If you get a DMCA takedown for a native retweet (a repost in X's new terminology), you should file a counter-notification stating that you are using the platform's native function that the TOS states every original poster grants a license for other users of the service to employ. That will clear the strike and put the onus on the claimant to escalate it further.
This is is
technically correct under X’s Terms of Service, but it exposes a
structural contradiction in how X operates DMCA enforcement.
Yes, the TOS grants a broad license that explicitly enables native reposting. However, X still allows (and enforces) DMCA strikes against users who relied on that license
without warning them beforehand that reposting can trigger copyright penalties. That puts users in a trap: the platform encourages reposting, monetizes it, and then penalizes it after the fact. Filing a counter-notification may clear a strike, but it places unnecessary legal risk and administrative burden on users who followed the platform’s own design and rules.
That assumes that the original poster is posting their own work or something they have permission or license to post. What complicates things is if the original poster's copy is stolen. In that case, it is true that other native resharers could technically have liability. The takeaway then is only reshare/retweet things that you know were posted by the owner of that content.
This is where the system breaks down in practice. While it’s true that resharing stolen content
can technically expose users to liability, the expectation that ordinary users can reliably determine ownership on X is unrealistic. X does not provide provenance indicators, licensing context, or ownership verification. It leaves this decision to those who are reposting.... again, another legal trap.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been battling this type of infringement for a very long time (with hundreds of thousands of takedowns sent and many lawsuits), I have no interest in sending takedowns or pursuing cases against people using native-function resharing, retweeting, etc functions. It doesn't serve any purpose to go after those! It's the root native-posted reupload that matters. I send a takedown for that copy alone. When it is taken down, all of the native-function reshares go away. There is no need to complicate things by going after people using the native-function reshare/retweet/etc. It's extra work that serves no purpose and doesn't accomplish anything when all I need to do is get the root infringing copy taken down. That's why I think this claimant likely just got the URL wrong and doesn't understand how to locate the URL of the original infringing reupload. Twitter/X doesn't exactly make that very easy, but it's still the responsibility of the claimant to get that right.
Targeting the
root reupload is the only approach that makes sense legally, practically, and ethically. As you point out, once the original infringing upload is removed, all native reposts disappear automatically. Going after resharers accomplishes nothing except alienating users and creating chaos. Another fault with X is that it makes identifying the root next to impossible.
As far as the legal liability angle, I think it is highly unlikely any agency or attorney would go after people using native sharing functions on an infringing reupload. I've only ever gone after the root reuploaders, and even then only the cases that the attorneys will accept, which are open-and-shut commercial cases. Like most if not all chasers, I'm using contingency fee attorneys that only get paid if they win a case. Going after people who use the native sharing functions is not likely to succeed and so no contingency fee attorney is going to waste their time and money on those. Any person paying an attorney to go after those types of cases is just throwing money down the toilet. There are plenty of reuploading infringers to go after if they have money to throw away like that.
No rational attorney working on contingency is going after native resharers. The damages aren’t there, the defenses are obvious, and the odds of success are low. Enforcement resources are finite, and they will always flow toward clear commercial infringement. The problem is that bad actors are now using the DMCA process to "con" X members into paying fines or legal fees. The other issue is when you get multiple DMCA complaints, your account can be shadowed banned or closed.
I will say that even if they don't have legal liability, people knowingly resharing/retweeting stolen videos is part of the problem. It's usually pretty obvious if an account is reuploading stolen content, any engagement that copy gets only helps the infringer and adds salt to the wounds of the victim. The biggest injustice I face routinely is the followers and supporters of pirate accounts heaping engagement and praise on them and then vilifying me when I do anything to deal with that account stealing my video or picture.
If this is indeed going to start happening more, the takeaway again would be to make sure you're only resharing/retweeting things posted by the original photographers. There would be zero liability there (and it's good practice anyway).
X encourages reposting, it licenses reposting, it profits from reposting, it punishes reposting and only warns users after harm occurs.
We can only hope that enough people get fed-up with the abuse that it collapses the entire system.
