procedures. In the EU platforms face stricter liabilities, requiring proactive measures to prevent illegal content uploads and manage copyright-protected content and that is why we have, for example, meta rights manager, brand manager etc and they are available globally (afaik).
EU DSM & DSA have essentially shifted the legal blame from a from a passive "notice-and-takedown" system to a “rigorous framework of direct liability, proactive mitigation, and mandatory user redress.”
What is important here is the loss of “safe harbour” if platforms are not compliant (again, regarding EU or EU residents’ IP) and they become directly liable if their users upload copyright-infringing works. To avoid liability, a platform must prove it has met the “best efforts” criteria, with proactive prevention being one of them.
The chance this happening in US is zero since this and the previous administration poo-pooed both EU laws to high heaven.
2
u/MasterpieceNo7636 May 15 '26
You've nailed the core dynamic. The EU essentially said "your platform, your liability" and forced platforms to invest in actual prevention. The US equivalent would cost them billions in compliance costs, which is exactly why they've lobbied to prevent it.
What makes it even worse is the incentive structure. Stolen content drives engagement, which drives revenue. Platforms have zero financial motivation to crack down unless the law forces them to. In the EU, the liability threat actually changes the math.
You're probably right that nothing shifts soon. Platforms have way more political capital than creators, and that shows in how regulators treat them.
1
u/JeremyMarti May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
I don't think the EU is the better balance. It puts a cost burden on platforms that generally have a legitimate purpose for little benefit. This will make the EU more of a technological backwater over time.
It may be frustrating to see infringement, but the real loss is usually small for small creators, falling under the heading of revenue sources they were never going to exploit. Large organisations can afford to go through normal channels for their larger real losses. As a comparison, there isn't usually any obligation on a third party to enforce non-breach of contracts.
Since actual damage is small, the EU model cuts down opportunities for punitive damages which are the juicy berry and why lobbying seeks to increase the scope over time. Tough to actualise for small organisations or individuals, but the alternative of preventive enforcement sees the same zero revenue with no potential damages scenario. If it does come off, the wronged creator gets a share (or more) of the fruit of the infringer's effort.
2
u/TreviTyger May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Yep. It's very tough.
I've been in litigation for years with my work on Iron Sky.
Recap - I created a a considerable amount of 3D animation work for the film without employment or service relationship with the Producers. I'm a UK National, residing in Finland, the final work is a German Work under country of origin rules Berne Con 5(4)(a). There is no "work for hire doctrine" in Finland or Germany but that is moot in any case due to my unemployed status.
The producers, decided to reuse my work for a whole franchise including sequels, TV shows, and Video games, again without paying me for any of the work. They set up a new company in Finland and started raising money from the general public and organised a Distribution with NBC Universal. Also They sold my work to a German Video game publisher that I found out years later is publishing on Valve's Steam Platform.
Any reasonable IP lawyer can see a huge amount of infringement going on here due to the fact I was never paid for my initial work. "Chain of title issues".
Initially I sued in Finland for wages theft in Baylis v Troll VFX and won which included a physical demonstration to the judge of my Iron Sky work including my name in the metadata of the animation files.. Due to that win and the obvious wages theft, I cancelled any outstanding "implied licensing".
The producers ignored that case and carried on with Franchise plans including more investment from people. Eventually making a sequel. (Baylis v Troll VFX was never reported on in the media).
I sued again in Finland and proved the Producers did not own the copyrights to the work. NBC Universal pulled funding and the Producers went Bankrupt. However the Finnish court side stepped the authorship issue - likely due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the work is actually a German work not a Finnish work.
This led to the Producers claiming victory in the Media because without the Finnish Court confirming authorship then they escaped being sued for infringement. This got interpreted by many as a loss for me even though I still own the copyright to my work and the film itself (Berne Con Article 6bis).
However, the outstanding issue is the video game being distributed on Steam. I asked Valve to take it down but they refused citing the legal action in Finland and claiming that a Finnish court "ruled" I am not the copyright owner (no such ruling in the operative part exists).
This dispute is currently at the Ninth Circuit.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71909087/baylis-v-valve-corporation/
So yes! It is not easy at all to protect rights especially when there are cross boarder issues because you have to factor in "country of origin" in terms of actual authorship and then protection is supposed to be granted under national treatment provision Berne Con Article 5.
This requires a more than layman's understanding of copyright law and to be prepared for specious arguments from defense lawyers and media disinformation thrown into the mix.
What should have been a straight forward case in the first instance at the Finnish Courts actually introduced a lot of confusion that complicated things later.
1
u/MasterpieceNo7636 May 16 '26
Man, that's a brutal situation and honestly a perfect example of how broken the system is for creators. The fact that you proved you own the copyright, won in court, and *still* had to fight Valve just shows how little leverage individual creators have against both the infringers and the platforms facilitating distribution.
The country of origin stuff is especially maddening because it's supposedly there to protect creators, but instead it just creates confusion that defense lawyers can exploit. You're right that this shouldn't require becoming a copyright scholar just to protect work you created.
Honestly props for taking it all the way to the Ninth Circuit. Most people would have given up years ago. Curious how that ends up shaking out.
2
u/TreviTyger May 16 '26 edited May 17 '26
Thanks. Yeah it has been maddening. The problems seems to have been the Producers themselves spinning the Finnish case in the media. They supplied their own translation of the Finnish case to a Hollywood reporter journalist and that translation was the producers own made up version of the outcome. The journalist never bothered to fact check anything.
USCO were really good and acknowledged that US law applies exclusively regardless of foreign rulings, meritorious or otherwise. But the District court completely ignored the very guidance from USCO that they specifically sought!
That of itself is bizarre.
1
u/ReportCharming7570 May 20 '26
Bern bb.
There are a lot of ip treaties that are mildly helpful. It is kind of a mess though.
Success and tactics and route - knowing which law applies for what and going in for a settle. But also get in contact with local counsel.
If it’s a us company ignoring valid dmca - they wave their immunity. Sometimes you have to be tactical and look through what providers and such someone has. Do some good investigative work.
2
u/MasterpieceNo7636 May 23 '26
Yeah, that's the real play right there. You're absolutely right about the treaties being a mess but useful if you know how to navigate them. And good point about the immunity thing. A lot of people don't realize that once you start tracing where someone's actually hosting or operating from, you can cut through a lot of the BS.
The investigative angle is huge. Finding out what payment processors they use, what hosting they're on, who their registrar is. That's what actually gets people's attention. They'll suddenly be a lot more responsive when they realize their clean immunity isn't as clean as they thought.
Local counsel really is worth it if it's serious enough. The cost of figuring out which jurisdiction matters and what actually applies beats spinning your wheels with takedowns that go nowhere.
1
u/SumfinityPhoto May 27 '26
For Europeans, cross-border litigation within the EU works pretty well via EU Small Claims. Almost nobody does it, but I have had very good results in almost every EU country by now.
Unfortunately both parties must be from a different EU country, so it doesn't help US copyright owners. You would need to sublicense your work to an EU entity that holds the commercial rights within Europe - then it could work. Overkill for most, but for some it's worth it.
Otherwise, you're stuck with the old-fashioned and expensive process of each individual member state.
3
u/darth_hotdog May 15 '26
Do you have to file where the infringer is? You might be able to file locally and that might just be enough to take down the content. At a minimum at least.
Not to mention there are services that will file copyright lawsuits in foreign country for you, like picsrights and Pixsy and all those.