Maybe next time just email them before issuing a DMCA request, and assume charitable behaviour before evidence dictates otherwise? edit I was wrong, see below.
"In addition we contacted you directly too. After waiting patiently we received no response. After many tries through your editorial office we got hold of an editor who promised to return our call. This never happened either. As a final measure we sent you a DMCA takedown request and waited patiently. No response."
"Initially we were taken aback and confused. We knew there must be some mistake, so we quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests and waited patiently."
They "clarified" it after a while, but if someone read the original version of the article and did not see the update, it could be easy to miss.
> [W]e quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests and waited patiently
That makes it sound like the DMCA takedown was the first response -- I'm surprised that a gently worded e-mail wasn't tried first. "Hey guys, it looks like you are using this ... I'm sure it was unintentional, but .... "
The updated version does claim that they reached out before DMCA, but something still feels wrong... That is why I put quotes on "clarified" -- I don't think it really qualifies as clarification. I'm more of the belief that one of the two versions is factually wrong.
It did require going one beyond the linked article to be truly sure they had done so, though there was a hint in the mention of "diplomatic solutions."
