# Murphy v. Millennium Radio: Copyright Management Information Beyond the Digital

> The Third Circuit held a photographer's printed gutter credit is copyright management information, so DMCA Section 1202 reaches ordinary credits too.

Topic: Copyright  |  Author: Lidiia Levitska  |  Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com)
Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/murphy-v-millennium-radio-cmi-beyond-digital/


In *Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC*, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided a question no federal appellate court had squarely answered: does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's protection for copyright management information reach an ordinary printed photo credit, or is it confined to automated, technological rights-management systems? A photographer's small credit line, printed in the gutter of a magazine page, was cropped away when a radio station scanned the photo and posted it online. Decided June 14, 2011, the Third Circuit held that copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 is not limited to automated systems, and that a gutter credit qualifies as CMI whose removal can violate the DMCA. It was the first appellate decision to define the scope of CMI.

## At a glance

- **Case:** *Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC*, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011).
- **Decided:** June 14, 2011; vacating the District of New Jersey's grant of summary judgment on all counts and remanding.
- **Holding:** CMI under § 1202 is not restricted to information conveyed through automated or technological measures, so a photographer's printed gutter credit is CMI, and its removal is actionable; the station's reproduction was not fair use.
- **Significance:** The first federal appellate decision on the scope of CMI, establishing that § 1202 reaches conventional credits and captions. Final; remanded for further proceedings.

## The doctrinal frame: what qualifies as CMI

Section 1202 of the DMCA protects the integrity of copyright management information. The statute defines CMI in 17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) to include, among other things, the title of the work, the name of the author, the name of the copyright owner, and terms and conditions for use, when that information is conveyed in connection with copies of a work. Section 1202(b) prohibits the unauthorized removal or alteration of CMI, and the distribution of works knowing CMI has been removed, where the actor has the requisite knowledge that the conduct will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement.

The interpretive fault line in *Murphy* was whether that definition should be read against the DMCA's broader anticircumvention purpose to cover only technological or automated rights-management data, the kind of digital fingerprint one associates with modern content-protection systems. The district court had adopted that narrower view. The Third Circuit had to decide whether the text supports it.

## The facts: a magazine photo, a gutter credit, and a website

Peter Murphy, a professional photographer, took a photograph of two radio personalities, Craig Carton and Ray Rossi, who at the time hosted a show on the New Jersey radio station WKXW, for *New Jersey Monthly* magazine in connection with a "Best of New Jersey" feature. The published image carried Murphy's credit as a small line of type running along the gutter of the page, identifying him as the photographer.

The radio station employing the hosts scanned the magazine photograph and posted it on the station's websites. In the process, the gutter credit identifying Murphy was cut off, and the caption tying the image to the magazine's award was omitted. The station also invited listeners to alter the image. Murphy sued for copyright infringement and for violation of § 1202, and he added a state-law defamation claim. The district court granted summary judgment against Murphy, holding among other things that the gutter credit was not CMI because § 1202 was limited to automated systems, and that the station's use was fair. Murphy appealed.

## The court's reasoning: text over a narrow gloss

The Third Circuit reversed on the CMI question. Its analysis began and largely ended with the statutory text. Section 1202(c) defines CMI by listing categories of identifying information, such as the author's name, conveyed with a work. Nothing in that definition says the information must be embedded in, or generated by, an automated or technological rights-management system. The court declined to graft such a limitation onto the statute, reasoning that where Congress spoke in broad, functional terms, courts should not narrow the language to fit an assumption about the DMCA's digital focus.

Because the plain text controlled, the court held that a photographer's printed credit, even a modest gutter credit, falls within the definition of CMI. Its removal from the image the station posted therefore could support a § 1202 claim. The court acknowledged that reading CMI this broadly would supply a DMCA cause of action in many situations where only an infringement claim had been available before, but it treated that as a problem of policy rather than of logic: the result was not absurd, and only an absurd result would justify a more restrictive reading. Adding an "automated copyright protection or management system" requirement, the court said, would mean inserting into the statute a term that appears nowhere in the DMCA's text and lacks a clear definition. The panel emphasized that its holding resolved the definitional question, while other elements of the § 1202 claim, including the statute's scienter requirement, remained to be established on remand.

The court also rejected the station's fair-use defense to the underlying copying. Reproducing the photograph on the station's website, in the manner shown, was not protected as fair use, so the infringement claim could proceed as well. The defamation claim was likewise revived for further consideration. The net effect was to vacate the summary judgment against Murphy and return the case to the district court.

## What the decision changed

*Murphy* was the opening appellate word on how far § 1202 reaches, and it reads the provision broadly. After *Murphy*, a plaintiff in the Third Circuit, and persuasively elsewhere, can predicate a CMI claim on the removal of conventional attribution: a byline, a credit line, a watermark, or a caption identifying the author or owner. This substantially expanded the practical scope of § 1202, which litigants had sometimes assumed was tethered to digital rights-management technology.

The decision dovetails with the later Ninth Circuit line on § 1202. *Murphy* answers the definitional question of what counts as CMI, while *Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc.*, 899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018), addresses the mental state a plaintiff must prove once CMI is identified. Read together, the two cases frame the modern § 1202 claim: the information removed must be CMI as *Murphy* defines it, and the removal must be accompanied by the scienter that *Stevens* requires. That combination has become the analytical backbone of attribution-stripping disputes, including many arising from online reuse and automated content pipelines.

## Open questions

- **How does the broad CMI definition interact with scienter?** *Murphy* left the knowledge element for remand, and the interplay between an expansive CMI definition and a demanding scienter requirement continues to shape whether such claims succeed.
- **Where are the limits of a credit as CMI?** If a gutter credit qualifies, courts must still decide how incidental or ambiguous an attribution can be before it ceases to function as CMI.
- **Does the plain-text approach invite overbreadth?** The court conceded that its reading is extremely broad and reaches ordinary print, but treated that as a policy question rather than a reason to narrow the text, so the tension the case identified remains unresolved.

## Implications for creators and businesses

- **Attribution is legally protected information.** Photographers, writers, and artists should attach clear credit lines, captions, or watermarks, because *Murphy* treats their removal as potentially actionable under § 1202.
- **Cropping and reposting carry DMCA risk.** Businesses that scan, crop, or reformat third-party images and text should preserve visible credits, since stripping them can expose the reuser to § 1202 liability in addition to ordinary infringement.
- **Fair use is not a safe harbor for casual reuse.** The court rejected the station's fair-use defense, a reminder that reposting a professional photograph to promote a business is unlikely to qualify.
- **Definition is only the first step.** A § 1202 plaintiff still must prove the required knowledge that removal would induce or conceal infringement, so preserve evidence of intent and awareness on both sides of such a dispute.

## Frequently asked questions

**What did Murphy v. Millennium Radio decide about copyright management information?**
The Third Circuit held that copyright management information under § 1202 of the DMCA is not limited to information conveyed by automated or technological systems. A photographer's printed gutter credit identifying him as the author qualifies as CMI, so removing it can violate the statute even though it was not digital rights-management data.

**Was Murphy v. Millennium Radio the first appellate ruling on the scope of CMI?**
Yes. It was the first federal court of appeals decision to define the scope of copyright management information under § 1202. The Third Circuit rejected a narrow reading that would have confined CMI to automated systems and relied on the plain text of the statute, which contains no such limitation.

**Does Murphy mean any removed photo credit creates DMCA liability?**
Not automatically. *Murphy* holds that a printed credit can qualify as CMI, but a plaintiff must still prove the other elements of a § 1202 claim, including the required knowledge that removal would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement. The case settled the definitional question, not every element of liability.

## Authorities and sources

- [Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, No. 10-2163 (3d Cir. June 14, 2011) (precedential opinion PDF, Third Circuit)](https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/102163p.pdf)
- [Copyright Office Fair Use Index summary, Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp. LLC, 650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011)](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/murphy-millennium-3rdcir2011.pdf)
- [Loeb & Loeb case analysis](https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2011/06/murphy-v-millennium-radio-group-llc)
- [Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center summary](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/murphy-v-millennium-radio-grp/)
- [17 U.S.C. § 1202 (integrity of copyright management information), Cornell LII](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1202)
- [Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC (Wikipedia overview)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._Millennium_Radio_Group_LLC)
- [Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2018) (opinion PDF)](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/20/16-56089.pdf)