There is a general misunderstanding about what DMCA is and how it works. DMCA is a law, Google can not enforce laws, they can only enforce their own policies. In some cases they will remove URLs from their own results, but that does not remove your content from the internet. The form submitted to Google is for their benefit, not yours. You should be filing your DMCA with the website and/or their hosting service and then let Google know about the case.

Google gets millions of DMCA submissions per month and they do not dedicate sufficient resources to this service to deal with even a quarter of those submissions.

Read through the Charter of the Content, Writing and Copyright Forum here: [webmasterworld.com...] and you will find the information about DMCA and how it is intended to be used.

I can understand the confusion and annoyance of trying to defend your work. Copying seems to be more prevalent all the time and it can be frustrating and time consuming to fight.

Filing with host will produce better results.

Once it is disabled there it will be gone from Google shortly after and if you are successful with the host there is your additional information for Google.

Thanks for the replies. I confess I didn't quite understand the Google DMCA setup.
However, that said, I do find the "not enough information" and other responses pretty unhelpful.

Today I received a new response from Google Removals concerning a Blogspot post. These, I believe Google do have a responsibility to remove as they are the host.

As usual the form was filled out in detail but the response was:
"It is unclear to us whether or not you are the authorized copyright agent for the content in question".

I actually think this may be because I filled out the form as Chris, yet stated the copyright owner as Christopher.....

Or you neglected to add:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the Complaining Party is the owner, or is authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

It does not matter if the parties are different people or difference organizations all that matter is the authorization to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Download [copyright.gov...] and follow the details in title II precisely which is precisely what Google must follow to avoid being the defendant in your legal claim.

As far as I recall this ^ is covered by a checkbox which is required for the form to submit. I'll have to double check.

One other possibility could be "fair use" might apply.

Copyright for imagery implies some distinctive creativity if you took a picture of the ocean and all that was in the picture was blue water, and white wave-crest that picture isn't very distinctive.

You don't own the ocean or the waves and you didn't make the ocean or waves so your creative expression isn't easily understood.

The fact the you took the picture isn't evidence of your creative expression.

Candidly, from Google's vantagepoint if they are not fearful of your intent to sue for damages why do they need a safe harbor from you?

If you have registered your work with the Copyright Office they would take you seriously.

DMCA is not a replacement for Copyright Law it merely aligns to it.

Google gets millions of DMCA complaints monthly they only care about protecting themselves ... not you. I'm certain an Intellectual Property Attorney reviewed your details and believes you are not much of a threat to their master.

Google is a listing service, not a distributor of materials. You will have to send the DMCA to the host of the infringing site, to the site, and/or their representatives. Copyright holders have to be diligent and constant to keep their copyright inviolate, and that is a mountain of work by any description. It may also cross international borders which only complicates the problem as copyright laws may vary from country to country.

At some point decisions will need be made as to what is worth pursuing, what is registered and needs be pursued, and what can be protected. Only you can make that determination... and YOU might be just a person, business, corporation, etc.

But filing a DMCA with G will not usually result in the positive desired: They are not content providers.

Now, here here is a new one. I sent a DMCA to Google regarding 3 separate Blogspot posts. Two of these were removed without question, whilst I received this response for the other one:

At this time, Google has decided not to take action. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.

If you cannot reach an agreement and choose to pursue legal action against the individual who posted the content, and that action results in a judicial determination that the material is illegal or should be removed, please send us the court order seeking removal. In cases where the the individual who posted the content is anonymous, we may provide you with user information pursuant to a valid third party subpoena or other appropriate legal process against Google Inc.

What is that about?! Circumstances are the same for all of them yet they treat one differently.

In this case Google are the ISP - does their failure to act on the takedown notice not make them liable for secondary infringement?

Well they are intentionally not using their safe harbor, so yes.

But unless your copyright registration claim pre-dates the infringement you have to prove actual damages.

Kind of odd behaviour though?! To more or less acknowledge an infringement has occurred (or at least they are aware it may have) and then refuse to act on it in a single case.

But unless your copyright registration claim pre-dates the infringement you have to prove actual damages

I'm based in the UK so there are some minor differences in IP law. Most notably, copyright is implicit and doesn't need to be registered. Whilst extracting damages for secondary infringement is somewhat trickier the refusal to act makes the infringement flagrant which can push the claim up.

At the end of the day though I'm happy just to have the image taken down. After all Google are the last people I want to upset given 90% of my income comes from Adsense!

Kind of odd behaviour though?! To more or less acknowledge an infringement has occurred (or at least they are aware it may have) and then refuse to act on it in a single case.

Understanding that Google takes this stuff seriously. Lack of action can be as simple as their understanding of the situation. They acknowledge a US DMCA process that is based on US Copyright Laws (Not UK Copyright)

File a UK oriented claim would likely get a response.

Trying to get Google to act on a UK case where the infringer is where?

You are better to send a C&D to the host.

After some research please note under UK law the DMCA 1998 US has no jurisdictional provisions for the UK nor aids website owners that will not use the US Courts.

UK Law does not have an equivalent provision. However, you can certainly ask the infringing party to remove the images, or you can certainly politely ask a UK host to disable or threaten them with damages (for a hosting customer of a few hundred pound/years). I am sure one or the other would reasonably see things your way.

DMCA is not a replacement for filing a lawsuit... thus believing this is your first line of copyright defense is actually abusing the law.

Which is likely why Google's legal team isn't worried.