True North Gaming, operating as truenorthbets (referred to as "TNBets," "we," or "our"), complies with the provisions of Title 17, United States Code, Section 512, commonly known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). As an online platform publishing sportsbook analysis, sports statistics, operator reviews, and sports news across Canada, we maintain safe harbor procedures to address allegations of copyright infringement in a transparent and legally structured manner. For details on how user records and submitted data are processed during legal inquiries, consult our privacy policy and our general overview about our platform.

To file a formal DMCA Notice of Alleged Infringement against material hosted on our domain, the copyright holder or an authorized representative must submit a written notification to our Designated Copyright Agent containing the following statutory elements:

• Signature: A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed exclusive right.
• Identification of the protected work: A specific title, registration number, or authorized canonical web address demonstrating ownership of the original text, image, or proprietary data.
• Precise location of the infringing material: Direct URLs pointing to the exact page, article, or asset on our site; general domain references without specific URLs are insufficient under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3).
• Contact details: Full legal name, physical mailing address, telephone number, and active corporate email address of the complaining party.
• Good faith statement: A declaration that you hold a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (including fair use doctrines).
• Perjury statement: A statement made under penalty of perjury confirming that the information in the notification is accurate and that you hold legal authority to act on behalf of the rights holder.

Upon receipt of a valid takedown notice, our compliance department acts promptly to remove or disable access to the identified material and delivers a copy of the complaint to the contributor. If content was removed due to mistake or misidentification, the affected party may submit a Counter-Notification pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3). If no formal court action seeking an injunction is filed by the copyright holder within 10 to 14 business days following receipt of a valid counter-notice, the disabled content may be restored at our discretion.

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A), we enforce a strict repeat infringer policy, terminating platform access and account privileges for users who repeatedly generate substantiated copyright claims. Direct all formal DMCA notices and counter-notifications to our Designated Copyright Agent at [email protected].

Copyright claims against a sports content publisher usually fall into a handful of recurring categories. Recognizing them helps rights holders file notices that meet the statutory bar, and helps contributors understand what to avoid.

• Reproduced editorial text: Operator reviews, betting guides, or news summaries copied verbatim or lightly reworded from another publisher, wire service, or press release without a license.
• Proprietary statistical feeds: Odds compilations, injury reports, or historical results pulled directly from a paid data provider and republished without authorization.
• Images and graphics: Team logos, promotional banners, headshots, or broadcast screenshots used beyond the scope of fair use or a stock license.
• Embedded or re-hosted video: Highlight clips, interviews, or broadcast segments uploaded to our servers rather than linked through an authorized embed.
• Database compilations: Structured datasets, such as full schedules or line histories, scraped from a competitor and presented as original work.

A claim limited to factual data, such as final scores or publicly posted odds numbers, generally falls outside copyright protection. Only the original expression, the specific wording, layout, or compiled selection, can support a valid notice.

Every incoming notice moves through a fixed internal review before any content is removed. This keeps enforcement consistent and defensible under Section 512.

• Intake and logging: The notice is date-stamped and checked against the six statutory elements listed above. Incomplete submissions are returned with a note explaining the missing element.
• Verification: Our compliance team confirms the identified URL actually exists on our domain and matches the described material before taking any action.
• Removal or disabling: Qualifying content is taken down or blocked from public view, typically within one to three business days of a complete notice.
• Contributor notification: The staff writer or contributor responsible for the page receives a copy of the complaint and an explanation of the removal.
• Record retention: Notices, removal dates, and any counter-notices are logged and retained to support our repeat-infringer tracking described below.

We do not evaluate the underlying merits of a copyright dispute beyond confirming the notice is facially valid. Substantive disputes over ownership or licensing are resolved between the parties, not by our compliance team.

A contributor who believes their material was removed by mistake, or through misidentification of the disputed material, may submit a written counter-notification. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3), a valid counter-notice must include:

• A physical or electronic signature of the contributor.
• Identification of the material removed and its location before removal.
• A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification.
• The contributor's name, address, telephone number, and consent to the jurisdiction of the applicable federal district court.

Once we receive a valid counter-notice, we forward a copy to the original complaining party and note the date of transmission. The complaining party then has 10 to 14 business days to file a court action seeking to restrain the contributor from continuing the disputed activity. If no such action is filed within that window, the material may be restored. We do not restore content while a valid dispute remains pending, and repeated frivolous counter-notices are treated the same as repeated infringement for policy purposes.

Section 512(i)(1)(A) conditions safe harbor protection on adopting and reasonably implementing a policy against repeat infringers. We track substantiated notices against each contributor account and apply escalating consequences.

• First substantiated notice: Content removal plus a written warning placed on the contributor's internal file.
• Second substantiated notice: Suspension of publishing privileges pending a review of the contributor's prior submissions.
• Third substantiated notice: Permanent termination of the contributor account and removal of publishing access across the platform.

Maintaining safe harbor status also requires that we not have actual knowledge of infringing material and that we act expeditiously once notified. We do not receive a direct financial benefit tied to any specific infringing post, which supports our qualification for the limitation of liability under Section 512(c). Our Designated Copyright Agent is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and formal notices should reference that registration where applicable.

None of the above limits a rights holder's ability to pursue remedies directly against a third party who supplied infringing material to us in bad faith. Our policy addresses our own platform obligations, not the underlying dispute between a claimant and the original source of the content.

A meaningful share of submissions never reach the removal stage because they fail basic statutory requirements. Understanding these gaps saves rights holders time.

• No specific URL: A notice naming only our domain, rather than the exact page hosting the disputed material, cannot be acted on under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(ii).
• Unverifiable ownership: Claims lacking a registration number, publication date, or canonical source URL make it impossible to confirm the complaining party actually holds the right.
• Missing signature or contact details: An anonymous or unsigned complaint does not meet the good faith and perjury requirements built into the statute.
• Factual content only: Notices targeting raw statistics, final scores, or publicly available odds numbers are declined, since facts are not protected expression.

When a notice is rejected, our compliance team sends a short explanation of the missing element so the complaining party can correct and resubmit. Resubmission does not restart any repeat-infringer clock against the platform.