DMCA takedown Request
We received a DMCA takedown notice from the copyright holders of this model (link) alleging that materials in this repository uploaded by you infringe their copyright.
When we receive a DMCA notice, we are required to remove access to the allegedly infringing materials.
@Granddyser , You may submit a counter notice if you believe the takedown request is unfounded. Please send it over to dmca@huggingface.co and we will forward it to the reporter. A sample counter-notice can be found at https://www.copyright.gov/512/sample-counter-notice.pdf.
Don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Thank you,
The Hugging Face Team
We received a DMCA takedown notice from the copyright holders of this model (link) alleging that materials in this repository uploaded by you infringe their copyright.
When we receive a DMCA notice, we are required to remove access to the allegedly infringing materials.@Granddyser , You may submit a counter notice if you believe the takedown request is unfounded. Please send it over to dmca@huggingface.co and we will forward it to the reporter. A sample counter-notice can be found at https://www.copyright.gov/512/sample-counter-notice.pdf.
Don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Thank you,
The Hugging Face Team
I have submitted a counter-notice via email to dmca@huggingface.co, along with the newest screenshots of my direct correspondence with Black Forest Labs.
AND AGAIN : let me be very clear about what is happening here:
This is the second time this individual has filed a fraudulent DMCA takedown against one of my repositories. The first takedown, targeting my repository "BigLoveKleinFp8", was resolved entirely in my favor after the counter-notice period expired without any legal action being taken. They are now repeating the exact same baseless claim against a different repository. This constitutes a pattern of DMCA abuse.
The person filing this claim has zero copyright ownership over FLUX.2 Klein 9B or any of its derivatives. That copyright belongs exclusively to @black-forest-labs. This individual's own model is a derivative of FLUX.2 Klein 9B, released under the FLUX Non-Commercial License, a fact they openly acknowledge in their own CivitAI model description.
Despite this, they continue to commercially sell their derivatives, including a new version "Big Love Klein 2", on platforms like Whop and CivitAI, in direct violation of the Non-Commercial License. Community members have even pointed this out in the comments on their CivitAI page, which they have chosen to ignore.
Someone who is actively violating the actual copyright holder's license has no standing to file DMCA claims against others for non-commercial use of the same base model. Filing repeated, knowingly false DMCA takedowns is not a legitimate use of the process.
I am in ongoing contact with @black-forest-labs, who are fully aware of this individual and their license violations. I have now also informed them about this second fraudulent DMCA takedown and the continued commercial distribution of their latest derivative. @black-forest-labs, as the actual and only copyright holder, has been notified about this situation on your platform.
Hi @Granddyser ,
Thank you for your email. We have received your counter-notice and informed the reporter.
We will wait 14 days and re-enable your content unless they inform us that they initiated legal action against you before then.
Kind regards,
The huggingFace Team
@no-mad Does this process require waiting for 14 days every single time, even in the hypothetical case that the original takedown notice is highly questionable?
What makes this even more questionable: the claimant's identity in the DMCA notice I received was fully redacted. No name, no email, no address. Under the DMCA, a valid takedown notice requires the claimant to provide their full contact information, including name, address, and signature under penalty of perjury. I have requested the unredacted notice from Hugging Face, as I need this information to evaluate legal action under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). You cannot file anonymous copyright claims and expect them to be taken seriously.
can u link me another link for download, i was late to the party heheheh
can u link me another link for download, i was late to the party heheheh
I wrote a Note in the README, just take a look at my Granddyser/BigLoveKleinFp8 repo
Claiming DMCA for non commercial for a second time? a little ridiculous. surprised HF honored the request after the first one was resolved. Can you by chance re add the bf16 pruned? if not totally understandable.
Claiming DMCA for non commercial for a second time? a little ridiculous. surprised HF honored the request after the first one was resolved. Can you by chance re add the bf16 pruned? if not totally understandable.
I’ve respected HuggingFace’s process throughout. But I’ve requested the claimant’s full contact information to evaluate legal action under § 512(f), and that request has been ignored. If they won’t give me the data I need to properly respond, then this takedown holds no weight for me. If I don’t have the claimant’s details by tomorrow, I’ll reupload the models.
Does this process require waiting for 14 days every single time, even in the hypothetical case that the original takedown notice is highly questionable?
Yes, as hosting platform it is not for up to decide on the veracity of the claim. As long as the notice is valid we have to follow the same process to stay compliant
the claimant's identity in the DMCA notice I received was fully redacted
We publish a redacted version of all takedown notices (since they are public) to protect privacy and reduce risks like doxxing/cyberbullying.
the claimant's identity in the DMCA notice I received was fully redacted
We publish a redacted version of all takedown notices (since they are public) to protect privacy and reduce risks like doxxing/cyberbullying.
Redacting publicly to prevent doxxing makes total sense. But I'm the respondent, not the public. I need the claimant's contact info to evaluate action under § 512(f). A DMCA notice without identifiable claimant data isn't a valid notice.
the claimant's identity in the DMCA notice I received was fully redacted
We publish a redacted version of all takedown notices (since they are public) to protect privacy and reduce risks like doxxing/cyberbullying.
Redacting publicly to prevent doxxing makes total sense. But I'm the respondent, not the public. I need the claimant's contact info to evaluate action under § 512(f). A DMCA notice without identifiable claimant data isn't a valid notice.
AFAIK they don't have to provide you with that information. For a claim to be valid it's true that the claimant is required to provide adequate information to the "service provider", but it is not a requirement that you personally receive that info. They only need to disable/remove content and take reasonable steps to inform you that they did so.
I also believe that when you send a counter claim, then they are required to provide the claimant with your full information. If the claimant does not respond within the timeframe they restore the content. And if they do pursue legal action then the content does not get restored.
Now, 99.99% chance that this will never happen, and even if it does, it will not succeed. Repeatedly making false dmca claims opens themselves up for consequences (outside of those they make by selling a derivative against BFL license)
If I was you, i would likely upload the content on several platforms, share everywhere under a pseudonym and different accounts to spite them and ignore claims
Since the 14 days have passed and we haven't receive any notice of lawsuit, re-enabling the repo and closing this discussion