In late January 2010, iStockphoto sent a DMCA takedown notice to Tumblr, requesting that it to take down photos hosted on Awkward Stock Photos, a Tumblr blog of funny stock photo images found by users on the websites of various online stock photo purveyors.

According to Ars Technica, the notice demanded not only that iStockphotos' photos be taken down, but that all photos on the site be removed. Mark Hauge, who runs the site, told Ars that, before the takedown, he "only use[d] watermarked photos that [he] downloaded and re-uploaded to Tumblr (so [he] wasn't hotlinking) and then linked them back to their original source."

As a result of the takedown notice, Hauge no longer posts photos directly to his blog. Instead, he provides text links back to the source, with each entry reading the same: "Awkward Stock Photo." The effect is certainly not the same as it once was, but still very funny if you're willing to follow the links.

In December 2009, counsel for Demi Moore sent a demand letter to Boing Boing, in regard to a November 17 Xeni Jardin post titled "Was Demi Moore Ralph-Laurenized on 'W' mag cover, with missing hip-flesh?."  The post consisted almost entirely of commentary from Anthony Citrano, a Los Angeles-based fashion photographer.  Citrano speculated that Moore's hip looked digitally manipulated in a cover photo for W Magazine and offered some commentary on the "clumsy mistakes" and "bad art" involved in photoshop botches.

Days later, Jardin published another post titled "Demi claims missing hipflesh is for real. But $5000 says its Moore photoshopping" that icluded the full text of Moore's denial on Twitter, and an offer from Mr. Citrano to make a $5,000 donation to a charity of Ms. Moore's choosing if the image she'd published were provably the unretouched original.

Moore's December 15 letter asserted that the posts defamed Ms. Moore by suggesting that she "secretly uses extraordinary artificial means to alter her appearance," and by insinuating that Ms. Moore had been untruthful in informing people that the image accurately reflected her body and hip. The letter also enclosed supporting letters from W's Creative Director Dennis Freedman and from Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott, the photographers who took the photo. Freedman's letter stated that "no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image of Demi Moore," and the photographers' letter said "there was ABSOLUTELY no retouching on her lips or waist or legs!!"

Moore's letter demanded an apology and retraction, and that Boing Boing remove all false and defamatory statements about Ms. Moore or the photo from the website.  The letter also warned: "Confidential Legal Notice, Publication or Dissemination Is Prohibited." 

In response, counsel for Boing Boing sent a response letter disputing the validity of Moore's claims. The letter denied that Boing Boing made any provably false statements and that the posts said anything defamatory or disparaging about Moore—"[t]o the contrary, any criticism of the photographs by Mr. Citrano is directed entirely at those who may have altered the photographs."  The letter also argued that Boing Boing acted without actual malice, relying "reasonably and thoughtfully upon the opinion of Mr. Citrano—a professional photagrapher with expertise in fashion photography (including manipulation and retouching techniques)." 

In December, Jardin published another post explaining Boing Boing's position and attaching both letters. The post concluded: 

At no point was it the intent of this blog, or this blogger, to insult or offend Ms. Moore, who has embraced the openness of internet culture by way of frequent and intimate Twitter updates. Discussions about whether and/or how a widely circulated image may have been altered are common here on Boing Boing. We are a blog about digital culture, after all, and the technical and creative details that go into producing the images we consume are an essential part of our culture. 

Moore's counsel sent a nearly identical letter to Jezebel.com and fashion photography blogger Anthony Citrano. 

Ted Szukalski, an Australian photographer, sent blogger Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications what purported to be a DMCA takedown notice on January 9, 2010.  The takedown notice complained about Frey's blog post that reproduced and commented on a photoshopped image showing President Obama shining Sarah Palin's shoes. 

The image in question is a photshopped version of Szukalski's photograph of a homeless man shining the shoes of a seated woman (see the non-modified version titled Shoeshine - homeless and a woman client MG_6348-27).  The modified version does away with Szukalski's copyright notice and replaces the heads of the shoe shiner and woman with those of President Obama and Sarah Palin, respectively.

The photoshopped image caused a small stir in early January 2010 when a Colorado Department of Transportation worker faced discipline for forwarding the image.  Frey's post took issue with another blogger's description of the incident as an "ugly little upwelling of racism from the right wing base," pointing out that the woman who forwarded the email was a registered Democrat.

Frey responded in an email refusing to take down the image and asserting that his use of the photograph for political commentary was a classic example of fair use.  As of the date of this writing, Szukalski had taken no further action. 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) sent an email to a Flickr user Richard Giles  asking him to cease and desist from distributing and/or licensing photographs of the 2008 Beijing Olympic events that he had photographed while at the games and posted on Flickr.

Giles originally put the photographs online under a CC Attribution-Share Alike License (CC BY-SA), but then relicensed them under a CC Attribution-No-Derivatives License (CC BY-ND) upon the request of a Wikipedia user, so that they could be used in a Wikimedia project. Later on, a British bookstore used one of Giles' pictures for promoting a book. When this came to IOC's attention, they sent the cease and desist letter to Giles. 

IOC invoked contractual limitations found on the back of tickets:

As you know, when entering any Olympic venue, you are subject to the terms and conditions mentioned on the back of entry tickets, under which images of the Games taken by you may not be used for any purpose other than private, which does not include licensing of the pictures to third parties.

The letter also suggested a trademark-oriented claim:

Olympic identifications such as the Olympic rings, the emblems and mascots of the Olympic games, the word 'Olympic' and images of the Olympic games belong to the IOC and cannot be used without its prior written consent.

Giles reports that it was not clear to him what exactly the IOC wanted him to do, so a chain of mutual emails followed, in which IOC clarified its position that the only acceptable copyright notice for pictures from Olympic events would be "all rights reserved." In an effort to keep the CC licensing regime, Giles counter-suggested licensing the pictures under a noncommercial CC license, but IOC declined:

IOC's current policy is to restrict the use of pictures taken at the venues to private, domestic and non-commercial use and does not allow licensing of pictures to third parties, even for free non-commercial use, for the reasons I explained in my previous email.

Therefore, for the time being the IOC considers full copyright as the only suitable credit and asks that you change the license of the photos taken inside of the Olympic venues to 'all rights reserved'.

Throughout the course of these events Giles was in touch with the Electronic Frontiers Australia, a nonprofit organisation supporting online freedoms and rights,  and Creative Commons Australia, both of which advised him that as a first step he should comply with the IOC's demand. Eventually Giles reverted all pictures to full copyright protection, adding a note under every picture: "The license on this photo has been changed from Creative Commons to Copyright [sic] due to a request from the IOC."

High School Principal Austin Couch suspended two female high school sophomores from participating in extracurricular athletics after Couch obtained sexually-suggestive photos that the students took of themselves and posted to MySpace.  The students, T.V. and M.K., subsequently filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana alleging First Amendment violations by Couch and the Smith-County Community School Corporation, which operates the high school.

According to their complaint, T.V. and M.K. took photos of themselves at a slumber party in the summer before the 2009-2010 school year, including photos pretending to kiss and lick a novelty phallus-shaped lollypop and wearing lingerie with dollar bills stuck in their clothes.  After the students posted these photos to their MySpace pages, an unknown person gave them to Couch, who suspended the students from all extracurricular activities during the school year, including athletics.  The students agreed to attend three counseling sessions and apologize to an all-male panel of coaches in order to reduce their suspension to 25% of their fall extracurricular activities.

In October 2009, Ralph Lauren sent a DMCA takedown notice to Boing Boing's webhost, Priority Colo, alleging that Boing Boing's posting of a Ralph Lauren advertisement violated its copyright. The Ralph Lauren advertisement featured a photograph of an improbably skinny model that appeared to have been photoshopped, and Xeni Jardin's post on Boing Boing reproduced the advertisement with a critical caption: "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis." Priority Colo and Boing Boing refused to remove the post, citing fair use.

The advertisement originally came to Jardin's attention via another blog, Photoshop Disasters. Photoshop Disasters published the advertisement with its own critical caption: "Make her head bigger than her pelvis! Do it!" Ralph Lauren also sent a DMCA takedown notice to Blogger, Photoshop Disasters' blog host, which removed the image.  (The original post is still available through Google's cache.)  It is not clear whether Photoshop Disasters submitted a counter-notification and whether the post will be restored.

After a great deal of media attention stemming from the takedown notices, Ralph Lauren acknowledged responsibility for photoshopping the image in a statement saying, "[f]or over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body."

Rosenberg, a professional photographer, sued the operator of a Charlottesville, VA community blog (now defunct) for copyright infringement, claiming it failed to remove images of his photograph that were posted (twice) to its site by unknown third parties.  The complaint also included a claims for removal or alteration of copyright management information, because the images on cvillain.com were stripped of identifying material attached to the original picture (presumably the copyright symbol, name, and year that appear when mousing over the original photo).

On July 6, 2009, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice because they had reached a settlement in the amount of $750.