People who repost someone else's video or photo often crop out the logo first. That step is easy for them, and it can add a second claim against them.

The short answer: identifying information attached to a work, such as the title, the author, the owner, and the terms of use, is "copyright management information." Removing or altering it, or distributing the work knowing it was removed, can violate 17 U.S.C. § 1202 when done with knowledge that it will facilitate or conceal infringement. Mark your work clearly and consistently, and the claim will be there if you need it.

What counts as CMI

Section 1202(c) defines copyright management information as information "conveyed in connection with" copies of a work, including in digital form. It lists:

  • the title and other information identifying the work, including what's in a copyright notice
  • the name of the author
  • the name of the copyright owner
  • for audiovisual works, the names of writers, performers, and directors credited in the work
  • the terms and conditions for use of the work
  • identifying numbers or symbols that refer to this information, or links to it

In practice, that covers a visible watermark or logo on a video, a credit line under a photograph, a copyright notice in a document's footer, embedded file metadata naming the creator, and a license header at the top of a source file.

What the statute prohibits

False CMI. § 1202(a) bars knowingly providing or distributing false CMI with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement. Putting your own name on someone else's work is the typical case.

Removal or alteration. § 1202(b) bars, without the owner's authority:

  1. intentionally removing or altering CMI
  2. distributing CMI knowing it has been removed or altered
  3. distributing copies of works knowing that CMI has been removed or altered

In each case the person must know, or have reasonable grounds to know, that the act "will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement."

The two knowledge requirements

Most § 1202(b) cases turn on that last clause. There are two mental states: the act itself must be intentional or knowing, and the defendant must know or have reason to know it will aid or hide infringement.

Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018). Real estate photographers sued a software company whose listing platform stripped metadata from photographs when it resized them. The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the company. The photographers had no evidence that removing the metadata would actually lead to or conceal infringement. A plaintiff has to make an affirmative showing, such as a pattern of conduct, that the defendant was aware of the probable future impact of its actions.

Mango v. BuzzFeed, Inc., 970 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2020). A news site published a photographer's picture without a license and replaced his credit line with the name of a law firm. The Second Circuit affirmed liability. It held that the credit line (the "gutter credit") was CMI, and that the knowledge requirement is met when the defendant knows its act will conceal its own infringement. The infringement doesn't have to be by a third party.

Together they mark the range. Automated, indiscriminate stripping with no evidence of purpose is hard to reach. Deliberately swapping a credit on a work you're using without permission is covered.

Remedies, and why the claim is worth having

For each violation, a court can award actual damages or statutory damages of $2,500 to $25,000, and may award attorney's fees. 17 U.S.C. § 1203.

A CMI claim is separate from the infringement claim, and it has a practical advantage. Most courts that have considered the question hold that § 1202 claims don't depend on copyright registration, because the registration requirement in 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) applies to actions for infringement. The timing limit on statutory damages in § 412 likewise addresses infringement remedies under §§ 504 and 505. If your work was copied before you registered, the CMI claim may be the one that still carries statutory damages.

Check the law in your circuit before relying on that. District courts also disagree on details, such as whether the copy must be identical to the original.

How to mark your work

Visible marks last longer than metadata. Many social platforms and image pipelines strip embedded metadata on upload, and a stripped file with no visible mark carries nothing.

Video

  • a small logo in a corner of the frame throughout
  • an end card with "© [year] [owner]. All rights reserved." and a URL
  • for paid content, a per-user watermark with an account identifier
  • container metadata for title, author, and copyright

Photographs and graphics

  • a visible credit or watermark where the design allows
  • IPTC and XMP fields for creator, copyright notice, and licensing URL
  • a credit line next to the image on your own site, since that's CMI "conveyed in connection with" the work

Documents and handouts

  • a notice in the footer of every page, not only the cover
  • PDF document properties for title and author

Source code

  • a copyright and license header in each file, ideally with an SPDX identifier
  • a LICENSE file at the repository root
  • notices preserved in minified or bundled output where practical

Web pages

  • a footer notice, and terms of use linked from every page

Evidence to keep

A § 1202 claim needs proof that the CMI was there and was removed.

  • Keep the original files with marks and metadata intact.
  • Keep dated captures of your own pages showing the credit next to the work.
  • When you find a copy, save the page, the file, and its metadata before you send a takedown notice.
  • Note anything showing intent: a crop that removes exactly the watermark, a blurred logo, a replaced credit.

Don't create liability yourself

The same rules apply to you. If your site or app accepts uploads and processes them, know what your pipeline does to metadata. If your team reuses images or code from outside, keep the credits and license headers intact. Removing a license header from open-source code is a common way to turn a license violation into a § 1202 claim.

Practical takeaways

  • Put a visible mark and an ownership notice on everything you distribute.
  • Add metadata too, but don't rely on it surviving.
  • A removed or replaced mark is evidence of intent, and it supports a separate claim with its own statutory damages.
  • Preserve the original and the copy before you act.

If your work is circulating with your name removed, I can help you assess both the infringement claim and the CMI claim.

Primary authority

Related resources

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Copyright Office practices and fees change, and the law varies by circuit; confirm current requirements at copyright.gov and consult qualified counsel about your situation.