01
Detection
A technical match enters documented review against the protected-work record, authority, licence context and preserved evidence before a case position is adopted.
Role, mandate and limits of authority
Atlantic acts within the rights-management and case-administration authority recorded for the relevant rights holder. Its public position is based on the protected-work record, documented authority, preserved evidence and the applicable case context.
Atlantic may investigate, request information, preserve records, communicate rights positions, administer voluntary resolution discussions and prepare or refer a file for qualified legal action. Any judicial remedy or compulsory measure is pursued through the competent legal process.
Rights-holder onboarding, authority and contributor integrity
Enforcement reliance requires a documented record sufficient to identify the asserted rights holder, connect that party to the protected work, establish the scope of Atlantic’s authority and surface material inconsistencies for human review before progression.
Verification is risk-based and proportionate to the matter. Depending on the case, the record may draw on original files, authorship or agency information, contracts, assignments, licensing records, publication history, corporate records, platform records or direct confirmation from the person or entity whose authority is invoked. The objective is sufficient reliable documentation for the purpose and risk presented.
Detection, chronology and evidence preservation
Image matching, indexing, search results, historical URLs and preserved captures are reviewed as part of a broader evidentiary record. Atlantic connects each observation to the protected-work record, chronology, source context and integrity controls before relying on it for case progression.
Where appropriate, Atlantic preserves relevant material together with URLs, timestamps, case identifiers, file characteristics and cryptographic integrity identifiers. These controls support traceability and file integrity while rights-holder authority and the legal position are established through the broader documented record.
Identity misuse, false agency claims and manipulated records
If objective inconsistencies suggest impersonation, a false agency relationship, fabricated authority, altered licence material or misleading authorship information, Atlantic should treat that issue separately from the underlying copyright question. The relevant account or mandate can be restricted while the discrepancy is reviewed, and affected records can be preserved.
Public classifications follow the verified factual record and the legal character of the conduct. Where documented inconsistencies indicate possible impersonation, fabricated authority or manipulated records, Atlantic may seek confirmation from the relevant photographer, agency, company or platform and refer substantiated concerns to qualified counsel or competent authorities when appropriate.
In the United States, 17 U.S.C. §1202 separately addresses certain knowing conduct involving false copyright-management information or unauthorized removal or alteration of such information, subject to the statute’s specific intent and knowledge requirements. It should be invoked only where the statutory elements are actually relevant.
Licence verification, factual correction and case closure
A licence-information request gives the recipient a documented opportunity to establish authorization. Relevant proof can include an invoice, platform purchase or subscription record, licence certificate, direct agreement, assignment, sublicence, agency record or other verifiable authorization connected to the work and use.
A genuine pre-existing licence remains relevant whenever it is produced. Its authenticity, scope and relationship to the identified use can be assessed at any stage. A document showing reliable indicators of fabrication or material alteration may be preserved and referred for further legal review.
When a valid licence covers the relevant use, or when a material identification error is established, the case should be corrected or closed. A credible enforcement process must be able to stop a claim as decisively as it can advance one.
Amicable resolution as the preferred path
Where no valid licence is established and the factual record supports the rights position, Atlantic may offer documented amicable resolution terms before further escalation. Resolution can address the identified past use, corrective action and, where agreed, controlled retroactive licensing terms.
Atlantic’s amicable terms use a rational, case-specific valuation record. Relevant considerations may include licence value, scope and duration of use where established, commercial context, territory, corrective action, documented harm and applicable law.
Where an amicable route does not resolve the matter, the case may be referred for jurisdiction-specific legal assessment and, when authorized and supportable, further proceedings.
Non-response, removal and post-notice conduct
A missing response leaves the documented matter unresolved. Atlantic may continue case administration and, after documented human review, assess the appropriate further step from the available record, authority, jurisdiction and applicable law.
Removal or disabling can address future display. The documented prior-use period remains subject to review against licensing records, the preserved evidence and applicable law, while post-notice conduct is assessed in its factual context.
Recipients may be asked to preserve records reasonably connected to licensing and publication history. Private preservation requests support record continuity; any formal preservation or disclosure duty arising in litigation is governed by the competent procedural law and authority.
- A matter that remains unanswered or unsupported by verifiable authorization may proceed to further documented review and an appropriate authorized step.
- Removal can address ongoing display while historical use remains part of the documented case record until authorization or resolution is established.
- Preservation requests protect record continuity; formal disclosure and preservation duties follow the competent legal process.
Licensing marketplaces, hosting providers and third-party platforms
Adobe Stock, Fotolia, Shutterstock and other legitimate licensing services can hold information capable of resolving a dispute. A recipient who identifies a platform source should be able to submit platform records, and Atlantic may, where lawful and appropriate, seek clarification from the platform or rights holder rather than assuming the record is invalid.
Atlantic distinguishes the marketplace that sold or distributed a licence, the party that published the image and the operator of the website where the use was observed. Any position concerning a platform or intermediary is tied to its documented role in the relevant licensing or publication chain.
When communicating with an intermediary, Atlantic should provide a sufficiently specific factual basis for the request and respect the intermediary’s statutory process. Different regimes may apply to direct rights-management correspondence, U.S. DMCA notices and EU Digital Services Act notice-and-action mechanisms.
DMCA, counter-notices and EU notice-and-action safeguards
A routine licence-verification letter and a statutory DMCA notice are distinct procedures. 17 U.S.C. §512 establishes specific safe-harbour procedures and content requirements for qualifying notices and counter-notices; Atlantic uses that route when the facts, recipient and statutory purpose fit it.
Section 512(f) creates potential liability for certain knowing material misrepresentations in takedown notices or counter-notices. Accuracy and good faith therefore operate in both directions: Atlantic submits statutory notices only when the record supports them, and recipients remain responsible for the accuracy of material counter-statements.
In the European Union, Article 16 of the Digital Services Act requires hosting providers to maintain accessible electronic notice-and-action mechanisms designed to receive sufficiently precise and substantiated notices. Atlantic’s platform notices should be drafted so that an intermediary can independently understand the location, allegation and supporting basis.
When qualified legal counsel becomes appropriate
Qualified legal counsel becomes appropriate when a matter turns on contested ownership, licence scope, jurisdiction, complex defences, repeated commercial use, disputed authority, suspected document fabrication, injunctive relief, significant damages analysis, cross-border procedure or preparation for formal proceedings.
Referral should be evidence-driven. The file provided to counsel should distinguish confirmed facts from assumptions, identify unresolved questions, include material responses from the recipient and preserve contradictory evidence rather than silently excluding it.
When counsel is engaged, the procedural state is recorded accurately. Legal review, demand correspondence and filed court proceedings remain distinct stages, allowing escalation to be documented without ambiguity.
Courts, remedies and proportionality
Judicial proceedings are considered where the rights holder authorizes them, the evidentiary record is supportable, a competent forum exists and qualified counsel considers the action proportionate. Liability and judicial relief are determined by the competent court under the applicable law.
In the United States, Title 17 provides remedies that can include injunctions, actual damages and attributable profits, and in eligible cases statutory damages. Attorney-fee awards under §505 are discretionary, and §412 can restrict statutory damages and attorney fees depending on registration timing. Atlantic’s case materials present these remedies according to the verified registration status, facts and applicable law rather than presuming a maximum award.
In the European Union, Directive 2004/48/EC requires enforcement measures to be fair and equitable and, among other principles, effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Article 13 addresses damages and Article 14 addresses reasonable and proportionate legal costs of the successful party, subject to equity and national implementation.
Seizure, asset measures and other compulsory enforcement
Compulsory enforcement measures such as seizure of property, wage attachment, account restrictions or asset execution are pursued only through the legal procedures and formal authority of the competent jurisdiction, including a court order or enforceable title where required.
EU intellectual-property enforcement law illustrates this route: in qualifying circumstances, judicial authorities may order provisional or precautionary measures, and certain commercial-scale cases can involve precautionary seizure of property or blocking of bank accounts where statutory conditions are met. Atlantic prepares and administers the documented case record for the competent legal process when that route is authorized and supported.
Public correspondence describes compulsory remedies by reference to the applicable legal conditions, competent authority and authorization required for the specific matter. Where those conditions are satisfied, the documented case record can support an application for the appropriate judicial or enforcement measure.
Territoriality, jurisdiction and cross-border cases
International copyright protection operates through national and regional legal systems. The Berne Convention provides foundational principles such as national treatment and automatic protection, while infringement, remedies and procedure are applied through the competent territorial framework.
Jurisdiction is assessed case by case using the relevant connecting factors, including domicile, conduct, place of harm, contractual clauses, statutory rules, service and due-process requirements. Atlantic’s New York incorporation is one factual element within that broader jurisdictional analysis.
Where an Atlantic contract contains a forum-selection or governing-law clause, its relevance is assessed for the parties actually bound by it and under the applicable enforceability rules. Third-party jurisdiction continues to be assessed through the connecting factors governing the specific dispute.
Data protection, confidentiality and retention
Case administration can involve names, contact details, corporate information, licensing records, communications and technical evidence. Atlantic should process personal data only for defined lawful purposes, restrict access by role, keep records accurate, protect them against unauthorized access and retain them only for justified periods.
Where the GDPR applies, the principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity/confidentiality and accountability are central. Litigation holds, statutory limitation periods, fraud prevention and legal obligations can affect retention, but should not become a blanket justification for indefinite storage.
Public transparency focuses on Atlantic’s authority, evidence standards, case governance, safeguards and available resolution routes. Detection algorithms, security controls, authentication secrets, private anti-fraud methods, privileged legal communications and unnecessary personal data remain confidential so transparency does not create a roadmap for evasion or system compromise.
Governance commitments, auditability and correction
Atlantic’s strongest deterrence is a process that can withstand scrutiny. The public framework therefore commits to traceable case references, human review at material decision points, separation of detection from legal conclusion, preservation of meaningful responses, versioned public policies and correction when reliable evidence shows the initial position was wrong.
Governance requires discrepancies to be handled through documented review: reliance on questionable authority is paused, the record is reassessed, supporting and contradictory evidence are preserved, material errors are corrected, unsupported matters are closed and significant escalations are documented.
This framework may evolve with laws, procedures and Atlantic controls. Each update preserves version history and the factual integrity of existing case records.
- Each material escalation should remain tied to a traceable case reference, a defined decision point and a preserved audit trail.
- Human review should intervene before legal escalation, case closure, public-facing allegations or reliance on disputed authority.
- When reliable corrective evidence appears, Atlantic should document the change, preserve version history and correct the operational record without concealment.
Transparency & accountability
Trust & Transparency Center →
For licensing platforms, hosting providers and counsel
A platform, lawyer or recipient reviewing an Atlantic case should be able to distinguish the protected work, the asserted rights holder, Atlantic’s recorded authority, the detected use, the evidence preserved, the licence question, the response history and the present procedural status. Atlantic should provide enough information for meaningful verification without exposing private security methods, privileged communications or unnecessary personal data.
Official source
Official legal reference points
These sources are public legal reference points. Their relevance and application depend on the facts, territory, procedural posture and applicable national law.
Official source
WIPO - Berne Convention summary
National treatment, automatic protection and minimum international copyright principles.
↗ Official source WIPO - WIPO Copyright TreatyInternational digital copyright framework, including rights-management information.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 502Federal copyright injunctions.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 504Actual damages, attributable profits and statutory damages where available.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 505Court discretion concerning costs and reasonable attorney fees.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 412Registration timing limitations for statutory damages and attorney fees.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 512DMCA safe harbours, notices, counter-notices and misrepresentation safeguards.
↗ Official source 17 U.S.C. § 1202Integrity of copyright-management information.
↗ Official source Directive 2004/48/ECEU intellectual-property enforcement measures, damages, costs and safeguards.
↗ Official source Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 - Digital Services ActEU hosting-provider notice-and-action mechanisms, including Article 16.
↗ Official source Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - GDPRPersonal-data principles, security, accountability and data-subject safeguards.
↗
LEGAL PROCESS · TRANSPARENCY · GOVERNANCE
A documented dispute is easier to resolve than an ambiguous one.
If you received an Atlantic communication, use the secure case channel identified in that communication to provide a licence, identify a factual error, submit supporting records or propose an amicable resolution.
This public framework explains Atlantic’s documented operating model, authority controls and legal reference points for international case administration. Jurisdiction-specific legal action is handled with qualified counsel where required.
