Which license is this copy from?
One photograph, many licenses. Give each license its own invisible watermark, and a copy you find tells you which license to check before a claim.
harbor-dawn-0412.jpg- Brightwater PressWeb, editorial · USTo March 2027
3f9a…c210 - Halden OutdoorWeb and catalog · EUEnded December 2025
b74e…91d7 - Kestrel AgencyComp for a layoutEnded May 2026
0c58…ee43 - Your portfolioYour own siteNo end
d21b…7a06
Still on Halden’s website in October 2026Past its term. Quote Halden an extension.
Fictional licenses.
Decide what gets its own watermark.
However you find a copy, its watermark leads to the record you kept when you sent it.
- Each license
- Check the use against that license. Within its terms, close the case before any claim goes out. Outside them, quote an extension.
- Each partner or market
- Ask that partner to take it down. The date you marked the file shows whether it went out before the rights ended.
- Each client on a shared shoot
- Check that client’s license, not the others’.
- Comps and previews
- A comp reached published work. If no final license was bought, quote one.
- Your own site and posts
- It was copied from your site, not from a client’s file.
- Each agency that sells the picture
- Ask that agency which customer bought it.
Mark the file you deliver.
Mark the 8-bit copy you send, not the master. Limits: 40 megapixels and 50 MB.
- Web or social JPEG, 2048–3600 pxYesComes back at JPEG quality 100: a median 3.6 times larger in our test.
- Full-size JPEG from a 24–33 MP cameraYesFits at full size. Camera files came back a median 1.4 times larger.
- Full-size file from a 45–100 MP cameraResize firstMark a copy of 40 megapixels or less.
- 16-bit TIFF or PSD masterRefusedMark an 8-bit JPEG, or a compressed TIFF under 50 MB.
- CMYK file for pressRefusedMark the RGB file. Conversion after marking is untested.
- Layered PSDSmall onlyUp to 4 megapixels, well below a camera file.
208 photographs, after delivery.
Every watermark survived a feed post, a chat app and a color grade. Thumbnails lost nearly all.
- Exact match
- Corrected to your watermark
- Not recovered
On a website
- Blog image1024 px, JPEG 82208 of 208
- Site image1080 px, WebP 75206 of 208
- Heavily compressed site image828 px, WebP 45151 of 208
- Article header16:9 crop, two re-encodes153 of 208
Social and ads
- Feed post1080 px wide, JPEG 75208 of 208
- Feed ad4:5 crop, headline and logo198 of 208
- Story ad9:16 crop, headline and logo123 of 208
- Screenshot of a postPhone screen grab, cropped197 of 208
Passed along
- Sent in a chat app1600 px, JPEG 70208 of 208
- Passed through four appsFour re-encodes208 of 208
Edited
- Square crop1:1, centered205 of 208
- Tight cropA quarter of the frame kept140 of 208
- StraightenedRotated 10°, edges cropped208 of 208
- Color gradedBrighter, more saturated, S-curve208 of 208
- Black and whiteConverted to grayscale208 of 208
- Text and logo on topAbout a quarter darkened or covered208 of 208
Thumbnails
- ThumbnailFrom the article header, 300 px16 of 208
Corrected: some of the watermark’s 256 bits came back wrong, and Etchv matched the copy to the one watermark among your assets within 48 bits. That only works while the asset stays in your account.
5 copies returned a watermark that matches no photograph; they count as not recovered. None was matched to another photograph’s watermark. Etchv found no watermark in 11,856 checks of the unmarked originals and their edited versions.
208 CC0 or public-domain photographs across 9 subjects, measured October 5, 2026 with the production model on our own hardware. Platform rows use published or measured size and quality settings; nothing was uploaded. Prints, scans and photos of screens are untested. A sample, not a guarantee.
Courts ask where a copy came from.
The owner must prove a use went beyond the license (Sohm v. Scholastic, 2d Cir. 2020).
| Case | What happened | What decided it |
|---|---|---|
| VHT v. Zillow9th Cir. 2019 | A listings site received the same photographs from several feeds, each with its own rights. | For one claim, the court found a property address didn’t identify which feed a copy came from. VHT rarely watermarked its photos. |
| Photographic Illustrators v. Orgill1st Cir. 2020 | A photo studio filed more than thirty suits against a licensee’s dealers and distributors. | The distributor before the court was covered by the licensee’s right to sublicense. The licensee itself was ordered to pay about $8.5 million in arbitration. |
We know of no court that has weighed an invisible watermark as evidence. And a watermark can’t count copies, so it won’t settle a dispute over a print run.
Check the license
before the claim.
Bring your license records and a copy you found.
7 days · 200 credits · No card required