Is Removing a Watermark or Credit From Someone's Work Illegal?

The rule is 17 U.S.C. 1202, added to the Copyright Act in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It sits alongside the ordinary rights covered on our main copyright and trademark law page, but it is a separate claim: it is about the information attached to a work, not the copying of the work itself. This page walks through what counts as that information, the two knowledge requirements, and what remedies the statute provides.

How a Section 1202 Claim Works, Step by Step

1. There must be copyright management information (CMI). Section 1202(c) lists the kinds of information that count, "conveyed in connection with" copies, performances or displays of the work, "including in digital form."
2. Someone removed or altered it, or added false CMI. Section 1202(b) covers removal and alteration; 1202(a) covers providing or distributing false CMI.
3. They acted without the authority of the copyright owner or the law.
4. They had the required knowledge. For removal, the act must be intentional, and the person must know, or for civil claims have reasonable grounds to know, that it will "induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal" infringement.
5. The injured person sues in federal court. "Any person injured by a violation" may bring a civil action (17 U.S.C. 1203(a)).
6. The court chooses remedies. Injunctions, actual damages and profits or statutory damages, costs and, in its discretion, attorney's fees (1203(b), (c)).

What Counts as Copyright Management Information?

Section 1202(c) defines it as any of the following, conveyed in connection with copies or displays of a work:

• the title and other information identifying the work, including the information in a copyright notice;
• the name of, and other identifying information about, the author;
• the name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner, including notice information;
• for most performances, identifying information about a performer, and for audiovisual works, a credited writer, performer or director;
• terms and conditions for use of the work;
• identifying numbers or symbols referring to that information, or links to it;
• other information the Register of Copyrights prescribes by regulation.

The definition excludes personally identifying information about a user of the work. A watermark that shows the photographer's name or studio, a credit line under an image, a copyright notice, and a link back to the owner's licensing page can all fit. Our page on the copyright notice and the © symbol covers what a notice contains.

What Is the Double Knowledge Requirement?

The statute requires two separate mental states. For a removal claim, the person must remove the information intentionally, and must also know, or have reasonable grounds to know, that doing so will help infringement happen or hide it. The Copyright Office's April 2019 report, Authors, Attribution, and Integrity, calls this a "dual standard." It traces the knowledge requirements to concerns raised while the law was drafted that the provision could catch inadvertent changes, and good-faith situations such as ghostwritten, collaborative or pseudonymous works and legitimate ownership disputes.

The report also notes that the standard is hard to meet. It describes cases in which photographers lost because they lacked evidence of the defendant's mental state, including a 2018 Ninth Circuit decision about software that automatically stripped metadata from real estate photos, which the Office called "troubling" because it required proof of a "pattern of conduct" that the statute does not mention. Rather than loosen section 1202's existing standard, the Office recommended that Congress consider adding a new section 1202A, which would reach knowing removal or alteration of CMI done with intent to conceal the author's attribution. The current text of section 1202 still contains both knowledge requirements.

Is Cropping Out a Watermark or Credit a Violation?

It can be, if the other elements are met. The 2019 report says early courts limited section 1202 to digital or automated systems, but "the more recent judicial trend has been to read the statute more broadly," relying on the definition's words "including in digital form." It describes a Third Circuit case in which a defendant scanned a photograph and cut off the credit identifying the photographer; the court rejected the argument that section 1202 applied only to automated systems. The report concludes from these decisions that even manual removal of credits that are not digitally embedded can lead to liability.

The credit has to have been there in the first place. The report states that section 1202 protects only CMI that is "already attached to a work" and "nothing in section 1202 affirmatively requires that an author be credited." Reposting a photo that never carried a name is not a 1202 problem, though the repost may still be infringement. Who owns an image to begin with is a separate question, covered in our page on who owns a photo of you.

What About Adding Your Own Name or Watermark?

That is the false CMI side of the statute. Section 1202(a) bars knowingly providing, distributing or importing false copyright management information with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Placing your own watermark or notice on someone else's photo before reselling it is the kind of act this provision reaches, if the knowledge and intent can be proven.

What Remedies Does the Law Provide?

Under 17 U.S.C. 1203, a court may grant injunctions, impound devices or products involved, award costs, award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in its discretion, and order destruction or modification of products involved. For damages, the injured party chooses actual damages plus the violator's additional profits, or statutory damages "for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000." That election can be made at any time before final judgment.

The court may increase damages up to triple if the violator repeats within three years after a final judgment for another violation, and may reduce or remit damages if the violator proves it "was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation" (1203(c)(4), (5)). Willful violations "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can also be crimes under 17 U.S.C. 1204, with fines up to $500,000 or up to 5 years in prison for a first offense; criminal cases must start within 5 years.

How Is This Different From Copyright Infringement?

Many cases bring both claims together; the 2019 report notes that many section 1202 cases "pair section 1202 claims with traditional copyright infringement claims." For the infringement side, see our page on copyright infringement damages. Timing rules are covered in our page on the time limit for suing over copyright infringement.

What Can You Do on the Platform Side?

If someone reposted your work, the platform takedown route under 17 U.S.C. 512 is built for infringing material: the notice must identify "the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed" and "the material that is claimed to be infringing" (512(c)(3)(A)). Our page on DMCA takedown notice requirements lists every element. A takedown notice must be accurate, and our page on false DMCA takedowns explains what happens when one is not.

What Changes the Answer

• Authority. Removal with the copyright owner's permission, or authority under the law, is outside 1202(b).
• Knowledge. Automatic stripping by software, with no reason to know it will aid infringement, may fail the second requirement, as the 2019 report describes.
• Whether CMI existed. No attached credit, no removal claim.
• Who sues. The statute lets "any person injured" sue; the 2019 report notes that some point to its inapplicability to creators who do not own the copyright in their work as a weakness.
• Exemptions. Section 1202(d) covers lawful government activity, and 1202(e) limits liability for certain broadcasters and cable systems.

A Worked Example

Common Mistakes

• Assuming any missing credit is a violation. Section 1202 protects CMI already attached; it does not require credit.
• Ignoring the knowledge requirements. Gather evidence of intent, such as a careful crop or a substituted name.
• Not saving the original. Keep dated copies showing the watermark or credit as you published it.
• Waiting too long. Civil claims under title 17 have a three-year limit (507(b)).
• Treating the two claims as one. Infringement and CMI claims have different elements and damages.
• Removing credits yourself "to clean up" a licensed image. Check your license terms first.

What to Do This Week

1. Screenshot the reposted work, with the URL and date.
2. Save your original showing the watermark, credit or metadata.
3. Note any sign the removal was deliberate, such as a crop line or a new name.
4. Check whether and when your work was registered.
5. Decide whether to send a takedown notice for the infringing copy.
6. If you received a demand letter instead, read our page on what to do after receiving a copyright infringement letter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Watermark Copyright Management Information?

It can be, when it conveys information on the 1202(c) list, such as the author's or owner's name, a copyright notice or a link to licensing terms.

Does Removing Metadata Count?

Metadata can carry CMI. The 2019 report discusses metadata stripping, and also a case where automatic stripping did not violate 1202 because the knowledge requirement was not shown.

Do I Have to Register My Work to Bring a 1202 Claim?

Section 411(a)'s registration rule is written for a "civil action for infringement." Registration still matters for an infringement claim filed alongside it.

Can I Get Statutory Damages for Each Image?

The statute awards statutory damages "for each violation of section 1202." How violations are counted depends on the facts and the court.

Is Reposting Without Credit Illegal?

Reposting can be infringement. Failing to give credit is not itself a 1202 violation unless existing CMI was removed or altered, or false CMI was added.

Can Removing a Credit Be a Crime?

Only if done willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain (17 U.S.C. 1204(a)).

Zala IP Law helps photographers, artists and other creators evaluate copyright management information and infringement claims. If your credit or watermark was removed, or you received a claim over one, request a consultation or call 404-313-1701, and bring copies of the original and the repost.