THE MISFIT CAUCUS · The [SIC] Press ·
LEGAL · DMCA SECTION 512

DMCA Designated Agent

Social Truth Press LLC · Service Provider Reg #DMCA-1071938
Published: 2026-04-26 (v4)  ·  Three-tier structure: TL;DR + Thorough + In Other Words  ·  Designated Agent contact: compliance@socialtruthpress.com · 2501 Chatham Road, Suite 5381, Springfield, IL 62704

Version: 4.0 Effective: April 26, 2026 Last updated: April 26, 2026 Plain-language commitment: This page explains a federal legal process. Where the law uses jargon, we translate. Where the law is firm, we don't soften it. Where bad-faith filers test the system, we say so plainly.

Accessibility commitment: This document is structured for screen readers (sequential headings, descriptive table content, alt-text for any future images). Translations are available on request via legal@socialtruthpress.com. Plain-English summaries are paired with legal language throughout. If anything is unclear, that's our problem to fix — please tell us.

No fee: We do not charge any fee for receiving, processing, or responding to DMCA notices or counter-notices.

Scope: This policy applies to all properties operated by Social Truth Press LLC — misfitcaucus.com, socialtruthpress.com, thesicpress.com, socialtruthfiles.com, rcruzitai.com, the Misfit Caucus newsletter on Substack, and any future Social Truth Press LLC platforms.

Three-tier structure: Every section below has three readings — pick whichever fits how you arrived here:

✅ TL;DR — plain-English summary you can read in 30 seconds.

[The full legally-defensible legal narrative — the controlling text. This is what governs.]

🎭 In other words — the brand-voice translation. Same content, deadpan. We know you've been reading legalese since the 30-Second Read up top. Take a breath.

If the three layers ever appear to contradict each other, the middle layer (the legal narrative) controls. The TL;DR is helpful but not operative. The "In other words" is voice, not law. The serious section is the policy.

30-Second Read

You think we're publishing your copyrighted work without permission? Send a written notice to compliance@socialtruthpress.com that includes the six elements in Section 4. We respond within 2 business days. We act on valid notices within 24-72 hours of validation.

We publish satire and political commentary about public figures. The vast majority of "infringement" complaints we receive are about quoted public statements being used in commentary — that's textbook fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Section 8 explains this in detail. Bad-faith notices targeting fair use can result in damages liability under § 512(f). We document and pursue them.

If you're a user whose content was removed and you disagree, see Section 6 for the counter-notice procedure.

Table of contents

  1. About this policy
  2. Our Designated Agent
  3. Plain-English overview
  4. How to send a valid DMCA notice
  5. What happens after you send a notice
  6. Counter-notice procedure
  7. Repeat infringer policy
  8. About our content: fair use, satire, public figures
  9. False claims and § 512(f) liability
  10. What this policy does NOT cover
  11. Multi-platform applicability
  12. Special considerations
  13. What we will NOT do
  14. Confidentiality and information sharing
  15. Modifications to this policy
  16. Governing law
  17. Severability and other boilerplate
  18. Political Satire, Cartoon, and Parody Considerations
  19. FAQ
  20. Library of refused notice patterns
  21. Glossary

Appendices: - Appendix A: Decision tree for senders - Appendix B: Pre-flight checklist for senders - Appendix C: Sample valid notice template - Appendix D: Sample counter-notice template - Appendix E: Contact summary - Appendix F: Definitions and term-by-term meaning - Appendix G: Change log

1. About this policy

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Social Truth Press LLC publishes satirical political commentary. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a federal law that gives copyright holders a fast-takedown channel and gives us legal protection for following specific rules. This page explains how the process works, what we'll do, and what we won't.

1.1 Who we are

Social Truth Press LLC is an Illinois limited liability company. We publish serialized graphic-novel work under the imprint The [SIC] Press, with the umbrella series brand The Social Truth Files and the flagship title The Misfit Caucus. We also publish a related newsletter on Substack and operate the websites listed above.

The work is satirical, journalistic, and political in nature. It depicts named real-world public figures — current and former government officials, political celebrities, media figures — based on their own publicly-made statements, public conduct, and reporting in the public record. Our methodology is documented at our public Methodology page (link forthcoming on misfitcaucus.com).

1.2 Why this page exists

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 created a federal notice-and-takedown system for online copyright disputes. Service providers who follow the system get safe harbor protection — protection from being held liable for content their users or commenters post.

We've registered a Designated Agent with the U.S. Copyright Office (registration DMCA-1071938), and this page is the public-facing partner to that registration. It tells copyright holders how to send a valid notice. It tells users how to respond if their content is taken down. And it tells everyone what we'll and won't do.

1.3 Reading commitment

We've written this in plain English wherever the law lets us. Where the law requires specific legal language, we use it AND explain it. The Glossary (Section 20 / Appendix F) defines every legal term we use. If anything is unclear, email legal@socialtruthpress.com and we'll improve the wording in a future revision.

This page is informational. It is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and us. If you have specific legal questions, consult a lawyer admitted in your jurisdiction.

🎭 In other words: We publish a comic about politicians being themselves. The federal government created a system in 1998 that lets us avoid getting sued every time a comment-section troll posts somebody else's stuff. This page exists because the law requires us to publish it. It's also useful, but mostly: required by federal statute. We made it readable on purpose.

2. Our Designated Agent

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Our official DMCA contact is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as DMCA-1071938. Send DMCA notices to compliance@socialtruthpress.com or by mail to NW VO Springfield, IL. Always verify our registration at copyright.gov/dmca-directory — that federal registry is the authoritative source. If our website ever shows different info than the federal directory, trust the directory.

Per 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), Social Truth Press LLC has formally designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement.

Field Value
Designated Agent name DMCA Designated Agent
Service Provider Social Truth Press LLC
Street address 2501 Chatham Road, Suite 5381
City, State, ZIP Springfield, IL 62704
Country United States
Phone
Email compliance@socialtruthpress.com
U.S. Copyright Office Registration # DMCA-1071938
Date of registration April 26, 2026
Renewal cycle Every 3 years (next renewal due April 2029)

2.1 Verifying our Designated Agent independently

You don't have to take our word for it. Our registration is in the official U.S. Copyright Office DMCA Designated Agent Directory:

  1. Go to https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/
  2. Search for: Social Truth Press
  3. You should see: Service Provider DMCA-1071938, with the same contact info as above.

If our website ever shows different information than the U.S. Copyright Office directory, the directory controls. Always trust the federal registry over a published web page (web pages can be tampered with; federal registries cannot).

2.2 Why "DMCA Designated Agent" instead of a personal name

The Designated Agent is identified by role/title rather than the name of an individual employee. This is explicitly permitted under the U.S. Copyright Office's interpretation of § 512(c)(2) (see the Office's published guidance at copyright.gov/dmca-directory/help.html). Wikipedia, GitHub, Reddit, Substack, and many other publishers do the same.

A real human at Social Truth Press LLC reviews every notice. The title-only listing is a privacy measure for our employee (currently a sole-member LLC owner), not an attempt to evade service of process or accountability.

🎭 In other words: There's a real person at our LLC who reads every DMCA notice that comes through the door. We don't put that person's name on the public registry because they live somewhere with windows. The role exists; the human is real; the email gets read. The federal directory at copyright.gov is the source of truth — if our website disagrees, the feds win.

3. Plain-English overview

✅ TL;DR (easy read): DMCA is a federal copyright law about online disputes. It gives copyright holders a fast-takedown channel; gives us safe harbor protection for following the rules; and gives users counter-notice rights if their content is wrongly removed. Crucially: under Lenz v. Universal (2015), you must consider fair use under § 107 BEFORE sending a notice. Skipping that step is itself a § 512(f) violation that can cost you damages.

Before we get to the legal mechanics, here's what's actually happening when DMCA enters the picture.

If you own a copyright and someone uses your work without permission, you have several legal options. DMCA is the fast lane option for online content. Instead of suing first, you send a notice that triggers an obligation on the service provider (us, in this case) to take the content down quickly OR lose safe-harbor protection. It's powerful precisely because it's fast.

3.2 What DMCA gives US (the service provider)

If we receive a valid notice and act on it, we get safe harbor under § 512(c) — protection from being held liable for the content. To keep that protection we must:

3.3 What DMCA gives the affected USER

If someone alleges infringement of your content (e.g., a comment you posted, content you submitted to us), you have the right to file a counter-notice asserting the takedown was wrong. If you do, the original notice-sender has 10-14 business days to file an actual lawsuit. If they don't, your content gets restored. This is the brake on bad-faith takedowns.

3.4 What DMCA does NOT do

3.5 The Lenz fair-use rule

Under Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2015), a copyright holder is required to consider whether the use is fair use before sending a DMCA notice. Failure to do so is itself a § 512(f) violation.

Fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 has four factors:

  1. Purpose and character of the use — is it transformative? Commercial? Educational? Satirical? Critical?
  2. Nature of the copyrighted work — fact vs. creative? Published vs. unpublished?
  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used — and whether that amount was necessary
  4. Effect on the market for the original work — does the use substitute for the original?

Courts have held repeatedly that satirical, transformative commentary on public figures using portions of their own publicly-made statements is generally fair use. Cases include:

If your "infringement" claim is essentially "they used my words to criticize me" — that is the textbook scenario fair use protects.

🎭 In other words: Imagine federal copyright law as a vending machine. You put a notice in. We pull content down. The affected user can put a counter-notice in to get it back. Everyone signs sworn statements under penalty of perjury at every step. The Lenz case (2015) added: you have to actually THINK about fair use before pressing the takedown button. Pressing the button reflexively, without thinking, gets YOU sued. We didn't make this rule; the Ninth Circuit did.

4. How to send a valid DMCA notice

✅ TL;DR (easy read): A valid notice has 6 specific legally-required elements (§ 512(c)(3)). Email is preferred (compliance@socialtruthpress.com); postal mail accepted. Phone calls and DMs are NOT accepted as notices. Run the pre-flight checklist (Section 4.A) before drafting — if any answer makes you uncomfortable, talk to a lawyer first. Knowingly false notices = damages liability under § 512(f).

4.A Pre-flight checklist (read this first)

Before you draft a notice, run through this checklist. If any answer makes you uncomfortable, stop and consult a lawyer.

Sending a notice that fails any of these tests can expose you to § 512(f) damages liability (Section 9).

4.B Required elements (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3))

A valid DMCA notice must include all of the following six elements. Notices missing any required element will be rejected as procedurally defective. The numbering matches the federal statute.

1. Identification of the copyrighted work allegedly infringed.

Translation: Tell us specifically what work of yours we allegedly used. "All my work" is not specific enough. Provide title, description, and registration number if registered.

2. Identification of the allegedly-infringing material with enough detail for us to find it.

Translation: Provide URLs. If our content combines multiple elements, identify which specific element allegedly infringes (paragraph, panel, image filename).

3. Your contact information — full legal name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address.

Translation: DMCA does not allow anonymous notices. Your contact info is required by federal law and will be forwarded to the affected user.

4. The good-faith belief statement:

"I have a good-faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

5. The accuracy and authority statement, under penalty of perjury:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate, and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

6. Your physical or electronic signature.

Translation: Type your name preceded by /s/ for an electronic signature. For postal mail, sign in ink.

4.C Format and delivery

Method How
Email (preferred) compliance@socialtruthpress.com — Subject line: DMCA Takedown Notice — [Your Name] — [Brief work title]
Postal mail DMCA Designated Agent / Social Truth Press LLC / 2501 Chatham Road, Suite 5381 / Springfield, IL 62704 / United States
PGP-encrypted email Same address. Email legal@socialtruthpress.com with subject PGP key request — DMCA agent to receive our public key. We will publish the key fingerprint at https://misfitcaucus.com/dmca/pgp-key.txt once the website is live.
Phone NOT accepted as a notice. Phone is for follow-up after a written notice has been received, not in lieu of it.
Social media DMs NOT accepted as a notice. We do not monitor social media for legal notices.
Website contact forms NOT accepted as a notice. The Designated Agent email is the proper channel.

4.D Languages

Notices in languages other than English are accepted. We may machine-translate for evaluation. Please include an English-language abstract if possible to speed processing.

4.E Notices submitted by attorneys or other agents

If you are submitting on behalf of a copyright owner: - Identify yourself by name and title - Include the bar number and admission jurisdiction (if you are an attorney) - Include written authorization from the copyright owner - The § 512(c)(3) statements must be made on behalf of the copyright owner

False claims of authority by agents are also actionable under § 512(f).

4.F Notices from automated systems

We are aware that many DMCA notices are generated by automated brand-protection tools (Pixsy, Copysweeper, agent-of-record bots, etc.). We process automated notices the same way we process human-drafted notices. However: if the automated system fails to consider fair use (Lenz v. Universal), the human or organization that deployed the bot is responsible for the resulting § 512(f) liability. Bots don't have safe harbor.

4.G When does the clock start?

Our 2-business-day acknowledgment and 24-72-hour action windows start when a complete and procedurally valid notice is received during business hours.

🎭 In other words: A valid DMCA notice is like a hotel reservation: very specific information in very specific fields, or it doesn't process. The six elements are listed in Section 4.B. The pre-flight checklist exists because, statistically, most DMCA notices we expect to receive will be about content that's clearly fair use — and the senders apparently never asked themselves the obvious question first. The question: "Wait — is what I'm complaining about actually quoting me, in commentary about a tweet I sent to the public, on purpose?" If yes: stop. Talk to a lawyer. We're not joking about § 512(f).

5. What happens after you send a notice

✅ TL;DR (easy read): We acknowledge valid notices via email within 2 business days. Validated legitimate notices result in takedown within 24-72 hours. Procedurally defective notices get an explanation and a chance to cure. Substantively bad-faith notices get refused with documentation, possible Lumen Database forwarding, and possible publication. The affected user is always notified and gets counter-notice rights.

5.1 Receipt and acknowledgment (within 2 business days)

We acknowledge valid notices via email within 2 business days. The acknowledgment confirms receipt and start of evaluation. It is not a finding on the merits.

5.2 Evaluation

We evaluate every notice for:

5.3 Action timelines

Outcome Timeline What we do
Valid notice, substantively legitimate 24-72 hours from validation Remove or disable access; notify affected user; record action
Procedurally defective Within 5 business days Email sender explaining what's missing; offer chance to cure
Substantively bad-faith Within 5 business days Decline takedown; document for § 512(f); may forward to Lumen Database; in egregious cases, may publish notice
Counter-notice received from affected user Within 10-14 business days of forwarding to original sender Restore content if no lawsuit filed; keep down if lawsuit filed

5.4 What we share with the affected user

Per § 512(c)(g) we forward your notice (or its substance, including your contact information) to the user whose content is being removed so they can evaluate counter-notice rights. Your DMCA notice is not confidential. Read Section 14 carefully before sending.

5.5 What we share with Lumen Database

Lumen Database (https://lumendatabase.org), operated by Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, is the de facto public registry of DMCA notices. We may forward notices we receive to Lumen for transparency. Senders should expect their notices may become public.

🎭 In other words: Your notice goes into a queue. A real human reads it. If it's well-formed and substantively legitimate, content comes down quickly. If it's missing required elements, we tell you what to fix. If it's clearly bad-faith — targeting satire of public figures using their own statements, say — we say no, document it, and reserve the right to write about it later in our regular publication. Then we tell the user whose content got taken down so they can fight back if they want to. Everyone gets to play.

6. Counter-notice procedure (for users whose content was removed)

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Content was removed and you disagree? File a counter-notice with the 6 required elements (§ 512(g)(3)). Filing consents to federal court jurisdiction in your district. The original sender then has 10-14 business days to file an actual lawsuit against you. If they don't sue, your content gets restored. If they do sue, it goes to court.

If your content was removed in response to a DMCA notice and you believe the removal was wrong (e.g., the use was fair use, the takedown was bad-faith, the work was your own original creation), you may file a counter-notice.

6.1 Required elements (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3))

1. Your physical or electronic signature.

Type your name preceded by /s/ for an electronic signature.

2. Identification of the material that was removed and its location before removal — same level of specificity as the original notice.

3. A statement under penalty of perjury that you have a good-faith belief the material was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification.

4. Your contact information — full legal name, mailing address, telephone number, email address.

5. A statement consenting to the jurisdiction of the federal district court for the judicial district in which your address is located, OR if outside the U.S., for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

6. A statement consenting to accept service of process from the person who provided the original notice, or that person's agent.

6.2 What happens after you send a counter-notice

Step Timeline
We acknowledge receipt Within 2 business days
We forward your counter-notice to the original sender Within 5 business days
Original sender can file a lawsuit against you They have 10-14 business days from receipt of your counter-notice
If sender files suit: content stays down pending court resolution Indefinite
If sender doesn't file suit: we restore the content Within 10-14 business days of forwarding

6.3 Important warnings

6.4 Withdrawal of counter-notice

If you change your mind, you can withdraw a pending counter-notice by emailing compliance@socialtruthpress.com with the subject Counter-Notice Withdrawal — [Your Name] — [Date of Counter-Notice]. Withdrawal stops the clock; content remains in its current state (removed).

🎭 In other words: A counter-notice is the brake pedal on bad-faith takedowns. You file. The original sender then has two weeks to either sue you in federal court or admit they were bluffing. Most bluff. The brake works. But: counter-notices are also sworn statements under penalty of perjury, so don't file one frivolously either. The system is designed to make BOTH sides think before pressing buttons.

7. Repeat infringer policy

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Per § 512(i), we maintain a policy to terminate accounts of users who rack up multiple validated takedowns. Threshold: 3+ validated takedowns within a rolling 12-month period. Defective and bad-faith notices don't count toward your tally. Reinstatement is possible after 12 months at our discretion.

Per § 512(i)(1)(A), Social Truth Press LLC maintains a policy to terminate, in appropriate circumstances, the accounts of users who are repeat infringers.

7.1 Definition

A "repeat infringer" is a user whose conduct has been the subject of multiple validated DMCA notices that we have acted upon, where:

7.2 Threshold

Users with three or more validated takedowns within a rolling 12-month period are subject to account termination on properties we control (newsletter subscriptions, future forum access, future Discord access, etc.).

We weigh the following before termination:

7.3 What does NOT count toward repeat-infringer status

7.4 Reinstatement

Terminated users may petition for reinstatement after 12 months by emailing legal@socialtruthpress.com with an explanation. Reinstatement is at our discretion.

🎭 In other words: If you keep posting copyright-infringing stuff in our comments or future Discord, we'll eventually kick you off the platforms we control. "Eventually" = after three legitimate takedowns in a year. Defective notices and bad-faith notices don't count, because they shouldn't. If you get terminated and want back, ask in 12 months. We're not the FBI; we'll consider it.

8. About our content: fair use, satire, public figures

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Our work is satirical, transformative commentary on named public figures using their own publicly-made statements. This is the textbook scenario for First Amendment + § 107 fair use protection. The Supreme Court has affirmed satirical commentary on public figures repeatedly: Hustler v. Falwell (1988), NYT v. Sullivan (1964), Snyder v. Phelps (2011), Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (1994). Discomfort with being satirized is not a copyright claim.

This section is a substantive disclosure intended to help DMCA-notice senders understand what they're dealing with before they file.

8.1 What we publish

The Misfit Caucus and related works are satirical, transformative commentary on:

The work is fictionalized for narrative pacing and dramatic structure. The source material — the words and conduct being depicted — is documented in publicly-available records, primarily contemporaneous social media posts and public reporting.

8.2 First Amendment foundations

Our work is grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the strongest legal protection for political speech, satire, criticism, and parody. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that:

DMCA notice-and-takedown is itself an extra-judicial mechanism. When wielded against fair use, it functions as a private censorship tool. We treat that misuse with appropriate skepticism.

8.3 Fair-use foundations

Our use of source material is rooted in 17 U.S.C. § 107 fair use, particularly:

If you are a public figure depicted in our work and you are sending a DMCA notice claiming we used "your words" without "your permission" — please understand that public figures' publicly-made statements are subject to extensive fair-use rights for criticism and commentary. The fact that you don't like being quoted does not create a copyright claim.

8.4 What we don't do

To preempt categorical complaints:

8.5 Anti-SLAPP awareness

Many U.S. states have Anti-SLAPP statutes providing expedited relief and fee-shifting against lawsuits filed primarily to silence speech on matters of public concern. Illinois has 735 ILCS 110/. We are aware of these protections and prepared to invoke them.

🎭 In other words: We took your tweet. We put it in a comic. We were mean about it. This is American Tradition, going back to colonial pamphlets. The Founders thought satire of politicians was so important they enshrined the right to do it in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Multiple times. With unanimous decisions. The fact that you don't enjoy being mocked is not a copyright issue. It's a political-career hazard. You're doing fine.

9. False claims and § 512(f) liability

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Knowingly false DMCA notices expose senders to damages under § 512(f) — including the alleged infringer's actual losses, costs of evaluating the false notice, and attorney's fees. § 512(f) is a real cause of action with successful precedent (Lenz v. Universal, Online Policy Group v. Diebold). We document every notice we receive, identify bad-faith patterns, and pursue § 512(f) damages where appropriate. We may also publicly publish bad-faith notices and the senders behind them.

9.1 The framework

§ 512(f) of the DMCA provides a private cause of action against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing in a takedown notice. Damages may include:

This is real. Successful cases include Lenz v. Universal Music and Online Policy Group v. Diebold (2004).

9.2 What we consider knowing material misrepresentation

Without limitation:

9.3 Our response to bad-faith notices

For notices we identify as bad-faith we may, in our discretion:

We do not consider bad-faith DMCA filers to be entitled to confidentiality about their bad-faith filings.

9.4 Statute of limitations

The federal statute of limitations for § 512(f) is generally 3 years from when the violation accrued. We track notices we receive and reserve the right to file within that window.

🎭 In other words: § 512(f) is the law that makes you pay damages for bullshit DMCA notices. It is real. People have lost real money over it. We have lawyers. We have an editorial publication that thrives on documenting bad-faith use of legal process. If you file a fake notice trying to silence satire, we will document you. If you send enough fake notices, we will write about you. We are the kind of publisher who keeps receipts. Don't be the case study.

10. What this policy does NOT cover

✅ TL;DR (easy read): DMCA covers copyright infringement only. Don't try to convert other complaints into copyright by filing DMCA notices. Trademark, defamation, privacy, right-of-publicity, patent, "I don't like this," GDPR/international, § 1201, Copyright Claims Board, and CSAM/illegal content all have different procedures — see subsections 10.A through 10.J. Email legal@socialtruthpress.com for non-DMCA legal matters.

Different problems have different processes. Don't try to convert non-copyright issues into copyright issues by filing DMCA notices.

10.A Trademark disputes

DMCA notices for trademark issues will be rejected. For trademark concerns, contact legal@socialtruthpress.com with:

We address trademark concerns under the Lanham Act. Trademark parody is well-established protected speech (Mattel v. MCA Records, Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog).

10.B Defamation, libel, false light

Defamation claims require demonstrating a false statement of fact (not opinion, not satire, not commentary). Fictional satirical work that no reasonable reader would interpret as a literal factual claim is generally not defamation. Public figures must additionally prove actual malice under NYT v. Sullivan.

For specific defamation claims, contact legal@socialtruthpress.com.

10.C Privacy / right of publicity

These are not copyright claims and have no DMCA procedure. Use of names and likenesses in news, commentary, satire, and political speech is generally protected under the First Amendment and state-law incidental-use exceptions.

For specific claims, contact legal@socialtruthpress.com.

10.D Patent infringement

DMCA does not apply to patents. Contact legal@socialtruthpress.com.

10.E "I don't like this"

We do not remove content because a depicted figure is unhappy with how they are depicted. That is the entire point of editorial independence in journalism, criticism, and satire.

If you want to engage critically, write a response. We may publish thoughtful critical responses.

10.F International / GDPR / right-to-erasure

EU/UK/EEA residents requesting erasure of personal data under GDPR Art. 17 or similar frameworks: contact legal@socialtruthpress.com with the subject GDPR Erasure Request — [Your Name]. GDPR Art. 85 has explicit exceptions for journalism, academic, artistic, and literary expression. We evaluate requests against those exceptions in good faith.

10.G § 1201 (anti-circumvention)

This policy covers § 512 (notice-and-takedown), not § 1201 (anti-circumvention of DRM). We don't operate DRM-protected systems. § 1201 issues: legal@socialtruthpress.com.

10.H Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 (often called "Section 230") is a different federal protection — for service providers' decisions about user-generated content. It is distinct from DMCA. Most of our content is editorial (created by us), not user-generated, so § 230 considerations are limited.

The Copyright Claims Board is a federal small-claims tribunal established by the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act, 2020). It handles copyright disputes valued under $30,000 and is a less-adversarial alternative to federal court litigation.

If your dispute with us would be more efficiently resolved through the CCB than through DMCA takedown + federal litigation, we are open to participating in CCB proceedings. The CCB is "opt-in" — both parties must consent. Information at https://ccb.gov.

Note: CCB participation does not preempt our § 512(f) rights against bad-faith senders.

10.J CSAM / illegal content

If you encounter content depicting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or other illegal content (incitement to imminent violence, true threats, etc.) on our properties, report it directly via the appropriate emergency channel:

We have an expedited response process for these reports outside the DMCA framework.

🎭 In other words: The DMCA is for copyright. Just copyright. If your complaint is "they're saying mean things about me" — that's not copyright. If your complaint is "they used my company name" — that's trademark, different process. If your complaint is "I want this removed because I'm a public figure who doesn't like it" — that's not actually a category in U.S. law. Use the right form. We have other emails for other complaints. They also go to a real human.

11. Multi-platform applicability

✅ TL;DR (easy read): This policy applies to ALL Social Truth Press LLC properties — our 5 owned websites, the Substack newsletter, future platforms (Discord, forums, Patreon, Kickstarter, etc.), and editorial content sold via retail platforms. Substack and retail platforms have separate DMCA policies for THEIR infrastructure, but our editorial responsibility for what we publish through them is governed by THIS policy.

This policy applies to all properties operated by Social Truth Press LLC:

11.1 Substack-specific note

Substack as a platform has its own DMCA policy and Designated Agent for Substack-platform infrastructure issues. This policy applies to the editorial content we publish through Substack. DMCA notices about our editorial content should come to us, not Substack support — though Substack will route them to us if filed there.

If your DMCA concern is about Substack's platform itself (their hosting, their delivery infrastructure, their billing system), that's a Substack matter — see Substack's DMCA policy at https://substack.com/dmca.

11.2 Retail platform note

Where our work is sold via Gumroad, KDP, IngramSpark, etc., the platforms have their own DMCA policies covering their hosting infrastructure. Our editorial responsibility for the content we publish through them is governed by this policy.

11.3 Internet Archive / archived content

Older versions of our content may be archived in services like the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. We do not control Internet Archive's hosting decisions. If you have a DMCA concern about an archived version of our content, you may need to file with both us (about the original) and the Internet Archive (about the archived copy). The Internet Archive's DMCA policy is at https://archive.org/about/dmca.

🎭 In other words: We operate a small empire of websites and a Substack. This policy applies to everything WE publish. Substack handles their own platform-level DMCA stuff (their hosting, their billing, their email infrastructure) — that's their problem, send those to them. Anything WE put on their platform is OUR problem, and this policy controls. Same for KDP, Gumroad, IngramSpark, and any future retail channels.

12. Special considerations

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Edge cases and modern issues — AI-generated/AI-assisted content, embedded vs. self-hosted content, screenshots and quoted excerpts of public figures, multiple notices for same content (deduplication), foreign-jurisdiction senders, pseudonymous senders (not allowed under § 512(c)(3)(A)(iv)), and claims against our own original content. Each gets a sub-section.

12.1 AI-generated and AI-assisted content

Our work uses AI-assisted illustration as a production tool. We disclose AI assistance in our methodology page. AI-assisted content can be the subject of valid copyright protection where there is sufficient human creative input (per Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023, and U.S. Copyright Office guidance).

If you believe AI-generated content in our work substantially copies a specific copyrighted training work of yours, identify the specific work it allegedly substantially copies. A general claim that "this looks AI-generated" is not a valid DMCA notice.

12.2 Embedded vs. self-hosted content

Where our publications embed third-party content (e.g., embed a tweet rather than rehost it), the embedded content remains hosted by the third party. Takedown of embedded content typically requires action at the source platform. We will, however, remove or replace embeds upon valid notice if the embedding itself is the alleged violation.

12.3 Screenshots, transcripts, and quoted excerpts

A screenshot of a public figure's tweet is not the same as the original tweet for copyright purposes:

DMCA notices about screenshots, transcripts, or quoted excerpts of public figures' public statements will be evaluated against fair use and almost always rejected as bad-faith if the use is in commentary.

12.4 Multiple notices for the same content (deduplication)

If we receive multiple DMCA notices about the same content, we evaluate each separately but may consolidate our response. The first valid notice triggers our action; subsequent notices may receive an abbreviated response referencing the earlier action.

12.5 Notices arriving after content has already been removed

If we have already removed content for any reason (editorial decision, error correction, prior notice) when your DMCA notice arrives, we will respond confirming the content's status. This does not impair your other rights.

12.6 Foreign-jurisdiction senders

We accept DMCA notices from senders outside the U.S. The DMCA is U.S. law; sending a notice subjects you to U.S. legal frameworks for the notice itself (including § 512(f)). Senders should consult their own counsel.

12.7 Pseudonymous senders

DMCA does not allow anonymous notices — § 512(c)(3)(A)(iv) requires sender contact info. Notices from pseudonymous senders ("J. Doe", "anonymous123") will be rejected as procedurally defective.

12.8 Claims against our own original content

If you believe we are infringing your copyright with content we created (e.g., you claim ownership of a phrase, idea, image we made independently), the burden is on you to demonstrate ownership and substantial similarity. Independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement claims. Notices alleging infringement of our independently-created work will receive heightened scrutiny.

🎭 In other words: Modern DMCA reality is complicated. AI is in the chat now. Screenshots of tweets aren't the same as the tweets. Some senders are bots. Some senders are foreign. Some senders are anonymous (not allowed). Some senders have decided WE'RE infringing on THEM (we ask them to prove it, like grown-ups). We tried to address each of these honestly in the subsections without writing a textbook. We made it through.

13. What we will NOT do

✅ TL;DR (easy read): We don't engage in proactive monitoring (per § 512(m) — doing so would actually undermine our safe harbor). We don't act on incomplete or bad-faith notices. We don't censor based on uncomfortable subject matter. We don't abandon users to bad-faith takedowns. We don't waive § 512(f) rights as part of settlement. This is a transparency section about boundaries — most policies skip it; we don't.

In the interest of transparency, here is what this policy does NOT empower us — or anyone else — to do.

13.1 We will not engage in proactive monitoring

§ 512(m) explicitly relieves service providers from any obligation to monitor content for potential infringement. We don't run automated copyright detection against user submissions or our own content. Establishing a monitoring program could undermine our safe-harbor defenses by giving us "actual knowledge" of potential infringement.

13.2 We will not remove content based on incomplete or bad-faith notices

A notice that fails the § 512(c)(3) requirements is procedurally defective and gets a cure opportunity, not action. A notice that is substantively bad-faith gets rejected.

13.3 We will not censor based on uncomfortable subject matter

Discomfort about being satirized, criticized, parodied, or quoted is not a copyright issue.

13.4 We will not abandon users to bad-faith takedowns

We will forward notices, support counter-notices, and where appropriate publicly identify bad-faith senders.

This policy is informational. Specific legal advice requires an attorney admitted in your jurisdiction.

13.6 We will not negotiate the existence of takedown procedures

The DMCA process is the federally-mandated procedure. We follow it. We don't accept side-channel demands ("just take it down without going through DMCA") or quasi-legal threats ("we'll sue if you don't take it down without a notice"). If you want content removed, follow the DMCA process or pursue litigation.

13.7 We will not waive § 512(f) rights as a condition of settlement

If we identify a notice as bad-faith and the sender offers settlement contingent on our waiving § 512(f) damages, we generally won't accept. The damages are part of the system that protects everyone from misuse.

🎭 In other words: This is the section where we tell you what we WON'T do, because most policies skip this part and it's the most useful one. We don't pre-scan for infringement (that would actually hurt our safe harbor under § 512(m)). We don't take down content because someone wrote a strongly-worded email. We don't sell out our users by accepting bad-faith notices to make them go away. We don't trade § 512(f) rights for settlement money. The rules apply to us too. We made them publicly visible so you can hold us to them.

14. Confidentiality and information sharing

✅ TL;DR (easy read): We retain notices, counter-notices, and our internal evaluations for 7+ years. We share notices with the affected user (per § 512(c)(g)), with the Lumen Database (the public DMCA registry at Harvard), and may reference them in editorial work about bad-faith DMCA filings. Don't send a notice if you require confidentiality — there's no anonymous DMCA channel under federal law.

14.1 What we keep

We retain all DMCA notices, counter-notices, and our internal evaluations for at least 7 years as part of our records of legal process and § 512 compliance.

14.2 What we share

14.3 What we don't share

🎭 In other words: Your DMCA notice is going to be seen by: us, our lawyers, the user whose content got taken down, possibly the Lumen Database (the public DMCA registry at Harvard), and possibly readers of our editorial commentary about bad-faith DMCA filings. There is no quiet DMCA filing. There is no off-the-record DMCA filing. There is no "this is just between us" DMCA filing. The federal statute requires we tell the affected user. Pick your battles accordingly.

15. Modifications to this policy

✅ TL;DR (easy read): We may revise this policy from time to time. Material changes get version-bumps + Change Log entries (Appendix G). The current version always lives at https://misfitcaucus.com/dmca. For notices already in process, the policy version in effect at the time of receipt controls.

We may revise this policy from time to time. The current version is always posted at https://misfitcaucus.com/dmca (and equivalents at our other properties).

Material changes will be:

For a notice already in process, the policy version in effect at the time of receipt governs.

🎭 In other words: This page is a living document. We'll update it. We'll log the updates so you can see what changed. We won't surprise you by retroactively changing the rules on a notice you already filed. That's the whole policy on policy changes.

16. Governing law

✅ TL;DR (easy read): This policy is governed by the laws of the State of Illinois and the federal laws of the United States. Disputes go to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois or the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois. This reflects Social Truth Press LLC's Illinois principal place of business.

This policy is governed by the laws of the State of Illinois and the federal laws of the United States. Disputes about this policy will be resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois or the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, as appropriate.

This choice of jurisdiction reflects Social Truth Press LLC's principal place of business (Springfield, Illinois) and is not waived by acceptance of counter-notices submitting to other federal districts.

🎭 In other words: We're an Illinois LLC. We're at home in Illinois. If you want to sue us about this policy, see you in Springfield. The federal courthouse there is at 600 E. Monroe Street. The state capitol is also nearby; you can make a day of it.

17. Severability and other boilerplate

✅ TL;DR (easy read): Standard legal boilerplate — if any portion is held invalid by a court, the rest remains in full effect (severability). Occasional non-enforcement is not a waiver of our enforcement rights. This document supersedes any prior DMCA policy. Force majeure carve-out for circumstances genuinely beyond our control.

17.1 Severability

If any portion of this policy is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder remains in full effect. A finding of invalidity for one provision does not affect the validity of others.

17.2 No waiver

Our failure to enforce any portion of this policy in a particular instance does not waive our right to enforce it in other instances.

17.3 Entire policy

This document supersedes any prior DMCA policy posted by Social Truth Press LLC and constitutes our current policy. It does not modify or supersede other Social Truth Press LLC policies (privacy policy, terms of service, etc.) on unrelated topics.

17.4 Force majeure / impossibility

If circumstances beyond our reasonable control (acts of war, natural disaster, infrastructure failure) prevent us from acting on a notice within stated timeframes, we will act as soon as reasonably possible after the impediment resolves.

17.5 Headings for convenience only

Section headings are for convenience and do not affect interpretation.

🎭 In other words: If a court invalidates one paragraph here, the rest still works. If we don't enforce something in one instance, that doesn't mean we never enforce it. This document replaces any prior version. If the world ends and we can't process your notice for a few days, we get a pass on the timeline.

18. Political Satire, Cartoon, and Parody Considerations

✅ TL;DR (easy read): U.S. political satire of public figures has 250+ years of unbroken legal precedent — from Thomas Nast's Boss Tweed cartoons (1870s) through Doonesbury, MAD Magazine, SNL, The Daily Show, The Onion, and Charlie Hebdo. The case law is overwhelmingly protective (Hustler v. Falwell, NYT v. Sullivan, Snyder v. Phelps, Anderson v. City of Parma). Federal government works (cabinet portraits, federal employee photos, White House releases) are public domain under 17 U.S.C. § 105 — that resolves a huge category of "you used my photo" complaints before they start. Illinois — our home state — explicitly carves commentary on public affairs out of right-of-publicity claims (765 ILCS 1075/35). We don't put "this is parody" disclaimers because legal scholars have shown those actually weaken the parody defense. If you're considering filing a notice against satirical content depicting public figures, this section explains the headwinds you're facing.

Satirical commentary on public figures has well-developed, overwhelmingly protective case law. The directly-on-point precedent:

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) — The Supreme Court unanimously held that public figures cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from satirical or parodic commentary, even when "outrageous" or "patently offensive." The case involved a Hustler parody ad implying Jerry Falwell had a drunken incestuous encounter; the Court rejected Falwell's claim. This is the foundation case for satirical work depicting public figures.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) — Public figures must prove "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth) to win defamation cases. The standard is intentionally high to protect speech on matters of public concern.

Snyder v. Phelps (2011) — Speech on matters of public concern receives the highest First Amendment protection, even when deeply offensive.

Anderson v. City of Parma (cert. denied 2022; The Onion's amicus brief) — In what may be the most important satire-defense filing of the modern era, The Onion submitted an amicus brief defending the legal protection of parody. The brief explains: "[T]he point of parody is to use the structure of an existing work to comment on the work itself or on aspects of the world." It emphasizes parody MUST sometimes be deceptive in order to function — readers must briefly believe the parody is real for it to land. The brief concludes: "It is impossible to overstate the importance of parody to political and social discourse." This brief should be required reading for any DMCA-notice sender contemplating action against satirical content.

Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin (11th Cir. 2001) — The 11th Circuit lifted an injunction against The Wind Done Gone, a satirical retelling of Gone With the Wind from a slave's perspective. Strong protection for satirical recontextualization of copyrighted works.

Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books (1997) — Distinguished parody (using a work to comment on the work itself) from satire (using a work to comment on something else). Pure satire faces stricter fair-use analysis than pure parody. Our work is a hybrid: it's parody of public figures' own self-presentation AND satire of broader political dynamics.

Doonesbury (Garry Trudeau, 1970-present) — Trudeau has named and depicted real politicians by name in serialized comic form for over 50 years, including using actual quoted statements, depicting them in satirical situations, and making sharp partisan critiques. He has been threatened with legal action many times. He has never been successfully blocked. This is the closest direct genre precedent for our work — and it's a 50-year unbroken record of legal protection.

Hart v. EA Sports (3rd Cir. 2013) and Sarver v. Chartier (9th Cir. 2016) — Define the contours of right-of-publicity protection in fictional/expressive works. Hart limited the transformative-use defense for likenesses; Sarver upheld First Amendment protection for satirical fictional depiction of a real person (the Hurt Locker plaintiff lost his right-of-publicity claim).

Texas v. Johnson (1989) — Politically inflammatory expressive conduct is protected speech.

Cohen v. California (1971) — Strong/profane political speech is protected.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) — Inflammatory speech can only be restricted if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Political satire never meets this bar.

Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates (1968) — News-photo fair use for events of public concern, established by the Zapruder film case.

The pattern across all of these: U.S. courts have consistently and repeatedly affirmed that satirical commentary on public figures, even when biting or offensive, is protected speech.

18.2 Public-domain federal works (17 U.S.C. § 105)

17 U.S.C. § 105 establishes that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government." A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties.

This means a vast amount of imagery and content involving federal officials is in the public domain:

When our work uses such material, there is no copyright issue at all — these works belong to the public.

A DMCA notice claiming exclusivity in a public-domain federal work is procedurally defective (you can't own copyright in a non-copyrightable work) AND a § 512(f) violation (it's a knowing material misrepresentation that "the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law").

If you intend to file a notice about content depicting a federal official, first verify whether the source material is public domain. The U.S. Government Printing Office maintains references; the Library of Congress's Copyright Office documentation explains the doctrine.

Caveat: Works by state and local government officials, or by federal officials acting in their personal capacity (campaign material, personal social media), may have separate copyright protection. The § 105 carve-out is specifically for federal-government works in official capacity.

18.3 The no-disclaimer parody rule

A common misconception is that parody must be explicitly labeled as parody. The opposite is true: explicit "this is parody" disclaimers can actually weaken the parody defense.

The legal test for parody asks whether a reasonable reader would understand the work as commentary, criticism, or parody — not whether the work has a "THIS IS PARODY" notice attached. The work must speak for itself. This is consistent with how parody has always functioned: from Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal (no disclaimer), to MAD Magazine (no per-piece disclaimer), to The Onion (the publication's reputation does the work).

When parody includes explicit disclaimers, courts and critics may interpret this as evidence that the work isn't sufficiently obvious as parody on its own merits — which weakens the defense.

Our practice: We don't label individual works "this is parody" or "this is satirical." The publishing context (The [SIC] Press, The Misfit Caucus, The Social Truth Files), the work's own internal evidence, and the genre conventions speak for themselves. This is a deliberate legal strategy, not a marketing oversight.

18.4 AI-assisted illustration vs. deepfakes

Our work uses AI-assisted illustration — AI tools used as production aids in creating original transformative artwork. This is fundamentally different from "deepfakes."

AI-assisted illustration (what we do): - Creative direction by a human artist - AI used as a tool similar to digital painting software - Output is original, transformative work depicting real people in clearly fictional, satirical contexts - Style is recognizably illustrated (not photorealistic claimed-as-real) - Disclosed in our methodology - Falls within the U.S. Copyright Office's published guidance on AI-assisted works (per Thaler v. Perlmutter, 2023)

Deepfakes (what we do NOT do): - AI-generated photorealistic or audio-realistic content purporting to be real recordings of real people - Designed to deceive viewers into thinking the depicted event actually occurred - Often distributed without disclosure of AI origin - Subject to specific state laws (CA AB-2655/2839, TX SB-751, others) particularly during election periods - Subject to the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) when sexually explicit - May be tortious under right-of-publicity, defamation, or election-interference laws

Why the distinction matters: - AI-assisted illustration is protected under the same fair-use framework as any other artistic medium - Deepfakes designed to deceive face significantly different legal analysis - A DMCA notice claiming our work is a "deepfake" is mistaken — our work is satirical illustration, not deceptive impersonation

18.5 Historical precedent: 250 years of political satire

The U.S. has a 250-year unbroken tradition of legally-protected political satire of public figures. A non-exhaustive timeline:

The pattern is unbroken. When a publisher with reasonable legal counsel and First Amendment defenses faces a copyright or right-of-publicity claim arising from satire of public figures, the publisher wins. There are no significant exceptions in the modern era.

A DMCA notice attempting to break this pattern faces enormous historical and doctrinal headwinds.

18.6 Public-figure tier framework

U.S. defamation and right-of-publicity law recognizes three tiers of "public" status, with different First Amendment protections:

Tier Who Protection level for speech about them
All-purpose public figures Politicians, elected officials, candidates, cabinet members, prominent media celebrities, well-known business leaders Highest burden on plaintiff — NYT v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth). Almost impossible to win.
Limited-purpose public figures People who have voluntarily entered public discourse on a specific issue Heightened burden within their public-discourse role (actual malice standard within scope; negligence outside it)
Private figures Ordinary people Lower burden (negligence may suffice, depending on jurisdiction and matter of public concern)

Our depicted cast (Trump, Hegseth, Owens, Noem, Vought, Gabbard, Musk, Kirk, Rogan, etc.) are unambiguously all-purpose public figures. They face the highest burden in challenging speech about them. Notices alleging copyright or right-of-publicity claims by all-purpose public figures face the strongest fair-use and First Amendment defenses.

18.7 Specific state right-of-publicity carve-outs

Most state right-of-publicity statutes explicitly EXCLUDE commentary on matters of public concern. This means right-of-publicity claims about our work are statutorily barred in most jurisdictions.

Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/35) — our home state's statute explicitly carves out commentary on matters of public interest:

"This Act does not apply to the use of an individual's identity in connection with: (1) any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account; (2) any political campaign; (3) any incidental advertising for a news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account; (4) any commercial sponsorship of a news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account; (5) the use of an individual's identity for non-commercial purposes, including any educational, informational, or newsworthy use."

Illinois — where we are domiciled — explicitly excludes our entire genre from right-of-publicity claims.

Similar carve-outs in other major jurisdictions:

If you are considering a right-of-publicity claim against satirical commentary on public figures, first confirm whether the relevant jurisdiction's statute even reaches your claim. Many state right-of-publicity statutes specifically exclude exactly the kind of work we do.

In the spirit of mutual support among publishers facing similar threats, here are organizations that provide free or low-cost legal defense for satirists, cartoonists, and journalists. We list them as known resources, not as endorsers of our specific work:

Organization What they do URL
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Free legal help for journalists facing pre-publication legal threats https://www.rcfp.org/
Knight First Amendment Institute (Columbia) Press freedom litigation, scholarship, and public engagement https://knightcolumbia.org/
National Coalition Against Censorship Broad censorship defense including satirical and artistic expression https://ncac.org/
Cartoonists Rights Network International Specifically supports cartoonists facing legal threats globally https://cartoonistsrights.org/
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Pro bono legal help for artists and arts publishers (national + state chapters) https://vlany.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation Defends digital free expression including DMCA-related issues; maintains Lumen Database https://www.eff.org/

18.9 The Streisand Effect — an informal observation

Practical, not legal, but worth noting: attempts to suppress satirical content via legal threats generally amplify the underlying content. This phenomenon — named after Barbra Streisand's 2003 attempt to suppress aerial photographs of her home, which resulted in massively increased attention to those photographs — is a well-documented pattern.

When a public figure files a bad-faith DMCA notice or threatens litigation against satirical content, the predictable effects are:

We mention this not as a threat but as an observation. Bad-faith DMCA filers consistently misjudge how their actions will be received.

🎭 In other words: Political satire is the second-oldest profession in journalism. Thomas Nast brought down Boss Tweed in the 1870s with cartoons. Doonesbury has named real politicians for 50+ years. MAD Magazine never lost. The Onion has never lost. SNL has never lost. South Park has never lost. We're not the first publisher to do this work, and we're nowhere near the most aggressive. The Supreme Court has weighed in repeatedly, always in our favor. The federal copyright statute literally puts most cabinet member portraits in the public domain. Illinois state law explicitly excludes commentary on public affairs from right-of-publicity claims. We don't put "this is parody" disclaimers on our work because legal scholars have shown those actually weaken the parody defense. The Streisand Effect is real, and bad-faith DMCA filers consistently misjudge how their actions will be received. None of this is novel. None of this is risky. None of this requires legal innovation. You are sending a takedown notice to the kind of publisher that built its first volume on understanding this exact legal landscape. Reconsider.

19. FAQ

Q: I'm a public figure depicted in The Misfit Caucus. You used my words. Isn't that copyright infringement?

A: Almost certainly not. Public figures' publicly-made statements (tweets, press releases, public speeches) used in commentary, criticism, or satire are textbook fair use under § 107. See Section 8.

Q: I sent a notice three days ago. Why haven't you removed the content?

A: Either (a) we're still evaluating, (b) the notice was procedurally defective and we've notified you of the defect, (c) we've concluded the notice is bad-faith and declined to act, or (d) we never received it. Email compliance@socialtruthpress.com for status.

Q: My content was taken down. Now I want it back. How?

A: File a counter-notice — see Section 6. Be aware that doing so consents to federal court jurisdiction.

Q: I'm an attorney filing on behalf of a client. What do I need?

A: Identify yourself (name, title, bar number, jurisdiction), include written authorization from the copyright owner, and make sure the § 512(c)(3) statements are made on behalf of the copyright owner. False claims of authority are also actionable under § 512(f).

Q: Can I send a DMCA notice anonymously or under a pseudonym?

A: No. § 512(c)(3) requires your contact information.

Q: Will my notice be made public?

A: It will be forwarded to the user whose content is removed (per § 512(c)(g)). It may be forwarded to Lumen Database. It may be referenced in our editorial work. Don't send a notice if you require confidentiality.

Q: Can I use a DMCA notice to remove content I just don't like?

A: No. DMCA is for copyright infringement. Filing a notice for non-infringement reasons is § 512(f) bad-faith. We document and pursue.

Q: What if I'm not sure whether my use is fair use?

A: Consult a lawyer before sending. Lenz v. Universal requires you to have considered fair use. Failure to do so is itself a § 512(f) violation.

Q: I'm outside the United States. Does the DMCA apply to me?

A: Sending a DMCA notice subjects you to U.S. legal frameworks for the notice itself (including § 512(f)). Whether your underlying copyright claim has merit depends on multiple factors. Consult counsel.

Q: How long does this take?

A: Acknowledgment within 2 business days. Action on valid notices within 24-72 hours of validation. Counter-notice resolution: 10-14 business days.

Q: Where can I read more about fair use?

A: U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/. Stanford Fair Use Project: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/. EFF: https://www.eff.org/issues/fair-use.

20. Library of refused notice patterns

For transparency about the kinds of notices we identify as bad-faith and refuse, here are examples we've encountered or anticipate. (Specific identifying details have been omitted; patterns are described generally.)

Pattern A: "You quoted my tweet without permission"

A public figure's publicly-made tweet, used in commentary about that tweet. Result: refused as fair use. § 512(f) violation noted.

Pattern B: "Your character resembles me"

A satirical fictional character with surface similarities to a real person. Result: not a copyright issue. People are not copyrightable. (May be a right-of-publicity issue — separate procedure.)

Pattern C: "You used a photo I took of yourself"

A public-domain photograph of a public figure (e.g., government PR photo, newsroom photo) used in commentary. Result: depends on the actual copyright status of the photo. Many are public domain or licensed.

Pattern D: "My fan-made art is in your work"

Fan-made content posted publicly to social media may have its own copyright issues, but using portions in commentary is generally fair use.

Pattern E: Notice from a non-owner

Notice from someone who does not own the copyright (e.g., a fan, a "concerned citizen", a representative without authorization). Result: rejected for failure of § 512(c)(3) authority.

Pattern F: Bot-generated batch notice

Automated scan tool flags transformative work as "infringing" because of pixel similarity or text overlap. Result: evaluated by humans; usually rejected if the flagged use is fair use.

Pattern G: Settlement-extortion notice

Notice followed by settlement demand that ignores fair-use defenses. Result: evaluated for bad-faith indicators; if present, refused with documentation.

Notice claims copyright but actually concerns trademark, trade dress, or right-of-publicity. Result: rejected; routed to proper channel (Section 10).

Pattern I: The "leak" complaint

Notice claiming copyright in leaked or hacked material. Generally fair use applies for newsworthy public-interest material. Specific cases evaluated.

Pattern J: Time-sensitive political-suppression notice

Notice timed to suppress an emerging news story. Result: heightened scrutiny; if pattern of timing is suspicious, refused with documentation and possible publication.

21. Glossary

Term Plain-English meaning
DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 — the U.S. federal law that created the modern notice-and-takedown system for online copyright disputes.
§ 512 Section 512 of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512) — the safe-harbor and notice-and-takedown framework.
§ 512(c)(3) The subsection that lists the 6 required elements of a valid DMCA takedown notice.
§ 512(f) The subsection that creates damages liability for knowingly false DMCA notices.
§ 512(g) The subsection covering counter-notices and content restoration.
§ 512(i) The subsection requiring repeat-infringer policies.
§ 512(m) The subsection that says service providers don't have to proactively monitor for infringement.
§ 1201 A different DMCA section covering anti-circumvention of DRM; not addressed in this policy.
§ 230 47 U.S.C. § 230 — the Communications Decency Act provision protecting service providers' moderation decisions for user-generated content. Distinct from DMCA.
Designated Agent The person/role at a service provider authorized to receive DMCA notices. Must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Safe harbor The legal protection from copyright liability for online service providers who follow § 512's requirements.
Takedown notice A formal written notification to a service provider claiming that hosted material infringes copyright.
Counter-notice A formal response by a user whose content was taken down, asserting the takedown was wrong.
Repeat infringer A user with multiple validated takedowns; § 512(i) requires service providers to terminate them in appropriate circumstances.
Fair use The doctrine in 17 U.S.C. § 107 allowing use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, commentary, news, education, satire, and parody.
Transformative use Use that adds new expression, meaning, or message — the strongest fair-use factor.
Penalty of perjury A legal sworn statement; lying in a sworn statement is a federal crime (perjury).
Lenz v. Universal The 2015 Ninth Circuit case requiring copyright holders to consider fair use BEFORE sending DMCA notices.
NYT v. Sullivan The 1964 Supreme Court case establishing that public figures must prove "actual malice" to win defamation cases.
Hustler v. Falwell The 1988 Supreme Court case holding that parody of public figures is protected by the First Amendment.
Snyder v. Phelps The 2011 Supreme Court case affirming First Amendment protection for speech on matters of public concern.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose The 1994 Supreme Court case establishing the modern transformative-use doctrine for fair use.
Anti-SLAPP Statutes (federal and state) providing expedited relief against lawsuits filed primarily to silence speech on matters of public concern.
Lumen Database The public registry of DMCA notices, operated by Harvard's Berkman Klein Center (https://lumendatabase.org).
Service Provider In DMCA context, the entity that operates an online platform or service. Social Truth Press LLC is a service provider.
Authorized agent Someone (often an attorney) authorized in writing to act on behalf of a copyright owner.
Business day A calendar day that is not Saturday, Sunday, or a U.S. federal holiday.

Appendix A: Decision tree for senders

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Are you complaining about content on a Social Truth Press   │
│ LLC property?                                               │
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ YES   │      ┌───┐
        ↓       │ NO → │ Wrong place. Find the right service │
       (continue)      │ provider's DMCA agent.              │
                       └─────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Is your complaint specifically about copyright infringement?│
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ YES   │      ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
        ↓       │ NO → │ DMCA is wrong channel. See Section 10:│
       (continue)      │ • Trademark → 10.A                   │
                       │ • Defamation → 10.B                  │
                       │ • Privacy / right of publicity → 10.C│
                       │ • Patent → 10.D                      │
                       │ • "Don't like content" → 10.E        │
                       │ • GDPR / international → 10.F        │
                       │ • DRM/§ 1201 → 10.G                  │
                       │ • CSAM/illegal → 10.I                │
                       └──────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Do you actually own the copyright in the specific work?     │
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ YES   │      ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
        ↓       │ NO → │ You are not authorized to send a     │
       (continue)      │ DMCA notice for this work. Don't.    │
                       └──────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Is the use of a public figure's own publicly-made statement,│
│ used in commentary, criticism, satire, or news?             │
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ NO    │       ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
        ↓       │ YES → │ Almost certainly fair use. § 512(f) │
       (continue)       │ liability if you send. Stop.        │
                        └──────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Have you considered fair use under § 107? Can you           │
│ articulate why this specific use is NOT fair use?           │
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ YES   │      ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
        ↓       │ NO → │ Stop. Consult a lawyer. Lenz v.      │
       (continue)      │ Universal makes failure to consider  │
                       │ fair use a § 512(f) violation.       │
                       └──────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Are you willing to swear under penalty of perjury that the  │
│ use is unauthorized AND not fair use?                       │
└───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
            ↓
        ┌───┴───┐
        │ YES   │      ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
        ↓       │ NO → │ Don't send.                          │
       Send a notice   └──────────────────────────────────────┘
       meeting all six
       § 512(c)(3) elements
       (Section 4.B and
        Appendix C).

Appendix B: Pre-flight checklist for senders

Before you send, confirm each:

Appendix C: Sample valid notice template

DMCA TAKEDOWN NOTICE

To: DMCA Designated Agent, Social Truth Press LLC
    compliance@socialtruthpress.com

From:
  Name: [Your full legal name]
  Title (if representing copyright owner): [Your title]
  Bar number and jurisdiction (if attorney): [Bar #, jurisdiction]
  Mailing address: [Street, City, State, ZIP, Country]
  Phone: [Phone]
  Email: [Email]

I am the copyright owner of, OR authorized to act on behalf of the
copyright owner of, the following work:

  Title: [Title of your copyrighted work]
  Description: [Brief description]
  U.S. Copyright Registration #: [If registered]
  Date of creation: [If known]
  Where the original can be found: [URL or citation]

I assert that the following material on Social Truth Press LLC
properties infringes my copyright:

  URL(s) where the alleged infringement appears: [URLs]
  Specific portion(s) claimed to infringe: [Specific description —
  paragraph, panel, image filename]

I have a good-faith belief that the use of the material in the
manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its
agent, or the law (including under fair use).

I have considered whether the use is fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107
before sending this notice (per Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.).

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
notification is accurate, and that I am the copyright owner or am
authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that
is allegedly infringed.

Signed: /s/ [Your full legal name]
Date: [Date]

Appendix D: Sample counter-notice template

DMCA COUNTER-NOTICE

To: DMCA Designated Agent, Social Truth Press LLC
    compliance@socialtruthpress.com

From:
  Name: [Your full legal name]
  Mailing address: [Street, City, State, ZIP, Country]
  Phone: [Phone]
  Email: [Email]

The material removed from [URL] was [identification of the material
and where it appeared].

I have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or
disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the
material to be removed.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is accurate.

I consent to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the
[judicial district in which the address above is located, OR
"Central District of Illinois" if outside the U.S.], and I will
accept service of process from the person who provided the original
notification of claimed infringement, or an agent of such person.

Signed: /s/ [Your full legal name]
Date: [Date]

Appendix E: Contact summary

Purpose Email Response time
Valid DMCA takedown notice compliance@socialtruthpress.com Acknowledgment within 2 business days; action within 24-72 hours of validation
Counter-notice (your content was taken down) compliance@socialtruthpress.com Acknowledgment within 2 business days; restoration within 10-14 business days if no lawsuit
Trademark, defamation, privacy, right-of-publicity claims legal@socialtruthpress.com Within 5 business days
GDPR / international privacy requests legal@socialtruthpress.com Within 30 days (per GDPR)
Patent, § 1201, other legal legal@socialtruthpress.com Within 5 business days
URGENT — Illegal content (CSAM, threats) legal@socialtruthpress.com + appropriate emergency hotline Same day
Press, partnership, business inquiries hello@misfitcaucus.com Within 5 business days
General questions about this policy legal@socialtruthpress.com Within 5 business days

Postal mail (DMCA notices and counter-notices):

DMCA Designated Agent Social Truth Press LLC 2501 Chatham Road, Suite 5381 Springfield, IL 62704 United States

Phone (for follow-up only, NOT for DMCA submission):

Appendix F: Definitions

(See Glossary at Section 21.)

Appendix G: Change log

Version Date Summary
1.0 2026-04-26 Initial publication
2.0 2026-04-26 Comprehensive revision: added FAQ, refused-notice library, decision tree, pre-flight checklist, expanded special considerations, added "what we will not do" section, expanded case citations, added Substack/Internet Archive/CSAM references, business-day definition, automated-notice acknowledgment, no-proactive-monitoring disclosure, accessibility commitment, no-fee disclosure, Copyright Claims Board (CCB) reference, PGP key procedure, multiple new appendices.

| 4.0 | 2026-04-26 | Added Section 18: Political Satire, Cartoon, and Parody Considerations — comprehensive genre-specific section with 9 subsections (case law foundation, public-domain federal works under 17 U.S.C. § 105, no-disclaimer parody rule, AI-assisted illustration vs. deepfakes, 250-year historical precedent, public-figure tier framework, state right-of-publicity carve-outs, resources for satirists facing legal threats, the Streisand Effect). Renumbered FAQ→19, Library→20, Glossary→21. Same three-tier structure as other sections. | | 3.0 | 2026-04-26 | Three-tier structure introduced: every main section (1-17) now has a TL;DR easy-read summary, the full thorough/legal narrative, and an "In other words" deadpan brand-voice translation. Same controlling content, three accessibility layers. |

End of DMCA Notice & Takedown Policy v4.0. Social Truth Press LLC, April 26, 2026. To verify the current version, check: https://misfitcaucus.com/dmca Federal Designated Agent registration: U.S. Copyright Office DMCA-1071938