| You're conflating two things: a DMCA counter-notice by an alleged infringer, and the refusal of an intermediary to honor a DMCA takedown notice. Your statement is a mixture of claims that are true about one or the other of those separate things. DMCA counter-notice: * Sent by an alleged infringer (in this case, that would be the artist) to an intermediary (in this case, TeePublic) asserting that a takedown notice the intermediary received was invalid. * Requires the alleged infringer to provide information about themself ("authentically dox"). * Can enable the intermediary to restore access to the material without losing their liability shield. * Doesn't affect the alleged infringer's copyright infringement liability in any direction (though as with takedown notices, there's the potential for perjury). If the alleged infringer committed copyright infringement, they were already liable for it, and remain so; if they didn't, then they never were liable and still aren't. Intermediary refusal: * Simply a lack of action on a takedown notice by the intermediary to whom it was sent. * Doesn't require anyone to dox themselves, or to do anything in particular. The intermediary can throw the takedown notice in the garbage and go about their day. * Removes the intermediary's liability shield; the intermediary can potentially be liable for infringement, when they would otherwise would have been immune. |