ClawHub content rights

ClawHub keeps rights claims on their own track, and the separation is deliberate. A moderation report asks whether something is unsafe. A rights request asks a different question entirely, about who is entitled to publish it, and that question is answered by people rather than by a scanner.

What a request must carry

• One or more exact canonical listing URLs, in the owner-and-slug form the registry publishes, rather than a search result or a description.
• Your name, your organisation and a contact email, because staff may need to come back to you before they can act.
• A brief explanation of the rights concern, which is where the claim is actually made rather than implied.
• Supporting evidence where you have it. It is listed as optional, which in practice means a request without it takes longer rather than failing outright.

Depending on the circumstances, affected content may be hidden, restored, or left unchanged.

Three outcomes, not one

That sentence is the most useful line on the page, because it sets expectations that most takedown processes leave vague. Staff review requests manually and may contact the requester or the publisher for more information. The content may end up hidden, it may be restored if it was already actioned, or it may be left exactly as it is. Filing a request starts a review; it does not perform a removal.

Choosing the right door

• Unsafe marketplace content that is not a rights concern goes through the normal reporting flow instead, which is a different queue with different reviewers.
• A vulnerability in ClawHub itself goes to the registry's security process, and never to a rights form.
• An ownership dispute over a handle, scope or namespace is a third path again, handled as a namespace claim rather than as a rights request.

Republishing is the case this process most often exists for, and it is named explicitly in the marketplace policy: republishing someone else's skill, plugin, documentation, brand assets or proprietary code without permission, violating licence terms, or impersonating the original author. See ClawHub acceptable usage for where that sits in policy and ClawHub moderation and account standing for the reporting queue beside it.

What the form is not

A rights request is reviewed by a human and may involve contacting the publisher, so it is not a fast lane for an urgent safety problem, and it is not a way to resolve a naming argument. Sending the wrong kind of problem down this path costs time at both ends. If what you have found is a vulnerability in the registry, that belongs in a security advisory; if it is a dispute over who should hold a name, that belongs in a claim. See Reporting a ClawHub vulnerability and ClawHub namespace claims.

On Diali

Diali hosts OpenClaw and publishes nothing to the registry on your behalf, so anything your assistant installs was published by someone else under their own name. Each customer runs their own assistant, the runtime configuration is generated from the dashboard and replaced at each release, and state lives on a persistent volume, with daily snapshots and one-click restore available through the Backups add-on (included on Max). See Hosted OpenClaw on Diali for what the hosting includes and Diali pricing for what it costs.

• Exact canonical URLs, not search results.
• A request opens a review; it does not perform a removal.
• Unchanged is a legitimate outcome.