Watermarking your work is a great thing to do. If you’re not doing that or at least putting a credit line adjacent to the work1, please start. I know of at least one creative pro who tweaks their watermark for each place the work is legitimately posted. For example, if it is posted on their website, it’s in the left corner; on Fine Art America, it’s in the right corner; etc. This is extra good because it can help prove from where the work was obtained in the case of an infringement. Anyway, regardless of where a watermark appears, it is best if it is a proper copyright notice.
Many of you aren’t getting that important step right.
A proper2 copyright notice contains the word “copyright” or the symbol ©, then the year of first publication3 if there is one, then the legal name of the owner. So, with that in mind, here’s a little quiz… which of these is/are a proper copyright notice in the USA:
- © 2026 Leslie Burns
- © 2026 sandiegocopyrightattorney.com
- © 2026 www.leslie-burns.com
- © Leslie Burns
- © Burns the Attorney, Inc.
Answer? All may be except for #2. Sadly, I’m seeing lots of number 2-type “notices” out there. Why is number 2 bad? Let’s look at each…but not in order….
Number 1 is a proper copyright notice for a work owned by Leslie Burns and first published4 in 2026.
Number 4 is a proper copyright notice for an unpublished work owned by Leslie Burns.
Number 3 is probably a proper copyright notice, because it contains the name of the owner even if it is a url. Using Number 1 would be safer but Number 3 is likely going to be okay with a court.
Number 5 is a proper copyright notice for an unpublished work owned by the corporate entity Burns the Attorney, Inc.
Number two is a problem because it is just a url without containing the correct legal name of the owner. It’s not specific enough to identify the owner5. Also, assuming that is my URL (and it’s not, btw–I just made it up for this example), if the work is owned by me, personally, then it is completely wrong because it does not contain my name.
All that said, if the work has been published, then numbers 4 and 5 are no longer proper.
I see a lot of watermarks that have the © symbol, but nothing else qualifies as a copyright notice. For example, I’ve seen © [logo], which is just all kinds of wrong; or © [social media handle], samesies.
Of course a rational person could easily think “It’s my logo, that identifies me as the owner” but the law doesn’t work like that. Courts are very, very literal (in the literal definition of the word literal). When they say it needs to be identifying they mean unambiguously identifying–a name (personal or entity, depending on the owner).
The difference between using a proper notice and not can be expensive. If you have a proper copyright notice on or adjacent to your work, somewhere where the public might find it that way6, then an infringer is prevented from even trying to call an infringement “innocent.” It is flat-out barred by statute7. While innocent infringement doesn’t get an infringer clear of liability, it can and does often reduce the amount of statutory damages awarded, by a lot. The starting point drops to $200 and it makes negotiating a reasonable settlement much more difficult.
So, check your watermarks. Add them if you don’t use them (or credit lines) and, for best protection, make them proper copyright notices. Double check that your existing ones are accurate. If your work ever gets used illicitly (i.e, an infringement), your lawyer will thank you.
__________
- “Adjacent to” does not mean that notice on the bottom of the page on your website or that separate page of your website–it means tucked up next to. ↩︎
- “Proper” as in what the statute says is required. See 17 USC §401. ↩︎
- Some people think the date on their registration goes here–that’s wrong. It’s the date of first publication (and see FN 4 below about that). ↩︎
- Remember, “first published” means being offered for sale, licensing, or further distribution–not just posting! If you just put a photo up on a blog, probably not published; put it up on a blog that includes a link to license it, published. Yes, we lawyers hate this sloppy definition, too. ↩︎
- There has been at least one case where a court said not only the fancy (i.e., not the name of the owner) URL watermark was not a proper copyright notice, it wasn’t even good enough to count as Copyright Management Information, yikes! ↩︎
- The infringer doesn’t even have to see that particular version of the work–it just needs to be publicly available so it could have seen it! ↩︎
- 17 USC §401(d). ↩︎