Ocean Market is a decentralized data marketplace operated by Ocean Protocol Foundation (OPF).
This set of documents describes the policies and processes for Ocean Market around: copyright violations / DMCA notices, sensitive data, and trademark violations. Ocean Market policies are modeled on Github's approach.
- Ocean Market Purgatory Process -- this file
- DMCA Takedown Policy (Copyright Violations)
- Sensitive Data Removal Policy
- Trademark Policy
Purgatory can be for a data asset, or an actor.
- Purgatory for a data asset is state in which a published data asset is tagged as "in purgatory" in Ocean Market. Being in purgatory has implications into how the asset is displayed in Ocean Market, and what actions are permitted to be performed on the asset. Once in purgatory, the asset (actor) may stay there, or leave purgatory if certain conditions are fulfilled.
- Purgatory for an actor is a state in which an actor (Ethereum address) is tagged as "in purgatory" in Ocean Market. Being in purgatory has implications into how the actor profile is displayed in Ocean Market, and what actions the actor is permitted to be perform in Ocean Market. Once in purgatory, the actor may stay there, or leave purgatory if certain conditions are fulfilled.
It can happen in one of these ways:
- OPF receives a DMCA takedown notice (report of copyright violation)
- OPF receives a report of Trademark Policy Violation
- OPF receives a sensitive data takedown request
- OPF flags an asset likely of copyright violation, trademark violation, sensitive data, or otherwise. OPF reserves the right to subjective judgements.
An asset can either stay in purgatory indefinitely, or revert back to Default.
The asset can be reverted back to Default if all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
- The notice is retracted
Here are ways that notice may be retracted:
- The reporter submits a retraction in writing to OPF; or
- If it's a DMCA notice: the publisher submits a counter-proposal by email to OPF within two weeks; then the reporter submits a retraction by email to OPF within two weeks
- If it's a DMCA notice: The publisher submits a counter-proposal to the reporter within two weeks (and cc's OPF); then the reporter does not submit a retraction in writing to OPF within two weeks
It can happen in one of these ways:
- An asset that the actor has published has been put into purgatory
- On an asset that the actor has published where the actor still has >10% of the holdings, and then withdraws the majority of their stake in a short time interval. Colloquially, the actor has done a "rug pull" to the detriment of the community. OPF determines the right to make subjective judgements on this.
It can happen in one of these ways:
- All assets published by the actor are on longer in Purgatory; and the actor submits a request in writing to OPF, then OPF decides at its discretion whether to remove purgatory status
Publisher May Send A Counter Notice. We encourage users who have a data asset in Purgatory to consult with a lawyer about their options. If a user believes that their content was put into Purgatory as a result of a mistake or misidentification, they may send OPF a counter notice. As with the original notice, we will make sure that the counter notice is sufficiently detailed (as explained in the how-to guide). If it is, we will post it to our public repository and pass the notice back to the copyright owner by sending them the link.
Copyright Owner May File a Legal Action. If a copyright owner wishes to keep the content in Purgatory after receiving a counter notice, they will need to initiate a legal action seeking a court order to restrain the user from engaging in infringing activity relating to the content on Ocean Market. In other words, you might get sued. If the copyright owner does not give Ocean Market notice within 10-14 days, by sending a copy of a valid legal complaint filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, Ocean Market will move the content from Purgatory to Default.
Scenario: good publisher, scam reporter.
- Good publisher publishes good asset
- Reporter reports it as bad (in bad faith)
- Publisher submits a counter-proposal
- Reporter doesn't retract
- OPF doesn't know if asset is good or bad. Item stays in Purgatory.
- Publisher gives OPF more information to make it clear that asset is good, and access gets re-enabled. Or, they take scam reporter to court.
Scenario: bad publisher, good reporter.
- Bad publisher publishes stolen asset
- Reporter reports it as bad (in good faith)
- Publisher submits a counter-proposal
- Reporter doesn't retract
- OPF doesn't know if asset is good or bad. Item stays in Purgatory.
- Publisher won't take reporter to court, because they know they'll lose.
OPF reserves the right to change this policy on an ad-hoc basis, according to principles of fairness and transparency.