Anyway, Vicky is being targeted by Derek of @ProModelWorld , who is obviously your source for these articles. Her videos weren’t taken down due to anything 2257 related, but do to a false(my opinion) DMCA request by Derek(Which he has taken credit for), here is his post on the matter:
“Pro-Models Worldwide @ProModelWorld Jun 14
WHOOOOOOOO!!!
BIG Legal Victory for me!!
@ManyVidsSupport honored my DMCA request and removed 16 videos from the @RealVickyVixxx
and @GoddessVickyV online stores!!!

I now have CONFIRMATION that Vicky Vixxx has been filming without a CC 2257. Press Release coming SOON”

and Many Vids’ Response to this post:
“MV Support @ManyVidsSupport Replying to @ProModelWorld @RealVickyVixxx and @GoddessVickyV
Please note we do not publicly discuss any account specific details. On behalf of those involved, we request you remove these assumptive statements.”

From my personal experience with ManyVids, they do not entertain broad missing 2257 allegations at all. They will however investigate if you identify a specific person as underage in a video. They will generally not entertain a request asserting that performers did not sign a release.

DMCA is a different issue and process, and ManyVids will err on the side of caution by pulling videos that they receive a properly formed DMCA copyright infringement notices on. So by filing such a DMCA notice/complaint, the filer, in this case Derek, claimed that he is the controlling copyright holder for the videos and that the poster does not own the copyright. This can only be the case if he was the one shooting the content, and not under contract for those rights, or if he had a contract that had given him the rights. I suspect neither is true because his assertion was that he was in the videos without a release, not that he filmed the content or had an agreement for full exclusive rights and control.

So ManyVids could pull the content and then give the original poster the option to assert their own claim of ownership, or they could just pull the content and let both parties work it out in court which seems to be how ManyVids operates.

Part of a DMCA take-down request requires that the requester certify they are the owner, and if the actual copyright owner is someone else, they may use the courts to resolve with additional penalties against the fraudulent take-down requester. This doesn’t help content producers because it defers resolution to litigation which can be both costly and timely.

I don’t like that some companies aren’t giving the original posters the option to reassert their ownership rights, which would result in the poster certifying they are the copyright holder, the video being re-activated, and then the burden of litigation gets put back on the one who submitted the DMCA take-down request with additional penalties if the original poster has now committed fraud in re-affirming their rights. To be fair, ManyVids may not have the mechanism in place to turn on and off videos in relation to a DMCA request, they may just delete the video and move on. Poster could re-assert their rights by re-posting, but then could be subject to the same fraudulent take-down request again. This allows those who don’t care about the threat of litigation because it is unlikely, costly, and requires a lot of time and energy on the part of the offended party, to submit fraudulent DMCA take-down requests and achieve their desired result of harming the actually copyright owner as part of a targeted harassment campaign, which is what I believe is going on here.

Derek @ProModelWorld doesn’t seam to mentally operate in the real world and doesn’t care what laws he breaks when he has his feelings hurt. I have witnessed his “Victims” get threatened, harassed, have their social media accounts and business accounts targeted, sometimes successfully such as in this case, all to satisfy his hurt ego and to make himself seem important.