Missing Credits and Removed Watermarks in China: Preserve the Image History

By Pan Jianxing · Published 25 October 2026

A photographer or design studio discovers a familiar image on a Chinese sales page, but the credit has disappeared and another logo covers part of the picture. The immediate task is to preserve the different versions and their history. An allegation of copying, a dispute about attribution and a claim concerning rights-management information require related but distinct facts.

Start by identifying the work, the relevant rights holder and the act complained of in mainland China. A visible mark may identify the author, a copyright owner, an agency, a retailer or someone else. Its appearance alone does not establish which person owns the rights or what the publisher was permitted to do.

Keep the legal questions separate

Article 10 of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020 identifies the right of attribution as the right to indicate authorship and place the author’s name on the work. It separately identifies economic rights such as reproduction and making a work available through an information network. Permission to use an image and the treatment of its author’s identity should therefore be reviewed separately.

Article 12 provides a rebuttable rule concerning the person or entity named on a work and the existence of corresponding rights. Gather the underlying creation and acquisition evidence rather than treating a watermark as conclusive proof. A studio claiming economic rights should explain its relationship with the creator and the documents supporting its claim.

Article 51 addresses rights-management information. Without the rights holder’s permission, it prohibits deliberate removal or alteration, subject to an exception where that is technically unavoidable. It also prohibits making the material available to the public while knowing, or having reason to know, that the information was removed or altered without permission.

Do not assume that every cropped symbol meets this description or that every missing mark proves deliberate removal by the current publisher. Identify the information, its function, the relevant version and the evidence about permission and knowledge. These issues determine how the statutory rule applies to the actual facts.

Preserve the source version before comparison

Retain the original working file, exported versions and available creation records. Save the image as supplied to an agency, client or platform, together with the delivery message and any agreed credit wording. Where embedded metadata matters, preserve the original file and document how the metadata was read.

Use working copies for annotations. Adding a watermark today cannot demonstrate that it appeared on an earlier supplied file. Likewise, a current website version cannot alone prove what a recipient downloaded months ago. Date each record accurately and state what is unavailable.

Current Article 6 of the Supreme People’s Court copyright interpretation, revised in 2026, recognises drafts, originals, lawful publications, copyright registrations and rights-acquisition contracts among possible evidence. Assemble the relevant combination and address contradictions between the named author, the licensing party and the claimant.

Record the published copy in context

Preserve the complete page, its address, capture time, account or store identifier and surrounding description. Record whether a credit appears elsewhere on the page, in a caption or through an accessible link. A cropped screenshot that omits the caption may misrepresent what the publisher actually displayed.

Where available through lawful access, retain the displayed image file and its visible variants. Compare dimensions, crop boundaries, overlaid graphics and other distinguishing details. Keep a short explanation linking each annotated comparison to the untouched capture. A visual similarity assessment and an account of who altered the file are separate parts of the analysis.

For a hypothetical photograph with a credit along its bottom edge, the comparison may show that the published version excludes that edge. It does not, by itself, establish whether the uploader cropped the file, received a previously cropped version or used an automated display setting. Preserve the available facts before deciding which inference is supportable.

Check the licence and distribution route

Review the actual licence version, order record and relevant agency terms. Identify authorised users, permitted platforms, editing permissions and attribution obligations. Distinguish an agreement permitting size adjustments from evidence permitting removal of rights information; the wording and surrounding facts matter.

Trace how the image reached the publisher. Relevant records may include supplied assets, agency correspondence, approved layouts and earlier publication versions. Ask for a specific explanation of the file source and the change rather than assuming that every participant performed the same act. A licence to an intermediary also needs a review of any onward permissions.

Keep any response in the evidence file and assess it on its merits. A claim of technical necessity calls for examination of the actual process and available records. An allegation about deliberate removal or knowledge should reflect what those records establish, including any remaining uncertainty.

Choose a remedy that fits the evidence

Articles 52 and 53 address civil responsibility and, where additional statutory conditions are met, administrative or criminal consequences. A missing credit does not automatically establish a criminal case or a fixed compensation amount. Distinguish a supported attribution issue from unauthorised reproduction and from interference with rights-management information.

Before seeking removal or correction, preserve the live material and define the requested change. Restoring a credit may address one issue while leaving an unauthorised use unresolved. Contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential description, the original publication or delivery record and the disputed page. A focused review can identify the claim supported by the evidence and the next documents needed.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →