Turner Padget Insights
A $750,000 Scare: How One LinkedIn Post Became a Copyright Minefield
Posted On May 15, 2025
In an age where content is shared freely and frequently online, a recent legal case I defended serves as a stark reminder of the risks of reposting copyrighted material, even with the best intentions. A physician in South Carolina found herself facing a $750,000 federal copyright lawsuit after posting five photographs from Pinterest to her personal LinkedIn page, unknowingly triggering a legal battle with a professional photographer.
The images were part of a photographer’s series of popular images, featuring older adults gazing into mirrors and seeing their younger selves. Accompanied by her heartfelt caption reminding fellow physicians that their senior patients were once young,the post seemed benign. However, it caught the attention of the photographer’s legal representatives, which demanded the physician pay a $150,000 “licensing fee” within 21 days. Even after the post was promptly removed, the photographer’s attorney filed a federal lawsuit alleging willful copyright infringement and seeking up to $750,000 in statutory damages.
The Legal Framework
Under U.S. copyright law, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying of original elements to prove infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 501. If successful, the plaintiff may claim actual damages or statutory damages, which can range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, and rises to $150,000 per infringed work for willful violations. 17 U.S.C. § 504.
The Defense: Fair Use
Our defense was to invoke the “fair use” defense under 17 U.S.C. § 107, arguing that the post qualified as non-commercial commentary. We highlighted the educational and expressive purpose of the post, asserting it added new meaning and context to the original work, hallmarks of a transformative use.
The defense also evaluated the four fair use factors:
- Purpose and Character: Non-commercial, transformative commentary, not used for business promotion.
- Nature of the Work: Creative but previously published, a fact that leans toward fair use.
- Amount Used: Entire photos were shown, but full reproduction is often necessary in visual commentary.
- Market Effect: No demonstrable harm to the market or licensing potential of the original images.
The defense further called attention to the plaintiff’s litigation history, describing the case as part of a broader “copyright trolling” scheme. Courts are increasingly critical of "copyright trolling," especially in cases involving copycat plaintiffs—individuals or entities who repeatedly file lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement, often with the primary intent of extracting settlements rather than genuinely protecting creative work. We noted that the photographer (the plaintiff) had filed over 100 similar lawsuits, many discovered through automated image-detection bots, suggesting the motive may be financial gain rather than protection of artistic rights. Use of the legal system not to vindicate intellectual property rights, but as a tool for coercive settlement is not seen in a positive light.
Resolution and Takeaways
I was able to quickly file a motion to dismiss, and relatively quickly settle this matter out of court. This outcome underscores the importance of understanding copyright law in the digital age. Even well-meaning, non-commercial uses of online content can lead to severe legal consequences.
The case serves as a cautionary tale: always verify the rights associated with images before posting them online. The absence of a watermark or copyright notice does not mean an image is free to use. As this incident reveals, the cost of not knowing can be steep.
The bottom line is that if you’re not sure whether you can share someone else’s photo or content—don’t, or at least get permission first. If you find yourself facing a similar issue, consulting with a copyright attorney may help you understand your options and help protect your interests.
Robert A. Mullins is a business litigator based in Turner Padget’s Augusta, Georgia office where he focuses his practice on trademark and copyright infringement as well as intellectual property, corporate, and environmental law. Robert provides clients with both litigation support and proactive business counseling. If you have questions or need guidance on protecting your business, please reach out to Robert at rmullins@turnerpadget.com to schedule a consultation.
