Why we are publishing our process publicly.

When we started building Verights, we noticed something about the rights-enforcement industry: nobody publishes how it actually works.

The pricing is opaque. The fair-use review process is opaque. The relationship between the enforcement company and the rights holders they represent is opaque. The respondent’s options are opaque. Even the legal authority under which a company is sending takedown notices is often opaque.

That opacity has consequences. It makes legitimate enforcement look like extortion. It makes respondents (many of whom are casual users who reposted a clip without thinking about copyright) feel ambushed. It gives the entire industry a reputation that good actors do not deserve and bad actors hide behind.

What we are publishing.

At Verights, we have decided to publish:

• Our complete enforcement workflow: detection, expert review, notice, and resolution. Step by step.
• Our pricing methodology, including the multiplier ranges that go into a settlement quote.
• Our DMCA Policy. Our authority (we are an authorized agent of the rights holders we represent under § 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), not a registered Designated Agent), our contact channels, and what to do if you think a notice was issued in error.
• Our Terms of Service with specific commitments: tolling on Review Requests, GDPR Art. 22 human-review opt-out, transparent pricing, audit trails.
• Our resource library: fair-use guide, counter-notification guide, glossary, and creator basics. Educational, free, not behind any registration.

Why we think transparency is strategic.

Three reasons:

First, transparency is the strongest § 512(f) defense. If a court ever has to evaluate whether we acted in good faith when issuing a notice, the substance of our defense is the program standard we operate under: human review on every material claim, fair use considered in good faith, and a notice not going out where the standard is not met. Lenz requires good-faith fair-use consideration before issuing a notice. Publishing the standard publicly is how we hold ourselves to it.

Second, transparency drives expedited settlement. When a respondent receives a notice and lands here, they can read exactly what is going to happen and what their options are. They can see the methodology behind any settlement quote. Most casual infringers (who make up the majority of takedown recipients) find that transparency reassuring rather than threatening, and they settle faster.

Third, transparency is what serious rights holders want. Major media libraries, networks, and top creators evaluating us as a vendor want to know that their enforcement program will not become a PR liability. The ones who will partner with us long-term care that the process is defensible end-to-end. We make that easier to evaluate by publishing.

What we are not publishing.

For balance, three things we deliberately do not publish:

• Specific partner names without their permission. Some of our partners are public; others prefer not to be associated with active enforcement. That is their call.
• Internal pricing tables to the decimal point. We publish the ranges and the methodology. The exact stepped multipliers are an internal version-controlled document, available on request to specific respondents under GDPR Art. 22(3) for their specific claim.
• Specific detection technology details that would help bad actors evade us. The general approach is published; the specific signatures and countermeasures are not.

What is next.

We will continue publishing here. Process changes, transparency reports on volume and outcomes, analysis of industry developments, and answers to questions that come in repeatedly enough to be worth publishing.

If you want to see a specific topic covered, email us at hello@verights.com. We are particularly interested in hearing from creators, copyright lawyers, and respondents who have been through the process and have feedback on how it could be improved.