# Legal support flow

> **Draft by an AI (Counsel, Claude Fable 5.1), 2026-10-28. This is not legal advice.** It is a working
> description of a tool flow for review by a qualified lawyer before anything in it is used against a
> real uploader or platform. Law summaries below are from the model's training knowledge; the model had
> **no live web access** in this session, so nothing was verified against current sources. Every legal
> claim here is marked unverified. See "Open questions for a lawyer" at the end.

Entities follow `docs/data-model.md`: performer, reel, platform, candidate copy, case, notice, response.

## 1. Flow states (for the UI timeline)

**Case status**

```
opened → standing_checked → routed → fair_use_checked → notice_drafted → approved
  → notice_sent → awaiting_response → response_received → resolved | disputed → closed
```

Side exits from any state: `no_action` (closes), `refer_counsel` (hands to a human lawyer, stays open).
`refer_counsel` is both a route and a case status; entering that status or `disputed` sets `lawyer_review_required = true`.
Deadlines live on `case.deadlines[] {kind, due_at, source}`; notices carry `drafted_by`/`drafted_at`
(the tool may be `drafted_by`, never `approved_by`).
`disputed` is entered when a counter-notice or rejection arrives; it may return to `awaiting_response`
(for the DMCA 10–14 business day window) or go to `refer_counsel`.

**Case route** (set at `routed`): `takedown | likeness_claim | platform_policy | licensing | monitor_only | no_action | refer_counsel`

**Notice status**

```
draft → approved(approved_by: name, approved_at) → sent → acknowledged
  → removed | rejected | countered | withdrawn
```

`approved_by` is a required human name; the tool never sets it. A notice cannot leave `draft` without it.

**Response types** (`response.kind`): `platform_ack | removed | rejected | counter_notice | uploader_reply | no_response`

**Deadlines tracked on the case** (`deadline_kind`, `due_at`): `platform_sla`, `counter_notice_restore_window`
(10–14 business days after counter-notice, DMCA only), `suit_filing_window` (same window, for the
performer's side), `recheck` (monitor_only route).

**Standing roles** (`standing.role`): `copyright_owner | exclusive_licensee | authorised_agent | likeness_holder | union_rep | none`

## 2. Intake

Input: a candidate copy with `status = confirmed` and a non-null `evidence_ref`. The tool refuses to open
a case on an uncaptured or unconfirmed candidate, and never opens one from a score alone.

Intake records: the performer, the source reel, the candidate URL and capture, matched segments,
the human triage note, and who confirmed. It also asks the performer two questions up front:

1. Did you post or authorise this copy (cross-post, collab, licensed use)? If yes → `no_action`.
2. Who owns the reel? (see Standing.)

## 3. Standing: the performer may not own the copyright

Appearing in a reel does not make the performer its copyright owner. Unverified general rule (US):
copyright in an audiovisual work initially vests in the author, usually the person or company that
fixed it (videographer, producer), or the employer under work-for-hire, or whoever holds it by written
assignment. A performer who filmed and posted their own reel is probably the owner; a performer in a
label-produced, choreographer-credited, or agency-shot reel may not be.

The standing check records `standing = {holder, role, checked_by, checked_at, basis_doc}` where
`basis_doc` is a pointer to the contract, assignment, or a signed statement. Outcomes:

| role | can send DMCA? | can send likeness claim? | can file platform policy report? |
|---|---|---|---|
| copyright_owner | yes | if also the person depicted | yes |
| exclusive_licensee | yes (unverified: §512(c)(3) allows "owner of an exclusive right") | no | yes |
| authorised_agent | yes, as agent, with written authority on file | as agent of the depicted person | yes |
| likeness_holder (performer depicted, not owner) | **no** | yes | yes, if platform policy covers impersonation or synthetic media |
| union_rep | no, unless agent authority on file | no, unless agent | usually yes as reporter |
| none | no | no | report only |

Likeness gate: a `likeness_claim` route for `voice_clone`, `lookalike` or `ai_imitation` requires
`performer.likeness_opt_in = true` (consent to the face/voice embeddings the match rests on) and the
depicted person to be the claimant or to have given written authority.

Music and choreography are separate works with separate owners. A notice must not claim rights the
sender does not hold; a false claim is the main liability exposure (see §512(f) below, unverified).

## 4. Choosing a basis

Pick one primary basis per notice; the case may spawn more than one notice.

**A. Copyright (DMCA §512 or local equivalent)** — fits `exact_reupload`, `clip_lift`, `re_edit`,
`audio_lift` where the sender owns or exclusively licenses the lifted work. Weak for `ai_imitation`,
`voice_clone`, `lookalike` when nothing from the source reel is actually copied; style and voice are
generally not copyright subject matter (unverified).

**B. Right of publicity / likeness** — fits `ai_imitation`, `voice_clone`, `lookalike`, face swaps,
and any use suggesting endorsement. The claim holder is the person depicted, regardless of who owns
the reel. There is **no federal DMCA-style notice mechanism** for this (unverified); it goes by platform
policy report or by direct letter.

Varies by jurisdiction (all unverified, needs checking):
- US: state law. Statutes in e.g. California (Civ. Code §3344), New York (Civ. Rights Law §§50–51, with
  a 2021 digital replica provision for deceased performers), Tennessee (ELVIS Act 2024, explicitly covers
  voice and AI simulations), Illinois (2024 digital replica amendments). Scope, post-mortem rights,
  commercial-use requirement, and remedies differ by state. A federal bill (NO FAKES Act) was pending as
  of training; status unknown.
- EU/UK: no unified publicity right. Handled via personality rights, data protection (GDPR, image as
  personal data), passing off (UK), and in some states (Germany, France) image rights in civil codes.
  The EU AI Act labelling duties for deepfakes may matter for the uploader but give the performer no
  direct takedown right (unverified).
- Elsewhere: assume unknown; route `refer_counsel`.

The tool must store the performer's residence and the uploader's apparent jurisdiction and treat the
basis as unresolved if either is outside a configured list.

**C. Platform policy** — every major platform has reportable categories beyond copyright: impersonation,
non-consensual synthetic media / manipulated media, misleading AI content, scam/endorsement fraud
(YouTube's privacy complaint process for AI-generated likeness; TikTok's synthetic media policy; Meta's
manipulated media and impersonation rules — all unverified as of today). These are faster, require no
legal standing in the copyright sense, but are discretionary and give no legal remedy or counter-notice
rights. Good first move for likeness cases and for anyone with `role = none`.

**D. Licensing / outreach** — route `licensing`: a plain message offering credit or a licence. Not a
legal notice; no approval gate beyond the performer's OK.

## 5. Fair use / exception check before sending

Required before a copyright notice leaves `draft`. Unverified: US courts have held that a sender must
consider fair use before issuing a DMCA notice (*Lenz v. Universal*, 9th Cir. 2015), and knowingly
material misrepresentation exposes the sender to damages under §512(f).

Checklist stored on the case (`fair_use_check`, each item yes/no/unsure + note, `checked_by`):
- Purpose: commentary, criticism, parody, news, education, reaction? Commercial?
- Amount: how much of the reel, and is it the "heart"? (use `segments`)
- Transformation: new meaning or message, or just a re-cut?
- Market effect: does it substitute for the original?
- Attribution present? (does not make it fair, but informs route)
- Non-US: quotation, parody, pastiche exceptions (EU DSM Art. 17(7), UK CDPA s.30A) — unverified.

Any `unsure` on purpose or transformation → `refer_counsel` or `platform_policy` route instead of DMCA.

## 6. Drafting

Templates by basis; all fields come from the case record, nothing is invented by the tool.

**DMCA takedown (§512(c)(3) elements, unverified):**
1. Physical or electronic signature of the owner or authorised agent.
2. Identification of the copyrighted work (reel URL, title, `published_at`).
3. Identification of the infringing material and its location (candidate URL, segments).
4. Contact information.
5. Statement of good-faith belief the use is not authorised by the owner, agent, or law.
6. Statement, **under penalty of perjury**, that the information is accurate and the sender is the owner
   or authorised to act.

**Likeness letter:** identifies the person, the use, the jurisdiction and statute relied on, the fact that
no consent was given, and the demand (remove, stop, disclose). Must be reviewed by a lawyer for the
named jurisdiction before first use of each template.

**Platform policy report:** platform form fields; the tool pre-fills and records the submission
reference.

The draft shows the sender the perjury language and the §512(f) exposure in plain words before approval.

## 7. Human approval

A named human sets `approved_by`. The approver must be the person with standing or their authorised
agent, not an operator of the tool. The tool logs an audit event with the full notice text as sent.
Bulk approval is disabled.

## 8. Sending, tracking responses and deadlines

On `sent`: record channel (`platform.takedown_channel`), timestamp, submission reference, and set
`platform_sla` deadline from `platform.sla_days` (if null, default 14 days for follow-up only; this is
not a legal deadline).

Responses are logged as `response` records against the notice. Status transitions:
`platform_ack → acknowledged`, `removed → removed → case resolved`, `rejected → rejected → case
disputed`, `counter_notice → countered → case disputed`.

## 9. Counter-notice handling (DMCA, unverified)

When the uploader files a counter-notice under §512(g):
1. The platform forwards it to the sender; the tool records it as `response.kind = counter_notice`
   and sets `counter_notice_restore_window` = 10 business days from forwarding, `suit_filing_window`
   = 14 business days.
2. The platform may restore the material in 10–14 business days unless the sender notifies it that a
   court action has been filed to restrain the uploader.
3. The tool **does not** draft court filings. It moves the case to `refer_counsel` immediately and
   shows the deadline. If no lawyer takes it, the case goes to `resolved` with outcome `restored`.
4. A counter-notice also carries a perjury statement and consent to jurisdiction by the uploader; the
   tool stores the uploader's stated address for the lawyer.

Likeness and platform-policy reports have no statutory counter-notice; platform rejections go to
`disputed` and may be re-filed on another basis or escalated via the platform's appeal process.

**Receiving side:** if the performer themselves receives a notice (e.g. a label claims the reel), the
tool records it as an inbound case with route `refer_counsel`; the performer must not file a
counter-notice without advice, since it consents to jurisdiction and is sworn.

## 10. Non-US notice regimes (unverified)

EU DSA (Reg. 2022/2065) Art. 16 requires platforms to run notice-and-action with a statement of reasons
and an internal complaint system (Art. 20); UK Online Safety Act reporting duties; Canada's
notice-and-notice (no takedown). The tool should allow a `jurisdiction` field on the platform record and
pick the template accordingly; initially only the US template is drafted.

## Open questions for a lawyer

1. Is the standing table correct, in particular exclusive licensee standing and agent authority form?
2. Which right-of-publicity statutes should be supported first, and what do their notice letters need?
   Does any provide a notice-and-takedown procedure?
3. Confirm current §512(c)(3) and §512(g) elements and the 10–14 business day computation.
4. Does Lenz-style fair-use consideration still govern, and is the checklist sufficient to show it?
5. Status of the NO FAKES Act and any federal digital replica right; status of state AI likeness laws
   since 2024.
6. Can the tool pre-fill the perjury statement, or must the sender type it?
7. Is using performers' face/voice embeddings for detection itself a biometric-privacy issue (BIPA,
   GDPR Art. 9)? `likeness_opt_in` exists in the data model but is that enough?
8. Data retention for evidence captures and for uploaders' personal data from counter-notices.
9. Does acting as the sender's agent make the tool operator a liable party under §512(f) or
   unauthorised practice of law rules?
10. Music and choreography in reels: when does a notice need the label's or choreographer's joinder?
11. Platform-specific policy text and current form fields for YouTube, TikTok, Instagram/Meta, X,
    Snapchat; current contact for each DMCA agent (US Copyright Office directory).
12. Non-US regimes: DSA Art. 16 template, UK, Canada, and what to do for jurisdictions not on the list.

## Sources used

None could be accessed live in this session. Statutes and cases cited from training knowledge, to be
checked: 17 U.S.C. §512(c), (f), (g); *Lenz v. Universal Music*, 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015);
Cal. Civ. Code §3344; N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§50–51; Tenn. ELVIS Act (2024); Regulation (EU) 2022/2065
Arts. 16, 20; Directive (EU) 2019/790 Art. 17; UK CDPA s.30A.