A photographer finds their image on another site with the watermark cropped out and the credit line gone. The image is still theirs, but the infringement has changed shape. The copy is one violation. Removing the watermark is a second one, and Section 1202 of the Copyright Act treats it separately, with statutory damages of 2,500 to 25,000 dollars per violation.
The catch is that not every watermark counts as copyright management information. The law protects specific kinds of information, and a watermark that does not carry them is a deterrent, not a legal claim.
Section 1202 defines copyright management information as the title of the work, the name of the author, the name of the copyright owner, and the terms and conditions for use. A watermark that carries the photographer's name or the copyright notice qualifies. A logo with no name, a decorative mark, or a watermark that only says the studio's brand may not, depending on the court.
Section 1202(b) covers two acts: intentionally removing or altering the information, and distributing a work knowing the information was removed. The second part is what catches the reposter who did not crop the image themselves but published it knowing the credit was stripped. Both parts require intent, which is the part that makes these claims harder than they look.
Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group is the case photographers cite most. A radio station used a photographer's image without the credit line, and the court found a 1202 violation because the credit had been removed with the image. Stevens v. Corelogic went the other way in part: the court held that the information removed has to be the kind Section 1202 protects, and that a watermark which does not identify the author or owner may not qualify.
The split between the cases is the practical lesson. A watermark that says the photographer's name and the copyright year is protected. A watermark that is only a logo, with no name attached, may not be. The cheapest fix is to make the watermark carry the name: a visible credit line in the image metadata and on the image itself, so the removal is a removal of the author's name, not just a design element.
Screenshot the infringing use with the URL and the date, and keep the original file with its metadata intact. The original is the evidence that the information was there before the copy was made. Send a takedown notice that names both violations: the unauthorized copy under Section 512, and the removal of copyright management information under Section 1202.
Do not send a counter-notice in response to a takedown you disagree with unless you are prepared for the lawsuit it invites. A counter-notice is a sworn statement that the material was removed by mistake, and the copyright owner has ten to fourteen business days to file suit. Section 512(f) exposes a party who knowingly misrepresents a claim to damages, so a counter-notice sent on a weak claim is a risk, not a remedy.
Keep reading: AI-Generated Copies of Your Work: What the DMCA Covers When the Copier Is a Model, The Counter-Notice You Should Not Send: When the Copy Is Actually Yours to Lose, Your Photos Are on Pinterest: The Copyright Form, the Agent Email, and the 'Remove All' Ask cover the nearby cases in this series.
Yes, under Section 1202 of the Copyright Act, if the watermark carries copyright management information: the author's name, the owner's name, the title, or the terms of use. Statutory damages run 2,500 to 25,000 dollars per violation, separate from the damages for the copy itself.
No. A watermark that only shows a logo, with no author or owner name attached, may not qualify. Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group found a violation where the credit line was removed; Stevens v. Corelogic held the removed information has to be the kind Section 1202 protects.
The original file with its metadata intact, showing the information was there before the copy was made, plus screenshots of the infringing use with the URL and date. The original is the evidence that the removal happened.
Only if you are prepared for a lawsuit. A counter-notice is a sworn statement, and the copyright owner has ten to fourteen business days to file suit. Section 512(f) exposes a party who knowingly misrepresents a claim to damages.