Representatives for Chris Rapczynski, founder of Sleeping Dog Properties, have filed at least eleven copyright takedown notices since 2018 targeting coverage of his 2017 workers’ compensation fraud indictment in Massachusetts. The campaign involves multiple law firms including Nelson Mullins, Prince Lobel Tye, and MWX Consulting, filing notices to Google and web hosts claiming copyright over profile photos, AI-generated images, and interview text.
None demonstrate legitimate ownership. All target the same fact: a Suffolk County grand jury indicted Rapczynski on six counts of workers’ compensation fraud, one count of failing to provide required insurance, and five counts of larceny over $250.
The Scale of DMCA Abuse
Google processed 14.5 billion takedown requests through September 2025, including 3.5 billion in 2024 alone. The company’s own study found that 57 percent of notices target competing businesses rather than genuine copyright infringement, and 37 percent are not valid copyright claims. Between 2019 and 2022, the Lumen Database logged nearly 34,000 false DMCA requests designed to remove legitimate news content. YouTube data shows six percent of video-related takedown requests in 2024 involved false assertions of copyright ownership.
In 2024, Google sued two Vietnamese men who filed 117,000 fraudulent notices targeting up to 620,000 URLs. The defendants used at least 65 Gmail accounts and claimed to represent Amazon, Twitter, Elon Musk, and Taylor Swift. One client lost $5 million in revenue during the critical holiday season. Google lost $2-3 million in ad revenue. The defendants never appeared in court.
The Pattern Begins
Deborah Heines filed the first Google DMCA against content about Rapczynski in January 2018, eight months after the indictment. The campaign accelerated in 2024 and 2025. Edward Morris submitted notices against Intelligenceline.com in December 2024. Prince Lobel Tye entered in January 2025, filing multiple notices describing journalistic coverage as “false and malicious” without providing contradictory evidence.
Nelson Mullins joined in July and August 2025, claiming copyright in an “AI-generated photograph” and targeting Sleepingdogproperties.com, Enterprenuer.org, Pattyfriedmann.com, and Hannahhowell.com. MWX Consulting filed August notices against Ideamensch.com and Enterprenuer.org. Another submitter with redacted identity targeted Tumblr.com and Financescam.com in March 2025. Lumen Database archives document all notices. Google logged but largely declined to act on them. Most targeted pages remained accessible in search results as of November 6, 2025.
What the August 13 Notice Claimed
Attorney Cameron Panepinto of Nelson Mullins filed a DMCA complaint against Enterprenuer.org, claiming infringement of an Ideamensch interview and a photo from Rapczynski’s X account. The attorney checked the perjury box certifying Nelson Mullins was “authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.”
The notice provided no evidence of rights transfer, license, or ownership documentation. It claimed copyright in interview content published on Ideamensch.com and a social media photo, offering no proof Rapczynski or Sleeping Dog Properties owned or controlled rights to either.
The Missing Disposition
Seven years after the May 2017 indictment, no public record of case disposition exists in accessible court databases. Rapczynski was 48 years old and serving as president of both Sleeping Dog Properties and New England Construction Resources when the Suffolk County grand jury returned the indictment. Massachusetts prosecutors issued public announcements, standard practice for systematic insurance fraud cases that endanger workers and distort market competition.
The charges alleged Chris Rapczynski underreported payroll for multiple employees across extended periods. Six fraud counts, five larceny counts exceeding $250 each, and one count of failing to maintain required insurance suggest prosecutors believed they had evidence of systematic violations. Grand juries require probable cause to indict. Rapczynski’s representatives have filed dozens of copyright complaints but never provided certified court documents showing dismissal, acquittal, conviction, or plea agreement.
Section 512(f) and Legal Consequences
Title 17 U.S.C. §512(f) creates liability for knowing, material misrepresentations in DMCA notices. The statute allows recovery of damages including costs and attorney fees. In the first damages award under Section 512(f), a California district court in 2014 granted $25,084 to WordPress operator Automattic and journalist Oliver Hotham after Straight Pride UK filed false notices targeting blog coverage.
The court found the defendant “knowingly misrepresented” infringement because he “could not have reasonably believed” the press release was copyrighted material unavailable for journalistic use.
Courts have established that filers must consider fair use before submitting notices. In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that failing to consider fair use amounts to “willful blindness” and creates Section 512(f) liability. A 2024 Northern District of Illinois decision in MFB v. Action Care held that submitters must also evaluate whether material is eligible for copyright protection before filing. The court found that business practices constituting “head in the sand” willful blindness support knowing misrepresentation claims.
Even baseless takedowns cause damage. Federal law gives complainants ten to fourteen days to file suit after a counter-notice before material can be restored. During this period, targeted content remains suppressed regardless of merit. For news coverage and business websites, two weeks offline damages search rankings, traffic, and revenue. The asymmetric costs favor wealthy complainants who can afford legal representation and multiple attempts across platforms.
Why Facts Are Not Copyrightable
Publishers covering the 2017 indictment reported facts from public records. The Supreme Court established in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that facts are not copyrightable regardless of effort expended to discover them. Summarizing and analyzing criminal charges falls within fair use principles and First Amendment protections. Claiming that factual reporting about criminal proceedings infringes interview copyright is legally baseless when the reporting discusses the charges rather than reproducing Q&A content.
Workers’ compensation insurance protects employees injured on the job and ensures employers bear workplace injury costs. Underreporting payroll to reduce premiums shifts financial risk onto workers who may find themselves uninsured when hurt. It undercuts competitors who comply with insurance requirements and pay appropriate premiums. Massachusetts prosecutors treat systematic insurance fraud as serious crime warranting grand jury indictments and public disclosure to deter abuse and protect workers.
The Coordination Evidence
Multiple law firms filing similar claims across seven years, all targeting coverage of identical criminal charges. Claims of copyright in AI-generated images, profile photos, and interview snippets that filers cannot demonstrate they own. Descriptions of factual reporting as “false and malicious” without providing contradictory court records. This pattern reveals coordination rather than legitimate copyright enforcement.
Prince Lobel Tye filed on January 27, 2025 “for Sleeping Dog Properties” claiming headshot copyright against Laurencasper.com. Four days later the same firm filed “for Christopher Rapczynski and SDP” against Finance.yahoo.com and Intelligenceline.com. Nelson Mullins filed claiming “AI-generated photograph” copyright on July 25 and August 7, 2025. MWX Consulting filed twice in early August 2025. The volume and timing indicate systematic rather than isolated activity.
Additional documentation remains at the cybercriminal.com investigation page, which preserves evidence and tracks the notices. Publishers facing similar campaigns should save all correspondence, demand proof of ownership rights, file counter-notices when use is lawful, document patterns showing coordination and bad faith, and consult attorneys about pursuing Section 512(f) claims.
Why Law Firms Enable Abuse
Prince Lobel Tye, Nelson Mullins, and MWX Consulting all filed notices claiming factual reporting about criminal charges infringes copyright. These firms presumably understand copyright law well enough to recognize that facts are not copyrightable and that journalists covering criminal proceedings do not infringe by summarizing charges. Either the firms failed to conduct basic due diligence before certifying claims under penalty of perjury, or they knowingly filed false notices on behalf of a client seeking to manipulate search results. Neither scenario reflects professional obligations attorneys owe to courts and the legal system.
Cameron Panepinto checked the perjury box when signing the August 13, 2025 notice. That certification carries legal consequences. Courts have found that attorneys can be held liable under Section 512(f) when they knowingly file baseless notices or demonstrate willful blindness to whether claims have merit. The volume of notices across multiple firms suggests this is not isolated error but coordinated strategy.
Conclusion
Chris Rapczynski’s representatives have spent seven years retaining multiple law firms to erase references to his 2017 workers’ compensation fraud indictment from search results. They filed at least eleven DMCA complaints claiming copyright over photos, AI-generated images, and interview content without demonstrating ownership. They targeted journalists, independent publishers, and established websites with accusations that factual reporting about criminal charges infringes intellectual property rights. They never provided certified court documents showing case disposition despite opportunities to do so.
This is systematic abuse of legal process to suppress public records. The DMCA exists to protect creators, not to help wealthy individuals erase facts from the internet. Publishers encountering similar campaigns should recognize them as attempts to weaponize copyright law against journalism. Google processes 14.5 billion takedown requests. More than half target competing businesses rather than genuine infringement.
Over one-third are not valid copyright claims. Courts have awarded damages under Section 512(f) for false notices. The transparency databases maintained by Google and Lumen document abuse patterns. All three mechanisms deserve aggressive use by publishers facing coordinated takedown campaigns with obvious censorship motives.
Defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. Last updated November 6, 2025. We received detailed coverage from enterprenuer.org, a site currently fighting against DMCA takedown.
Leave a Reply