The materials were actually released by someone at the firm (an associate, for example). That person sent it to someone else, who sent it to another person etc. Since the original "leaker" is bound to a confidentiality agreement, I should be fine, right?

@Questioner5453 - so if you receive stolen goods, they are yours since you didn't steal them?

You are not bound by the confidentiality clause in a third party's contract (privity of contract), but copyright protection doesn't depend on a confidentiality agreement.

@user6726 How do I know if a document is protected by copyrights? I don't see any indication of that in the document. I guess I'll wait for their legal team to lay out their reasoning.

In the US, this comes from Title 17 of the US code. Basically, every written thing is protected by copyright, with some marginal exceptions about "US government works". Copyright expires a lifetime after the author dies. You should get your own lawyer on this first. If he says "give in and apologize", that means you stand to lose big bucks if you annoy them and they sue you.

Actually... DMCA requires it.

The first sentence of this answer is incorrect. You are required to take it down upon request of the copyright owner, which is why a court will order you to do so, and possibly award damages, if you try to contest it.

@pRl Depends on what "required" means. If it means "will expose yourself to significant liability if you don't", then it is incorrect. If it means something like "are guilty of contempt of court", then it is correct.

@user6726 : How is investigative journalism done then? I often hear of cases where documents (indicating unethical or unpopular behavior) of famous people are leaked, creating controversy, and the press reports it... but how can they, if they are protected by copyright? What if an investigating reporter comes across some "juicy" information, how can they publish it without being destroyed by the copyright owner?

@vsz, Such 'leaks' are usually paraphrased in the articles that are published, with barely more than partial quotes, if that. Usually the journalist just refers to the fact that they've seen such documents are have come into possession of them. Also, if the documents are damning enough to be in the public interest, copyright issues are the least of anybody's problems and never come into play as a result.

"You are not required by law" in the sense that not doing so isn't a crime, but that's still the case after a court order. Being held in contempt of court is merely rather similar to being found guilty of a crime.

@Questioner5453 everything is under copyright and you cannot use anything you find unless EXPLICITLY stated otherwise. For example stackoverflow.com is so widely used by programmers, because as part of the user agreement to use the site people agree to releasing their answers/code under a quite allowing license. They still retain the copyright, as indicated by the terms "releasing under a license"

@vsz those are legal because of an excemption given in the context of "freedom of the press". It is an exeption to a rule however. And if you've ever followed journalism on youtube you know that this exemption (and where it applies) is topic of much controversy and many lawsuits.

Downvote. First sentence is incorrect.

Downvote. Not is the first sentence incorrect, but the prudent course of action is to comply with the request.

@JonCuster in certain cases yes, you get to keep them. Had an incident with employee deciding to keep cash I paid for cubic meter of sand to himself, essentually stealing sand from his company and selling it to me. Didn't have to break down concrete to retrieve said sand back.

I wonder if anyone has explained this to Chegg.

@Trish DMCA can tell you “take it down or suffer the consequences”. So it doesn’t force you to take something down, it is your choice. And sometimes (rarely) it will be reasonable to not take something down. It depends on what you call “force”.