Someone copied my code on GitHub

How GitHub's DMCA process works

GitHub publishes its DMCA takedown policy in its documentation, with a notice form. A notice carries the six statutory parts and identifies the infringing repository and, where you can, the specific files. GitHub publishes the notices it receives in its public github/dmca repository, with personal contact details removed. Expect the rest of yours, including the rights holder's name, to be public.

Where a notice names only part of a repository, GitHub first gives the owner about one business day to change it. Otherwise the repository is disabled and its owner told why. They can respond with a counter-notice, and the statute then allows the repository to return after 10 to 14 business days unless you start a court case. Someone who believes they were within your license may do exactly that, which is why the license question comes first. GitHub's repository of notices also carries a warning to users: reposting the same content after a takedown, without going through that process, breaks its policy.

What makes a code notice hold up

1. 1

   Your original, dated

   The repository URL, the commit history showing your code existing first, and the release where it was published.

2. 2

   The copied files, specifically

   File paths in both repositories, and the matching sections. Copied comments, typos, variable names and unusual structure are the strongest evidence that code was copied rather than written independently.

3. 3

   The license, and the breach

   If your code is open source, say which condition was broken: the copyright notice removed, the license text deleted, the copy relicensed.

4. 4

   Nothing that is not yours

   Leave out shared dependencies, boilerplate generated by a framework, and anything you took from elsewhere yourself.

Ask first, or file?

For an open-source license breach, asking first can work and costs nothing. Open an issue on their repository, point to the license condition they broke, such as the copyright notice or the license file, and ask them to restore it. Many people who strip a license did it carelessly, and a public issue fixes it faster than a notice would. If they restore the attribution, the infringement is gone and there is nothing left to file.

For a paid theme, plugin or private code published openly, asking first can be a mistake. The repository can be copied by others while you wait, and the person who published it knows exactly what they did. File, and list the forks.

Either way, a notice to GitHub is public and permanent in its github/dmca repository, with your contact details removed but the substance kept. That is a reason to make sure the notice is one you would be comfortable having read by other developers.

Code copied outside GitHub

Republished themes and plugins also turn up on download sites, on marketplaces and inside other people's websites. A download site is a notice to whoever serves the file. A theme listed for sale on a marketplace goes through that marketplace's intellectual-property process. Your code running inside an app on a store is covered in app copied on an app store.

Reimplementation is not copying

Someone writing their own code that does what yours does, with the same features and a similar API surface, has not copied your code. Copyright protects your expression, not your functionality, and the line between them in software is contested. A notice that treats a rewrite as a copy is the kind that GitHub publishes and the developer community notices. We look at the files before anything is filed, and we decline the ones that are similarity rather than copying.

These routes are newer to us than websites and marketplaces. GitHub's policy was read in its published documentation on 2 November 2026; we confirm the live process when your case opens. Open a case with the link to the copy and your original repository.