[vessenes]

Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

  (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
  (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
  (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
  shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Like it or not, the US has an adversarial legal system -- and therefore relies on the injured to enforce their rights in court. It seems to me the way to stop this from happening is to sue the takedown provider and the Graceware guy. Damages are hard to prove for a museum, but attorney's fees are clearly covered.

Generally automated take down services are not my favorite business - the DMCA has strong penalties for infringement baked in, and one reason those penalties exist is that there is a strong enforcement clause that the takedown notices are made in good faith. There is no way these were made in good faith based on the facts described.

[oliwarner]

The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.

[vessenes]

Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright.

I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!

[oliwarner]

Somebody disagreeing with you isn't unassailable truth. I could introduce myself as Oli, and as many times as you tell me my name is Brian, that's not going to affect my knowledge of what my name is. Same here. Despite them being told, you will struggle to prove the plaintiff here does not truly believe they hold the IP for this game.

Intent is important because it's the motive to fraudulently file. It's the closest you'll get to proving what somebody knew, unless they confess.

[gzread]

You still have to prove it in court, and it's already hard enough to prove seemingly obvious things, such as that a seller didn't deliver a product.