A Baseless Copyright Claim Against a Web Host—and Why It Failed | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Skip to main content
AboutContact
Press
People
Opportunities
IssuesFree Speech
Privacy
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Artifical Intelligence
Our WorkDeeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take ActionAction Center
Volunteer
Follow EFF
ToolsPrivacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
Shop
Donate
DonateDonate to EFF
Shop
Giving Societies
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
Email updates on news, actions,
and events in your area.
Join EFF Lists
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Privacy Policy
Thanks
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Donate
If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today
EFFecting Change: LGBTQ+ Solidarity Against the Tide of Surveillance on June 17
A Baseless Copyright Claim Against a Web Host—and Why It Failed
DEEPLINKS BLOG
By Betty Gedlu<br>April 2, 2026
A Baseless Copyright Claim Against a Web Host—and Why It Failed
Share It
Share on Mastodon<br>Share on Bluesky<br>Share on Facebook<br>Copy link
Español
Copyright law is supposed to encourage creativity. Too often, it’s used to extract payouts from others.
Higbee & Associates, a law firm known for sending copyright demand letters to website owners, targeted May First Movement Technology, accusing it of infringing a photograph owned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). The claim was baseless. May First didn’t post the photo. It didn’t even own the website where the photo appeared.
May First is a nonprofit membership organization that provides web hosting and technical infrastructure to social justice groups around the world. The allegedly infringing image was posted years ago by one of May First’s members, a human rights group based in Mexico. When May First learned about the copyright complaint, it ensured that the group removed the image.
That should have been the end of it. Instead, the firm demanded payment.
So EFF stepped in as May First’s counsel and explained why AFP and Higbee had no valid claim. After receiving our response, Higbee backed down.
This outcome is a reminder that targets of copyright demands often have strong defenses—especially when someone else posted the material.
Hosting Content Isn’t the Same as Publishing It
Copyright law treats those who create or control content differently from those who simply provide the tools or infrastructure for others to communicate.
In this case, May First provided hosting services but didn’t post the photo. Courts have long recognized that service providers aren’t direct infringers when they merely store material at the direction of users. In those cases, service providers lack “volitional conduct”—the intentional act of copying or distributing the work.
Copyright law also recognizes that intermediaries can’t realistically police everything users upload. That’s why legal protections like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors exist. Even outside those safe harbors, courts still shield service providers from liability when they promptly respond to notices.
May First did exactly what the law expects: it notified its member, and the image came down.
A Claim That Should Have Been Withdrawn Much Sooner
The troubling part of this story isn’t just that a demand was sent. It’s that Higbee and AFP continued to demand money and threaten litigation after May First explained that it was merely a hosting provider and had the image removed.
In other words, the claim was built on shaky legal ground from the start. Once May First explained its role, Higbee should have withdrawn its demand. Individuals and small nonprofits shouldn’t need lawyers just to stop aggressive copyright shakedowns.
Statutory Damages Fuel Copyright Abuse
This isn’t an isolated case—it’s a predictable result of copyright law’s statutory damages regime.
Statutory damages can reach $150,000 per work, regardless of actual harm. That enormous leverage incentivizes firms like Higbee to send mass demand letters seeking quick settlements. Even meritless claims can generate revenue when recipients are too afraid, confused, or resource-constrained to fight back.
This hits community organizations, independent publishers, and small service providers that don’t have in-house legal teams especially hard. Faced with the threat of ruinous statutory damages, many just pay what is demanded.
That’s not how copyright law should work.
Know Your Rights
If you receive a copyright demand based on material someone else posted, don’t assume you’re liable.
You may have defenses based on:
Your role as a hosting or service provider
Lack of volitional conduct
Prompt removal of the material after notice
The statute of limitations
The copyright owner’s failure to timely register the work
The absence of actual damages
Every...