Takedown

/takedown

Three modes. Pick one:

• /ip-legal:takedown --send — draft a FSEK Ek Madde 4 Uyar-Kaldır bildirimi notice. Fair-use gate (Lenz) + loud perjury / TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet gate before delivery.
• /ip-legal:takedown --respond — triage a takedown someone sent you. Options: comply / counter / engage / ignore.
• /ip-legal:takedown --counter — draft a İçerik Kaldırmaya İtiraz Bildirimi. Loud gate for the Türk Mahkemelerinde yargılanma riskinin kabulü and the perjury statement.

Instructions

1. Read the practice profile. Load ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md. If it contains [PLACEHOLDER] markers or does not exist, stop and say: "This plugin needs setup before it can give you useful output. Run /ip-legal:cold-start-interview — the takedown skill depends on your approval matrix and practice profile."

2. Check matter workspaces. Per ## Matter workspaces: if Enabled is ✗, skip. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /ip-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level."

3. Dispatch on $ARGUMENTS:

   • --send → run send mode (below). Walk identify-the-work, identify-the-infringing-material, Adil veya Şahsi Kullanım (FSEK m.33 vd.) Değerlendirmesi, good-faith belief, accuracy/authority, draft the FSEK Ek Madde 4 ihtarı, run the loud gate, write output.
   • --respond → run respond mode (below). Read the incoming notice, assess (license, fair use, defects, host §512(g) compliance, sender credibility), present the four options, recommend, write the triage memo.
   • --counter → run counter mode (below). Confirm the predicate (taken down in response to a 5651 veya FSEK ihtarname, good-faith belief of mistake/misidentification, ready for Türk Mahkemelerinde yargılanma riskinin kabulü, attorney in the loop), draft the İçerik Kaldırmaya İtiraz Bildirimi, run the loud gate, write output.
   • No flag → ask once: "Are we sending a FSEK / 5651 Uyar-Kaldır takedown, triaging one we received, or drafting a counter-notice?"

4. Respect the gates. In --send and --counter, the loud gate runs before any final output is written. The fair-use gate in --send is separate and runs earlier; "debatable" or "likely" fair use stops the draft and routes to attorney review.

5. Jurisdiction note. FSEK Ek Madde 4 ve 5651 sayılı İnternet Kanunu is Türkiye Cumhuriyeti yasaları (FSEK/BTK mevzuatı). If the service provider, content, or infringer sits outside Türkiye Yargı Yetkisi, flag before drafting — you may need an EU DSA notice, UK OSA notice, or local-regime instrument instead of (or in addition to) bir Uyar-Kaldır (Takedown) ihtarnamesi.

6. Hand off where appropriate. --respond with a counter-notice recommendation chains into /ip-legal:takedown --counter — but only after the triage memo has been reviewed and the decision to counter has been made deliberately.

Examples

/ip-legal:takedown --send
/ip-legal:takedown --respond ~/Downloads/youtube-takedown-notice.pdf
/ip-legal:takedown --counter
/ip-legal:takedown

Notes

• The outgoing notice and counter-notice do not carry the work-product header. Internal drafts, fair-use analyses, and triage memos do.
• FSEK Ek Madde 4 ve 5651 sayılı Kanun bildirim usulleri are element-by-element statutes — every required element must be present or the notice is defective.
• İçerik Kaldırmaya İtiraz Bildirimleri (Counter-notices), şikayetçinin yetki alanındaki Fikri ve Sınai Haklar Hukuk / Ceza Mahkemeleri (FSHHM) veya Sulh Ceza Hakimliği yargı yetkisini kabul eder. Bu bir formalite değildir.
• Non-lawyer users get a one-page brief for the attorney conversation before the gate clears — particularly important for counter-notices, which are the step before litigation.

Purpose

The FSEK Ek Madde 4 ve 5651 sayılı İnternet Kanunu notice-and-takedown system is fast, cheap, and consequential in equal measure. A takedown is a sworn statement TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile that gets content pulled with no judicial review. A counter-notice is another sworn statement that consents to Türk mahkemelerinin yargı yetkisini and puts the content back. Both decisions can become litigation. This skill handles all three moves with the guardrails each warrants.

Three modes:

• --send — draft a FSEK Ek Madde 4 Uyar-Kaldır bildirimi notice
• --respond — triage a takedown someone sent you; produce options
• --counter — draft a İçerik Kaldırmaya İtiraz Bildirimi

If the user does not pass a flag, ask once: "Are we sending a FSEK / 5651 Uyar-Kaldır takedown, triaging one we received, or drafting a counter-notice?"

External deliverables (send and counter modes): the outgoing notice/counter-notice goes to the service provider's designated agent. Do NOT include the PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT header on the outgoing document. The notice itself is not privileged — it's a statement made in a statutory process. Internal drafts, pre-send briefs, fair-use analyses, and triage memos keep the header per plugin config ## Outputs.

Jurisdiction assumption

FSEK Ek Madde 4 ve 5651 sayılı İnternet Kanunu is Türkiye Cumhuriyeti yasaları (FSEK/BTK mevzuatı). It runs against service providers subject to Türkiye Yargı Yetkisi. Other jurisdictions have their own notice-and-action regimes — 5651 sayılı Kanun ve BTK/ESB (Erişim Sağlayıcıları Birliği) pratikleri — that differ materially in required elements, counter-notice mechanics, and liability for misuse. If the service provider, content, or infringer sits outside Türkiye Yargı Yetkisi, flag it — a FSEK/5651 notice may be the wrong instrument, or may need to be paired with a local regime's notice. Copyright subsistence itself is Berne-multilateral, but enforcement mechanics are jurisdiction-specific.

Load context

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## IP practice profile (copyright registrations if any), ## Enforcement posture → Approval matrix → Uyar-Kaldır bildirimi (ordinary) row, ## Outputs (work-product header, role), ## Who's using this (role — lawyer vs. non-lawyer)
• Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. If Enabled is ✗ (in-house default), skip matter machinery. If enabled and no active matter, ask: "Which matter? Run /ip-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Write outputs to the active matter's folder at ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/ip-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/takedown/<slug>/ (or takedown/<slug>/ at practice level). Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.

Send mode — drafting a FSEK Ek Madde 4 Uyar-Kaldır bildirimi notice

Step 1: Identify the copyrighted work

What is the copyrighted work?

• Title / description — what is the work (software, image, text, video, audio)?
• Registration status — Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Telif Hakları Genel Müdürlüğü isteğe bağlı kayıt-tescil) numarası and date (if any). Registration is NOT required to send a takedown, but it is required to file suit on a US work and its pre-infringement timing controls statutory damages and fees.
• Ownership — do we own it outright, or hold an exclusive license with takedown authority? (Non-exclusive licensees typically cannot send takedowns on the licensor's work.)
• Prior licensing — have we ever licensed this use, or a broader use that might cover it?

Ownership and authority are the first things TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet cases look at. Get them clearly on the record before drafting.

Step 2: Identify the infringing material and its location

Where is the infringing material?

• Platform / service provider — YouTube, Twitter/X, GitHub, Reddit, Amazon, a web host, etc.
• URL(s) — specific permalinks to the infringing material. One notice can cover multiple URLs if they're all from the same service.
• Description — what is the infringing material and how does it infringe (verbatim copy, substantially similar, derivative)?
• Screenshots / evidence — preserved with timestamp and URL visible

§512(c)(3) requires "information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material." URLs alone are usually enough; be precise.

Step 3: Fair-use gate

Under Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a takedown. This is not a judgment about fair use — it is a consideration step that the sender must take and can prove they took.

Ask:

Before we draft the notice, walk through fair use. Under Lenz, you have to consider it before sending — even if the conclusion is "not fair use." The four factors:

1. Purpose and character — commercial? transformative? criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research?
2. Nature of the copyrighted work — factual or creative? published or not?
3. Amount and substantiality — how much of the work is used? is it the heart of the work?
4. Effect on the market — does the use substitute for the original or harm a derivative market?

Your read on each? And your conclusion — fair use unlikely, debatable, likely?

Record the answer in the notice file. If "debatable" or "likely," do not draft. Stop and route to attorney review: "Fair use is debatable/likely on these facts. Sending a takedown on a use that is protected by fair use is the exact TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet exposure the statute creates. Route this to counsel before any notice goes out."

Step 4: Good-faith belief

§512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires "a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

The sender forms this belief on the record. Have they:

• Confirmed the work is theirs (or they have takedown authority via exclusive license)?
• Confirmed the use is not licensed (no prior deal, no implied license, no Creative Commons grant that would cover it)?
• Considered fair use (Step 3)?
• Reviewed the accused content directly (not just a report about it)?

If yes on all four, the good-faith belief is colorable. If no on any, pause.

Step 5: Accuracy and agent authority

§512(c)(3)(A)(vi) requires "a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

This is the perjury statement. It applies to the accuracy of the identification and the authority — not to the fair-use determination itself, though TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet liability reaches both.

Confirm signer: who is sending this on behalf of whom, and do they have authority to do so?

Step 6: Draft the notice

§512(c)(3)(A) elements — every one must be present:

1. Signature (physical or electronic) of the rights holder or authorized agent
2. Identification of the copyrighted work — "Copyrighted work: [title, description, registration no. if any]"
3. Identification of the infringing material with location information — "Infringing material: [URL(s), description, how it infringes]"
4. Contact information — address, phone, email of the complaining party or agent
5. Good-faith belief statement — verbatim, adapted: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
6. Accuracy and authority statement TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile — verbatim, adapted: "I swear, TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Structure:

• Sender address block / date
• Alıcı: [servis sağlayıcısı] bünyesindeki yetkili yasal temsilci / bildirim adresi (BTK Erişim Sağlayıcıları Birliği (ESB) veya servis sağlayıcının şeffaflık/iletişim sayfası üzerinden bulunabilir)
• Re: FSEK Ek Madde 4 Uyarınca İhlal Bildirimi (Uyar-Kaldır)
• The six elements above, numbered or clearly set apart
• Signature line

Most service providers publish a preferred form or a web intake (YouTube Content ID / Copyright webform, Twitter / X copyright report, GitHub telif hakkı bildirim formu, etc.). The skill produces the notice content; the user submits through the provider's path. Note in the output which intake path is expected for the named service provider.

Step 7: The loud gate before delivery

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  BEFORE THIS TAKEDOWN GOES ANYWHERE                         │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                             │
│  Bir uyar-kaldır bildirimi is a statement TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile.   │
│  Signing and sending it is not a routine administrative     │
│  step — it is a sworn declaration with specific legal       │
│  consequences.                                              │
│                                                             │
│  • TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet creates LIABILITY for knowing                    │
│    material misrepresentations. People have been sued,      │
│    and have lost, for bad-faith takedowns — *Lenz v.        │
│    Universal*, 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015); *Online       │
│    Policy Group v. Diebold*, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D.     │
│    Cal. 2004); *Stephens v. Clash*, 796 F.3d 281 (3d        │
│    Cir. 2015).                                              │
│                                                             │
│  • The accuracy and authority statement is sworn under      │
│    penalty of perjury. That is a real statement, not a      │
│    formality.                                               │
│                                                             │
│  • Sending a takedown on material that is in fact           │
│    licensed, owned by someone else, or fair use is the      │
│    fact pattern TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet was written for.                    │
│                                                             │
│  Confirm before the notice leaves:                          │
│                                                             │
│    1. You own the copyright, or you hold an exclusive       │
│       license with takedown authority.                      │
│    2. The accused use is not authorized — you have          │
│       checked licenses, grants, and any prior consents.     │
│    3. You considered fair use per *Lenz* (see Step 3 of     │
│       this draft); your conclusion is on the record.        │
│    4. Whoever has authority to sign approves sending.       │
│                                                             │
│  Approver per your practice profile: [approver from         │
│  Enforcement posture → Approval matrix → Uyar-Kaldır        │
│  (ordinary) row]                                            │
│                                                             │
│  Automatic escalations that apply here: [list any from      │
│  the practice profile that this matter triggers]            │
│                                                             │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If the user is a non-lawyer (per ## Who's using this), add:

An Uyar-Kaldır takedown is sworn TCK m.267 (İftira) ve HMK uyarınca hukuki ve cezai sorumluluk kabulü ile and creates TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet exposure for bad-faith or overbroad use. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If not, here's a brief to bring to them: [generate a short summary: work, ownership, accused use, licensing check, fair-use analysis, signer, service provider]. A few thousand dollars of attorney time now is materially cheaper than a TCK m.267 (İftira) ve TTK Haksız Rekabet suit.

If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service (Türkiye Barolar Birliği veya bağlı bulunduğunuz yerel Baro (Örn. İstanbul Barosu)'s equivalent); Fikri Mülkiyet uzmanı avukatlar veya TÜRKPATENT vekilleri; law school IP clinics for individual creators and small businesses.

Do not write the final output without explicit engagement with the gate.