Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Is There Liability for Removing or Altering Copyright Management Information from a Copyrighted Work?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on January 28, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

By Daniel H. Bliss

Suppose you have uncovered a copyrighted work from another that contains copyright management information such as a copyright notice. However, you want to remove or alter this copyright management information. Should you remove or alter any copyright management information from the copyrighted work? The answer is NO because there is liability!

What is copyright management information (“CMI”)? CMI is defined under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) as information, including in digital form, …: “(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright. (2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work. (3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright … (6) Terms and conditions for use of the work. (7) Identifying numbers or symbols referring to such information or links to such information …” conveyed in connection with copies, phonorecords, performances, or displays of a copyrighted work.

Is there an independent cause of action for removing or altering CMI such as a copyright notice from the copyrighted work? Under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), “[n]o person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law (1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information, (2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or (3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law knowing, or … having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right …”.

Does this cause of action apply to anyone without exception? Under Section 1202, there is no cause or action or liability for authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activities of certain law enforcement, intelligence, or government agencies. What are the civil remedies for violation of these provisions? Under 17 U.S.C. § 1203, a plaintiff may recover statutory damages for each violation “in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000,” with the exact amount being determined by the court, as well as attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Thus, Section 1202 will only apply to a person or entity that knowingly or should have known that the CMI has been removed or altered on the copyrighted work and distributes the copyrighted work.

Let’s assume that your copyrighted work is a photograph. Suppose you have placed your name directly on the photograph, in the photo metadata, or in a watermark when it is published. Further, suppose someone posts that photograph on their website without your name on it. Is there liability? In the case of Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court held that defendants were liable for both unauthorized use of plaintiff’s photograph and removal of CMI from the photograph. In Murphy, a photographer who took photographs and placed a gutter credit with his name on the photographs, when published. However, a radio station copied the photographs and posted them to the web without the gutter credit. Murphy filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act for removing the gutter credit. The court found that “a cause of action under §1202 of the DMCA potentially lies whenever the types of information listed in § 1202(c)(1)-(8) and ‘conveyed in connection with copies…of a work…including in digital form’ is falsified or removed, regardless of the form in which that information is conveyed.”

Based upon the above, you should never remove or alter copyright management information or CMI from a copyrighted work. There is liability for removing or altering CMI from a copyrighted work. Unlike statutory damages for copyright infringement, damages for liability under Section 1202 do not require that the copyright owner register the copyrighted work before the infringement occurs. Therefore, it is recommended that you add CMI to all of your copyrighted works. It will provide an independent cause of action, and you may prevail in a copyright infringement suit for either or both copyright infringement or CMI removal. In addition, a court may award statutory damages and attorneys’ fees if it concludes that someone knowingly removed CMI and distributed the copyrighted work.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo