Where the six elements come from
United States law does not require a service provider to remove material simply because someone objects to it. Section 512(c)(3)(A) of Title 17 sets out what a notification must contain before it triggers the provider’s obligation to act expeditiously. A notification that substantially complies with those elements is what the statute calls an effective notification.
A platform may also require its own format and wording. YouTube, for example, asks for each element in a set form: direct links in a URL format that depends on the type of content, two legal statements in its own published wording, and a signature that is the signer’s full legal name. Those are platform requirements layered on top of the statutory ones, not replacements for them.
The six elements
A signature
A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. The signature belongs to a person, and that person’s authority is what the rest of the notice rests on. YouTube asks for the signer’s full legal name — a first and last name, not a company name.
Identification of the work
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed. Where a single site hosts multiple works from one owner, the statute permits a representative list rather than an exhaustive one.
Identification of the material
Identification of the material claimed to be infringing, with information reasonably sufficient to let the provider locate it.
The statute sets a sufficiency standard, not a URL format. Each provider decides what is sufficient for each content type: on YouTube a video needs its watch page rather than a search link, while material that is part of a channel — banner artwork, the channel description — is located by the channel address. Use the format that provider asks for, and never a whole-account sweep in place of the material: YouTube states that a removal request cannot cover an entire channel or playlist.
Contact information
Information reasonably sufficient to let the provider contact the complaining party. The statute gives an address, a telephone number and, if available, an email address as examples; YouTube asks for one or more of an email address, a physical address and a telephone number. What can happen to these details afterwards is covered below.
A good-faith belief statement
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The phrase or the law is doing real work: a use permitted by a copyright exception is authorized by law.
An accuracy statement, under penalty of perjury
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and — under penalty of perjury — that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right allegedly infringed.
Two elements that carry legal weight
Element 6 is narrower than it looks. In the statute’s wording, the penalty-of-perjury clause attaches to authority to act. It is a statement that you are who you say you are in relation to the work. A representative who has not confirmed the scope of their authorization is making that statement without a basis for it.
Element 5 is not a formality. Section 512(f) creates liability for a person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing. YouTube also asks filers to consider whether a copyright exception such as fair use applies, and may ask them to confirm they did. Screening before filing is how the good-faith statement is made with a basis.
Contact information can travel with the notice
The contact details supplied in a notification are part of the notification, and a provider may pass the notification to the person whose material was removed.
That has a practical consequence for individual creators: filing under your own name can put your own name and email address in front of the person you are reporting. How much more travels with it is set by the platform — YouTube states that the physical address and telephone number remain confidential unless requested as part of a lawsuit, while the full legal name and primary email address may be shared with the uploader. Authorizing a representative does not remove the copyright owner from the record, and it does not make the filing anonymous — a named individual must still sign it — but it does change whose details appear as the filing party.
The six elements are a floor, not a standard. A notice can satisfy every one of them and still be a bad notice — because an entire channel was identified rather than the specific location of the reported material in the format the platform asks for, because the ownership evidence was never assembled, or because nobody screened for a copyright exception. Under our standard, the statutory elements are checked last. The evidence and the authorization are checked first, because those are what the statements in elements 5 and 6 have to be true about.