31 Notable Copyright Infringement Cases

Copyright infringement cases have become increasingly common, where content is shared, repurposed, and distributed globally at lightning speed. Creators, businesses, and everyday users often find themselves walking a fine line between inspiration and violation.

Whether it’s a popular meme used without permission, a photo shared on social media, or an unlicensed sound recording in a video, crossing this line can lead to serious legal consequences.

Recent high-profile cases highlight the importance of knowing the rules surrounding copyright and intellectual property. From tech giants to individual creators, no one is immune to the financial and reputational risks associated with copyright infringement.

But what are the lessons to be learned from these legal battles?

Here, we explore more about the copyright infringement cases that every creator, marketer, and business should know to protect themselves and respect the rights of others in a content-driven world.

What is Copyright Infringement?

Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses or reproduces copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner.

Copyright is a legal protection granted to creators of original works, including literature, music, artwork, photography, cinematographic films, software, and other intellectual property. This protection gives the copyright holders exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform their work and allows them to control how others may use it.

Infringement can take many forms, such as copying a book, using a song in a video without a license, sharing copyrighted images without permission, or republishing an article without citing the original source.

The internet has made it easier than ever to access and share content, but this also increases the risk of copyright violations.

Not all unauthorised uses of copyrighted materials are illegal, as there are exceptions under the doctrine of “fair use.” Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted work for purposes such as commentary, criticism, education, or parody without permission.

However, this is a complex area of law, and fair use determinations depend on factors like the nature of the work, how much is used, and its effect on the market value of the original.

Violating copyright can result in significant legal consequences, including fines, copyright infringement lawsuits, and damage to reputation.

It’s essential for individuals and businesses to respect federal copyright laws by seeking appropriate licenses or permissions before using someone else’s intellectual property, ensuring that they avoid infringement and contribute to a fair and respectful creative environment.

20 International Copyright Infringement Cases

Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

In 1978, Twentieth Century Fox sued Universal Studios, claiming Battlestar Galactica copied elements from Star Wars, released the previous year.

Fox argued that Universal infringed on their intellectual property, pointing out similarities in character designs, space battle sequences, and plot. Universal counter-sued, accusing Star Wars of borrowing from earlier works like Silent Running.

After two years, the case was dismissed, with the court ruling in favour of Battlestar Galactica. Though Fox failed to win the lawsuit, the battle underscored how blockbuster films can lead to accusations of copyright infringement, especially within the competitive realm of science fiction franchises.

Naruto vs Slater

In a unique case, a crested macaque named Naruto took a selfie using wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera. The photos became internet sensations, sparking a legal debate.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, claiming the monkey had rights to the images under copyright law. Slater argued that copyright law doesn’t extend to animals, and the court sided with him, dismissing the case.

While Naruto had indeed taken the photos, the judge ruled that the macaque couldn’t hold copyright ownership. This case raised broader questions about authorship, animal rights, and intellectual property law.

Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

In 2016, Starbucks sued Obsidian Group, claiming that their drink “Freddoccino” was too similar to Starbucks’ trademarked “Frappuccino.”

Starbucks argued the name’s similarity could confuse consumers, violating their intellectual property. Obsidian Group rebranded their drink as “the Freddo,” but Starbucks continued pursuing legal action, asserting the rebranding didn’t fully address the infringement.

As of 2022, the case had not been fully resolved, with Starbucks maintaining that the original product’s likeness to their iconic Frappuccino harmed its brand identity and market positioning. The case exemplifies how companies fiercely protect trademarks to maintain their competitive edge.

Apple vs Microsoft

In 1988, Apple sued Microsoft, accusing them of copying the graphical user interface (GUI) of its Macintosh operating system in Windows 2.0.

Apple argued that Microsoft had unlawfully replicated key design features without proper licensing. However, it was revealed that Apple had granted Microsoft permission to use some elements of the GUI in a previous agreement.

The court ultimately sided with Microsoft, ruling that the similarities fell within the licensed scope. Apple’s appeal was unsuccessful, making this case a landmark in tech patent law. It highlighted the complexities of software design ownership and the evolving nature of intellectual property in technology.

Gucci vs Guess

In 2009, Gucci sued Guess for allegedly copying their iconic designs, including logos, patterns, and overall aesthetic, claiming it diluted their brand.

Gucci sought $221 million in damages but only received $4.1 million after a lengthy legal battle. The court found that Guess had indeed infringed upon Gucci’s trademarks but noted that Gucci’s evidence and policing of infringements were inconsistent, weakening their case.

This legal dispute is a prime example of fashion brands fiercely protecting their intellectual property in an industry where design imitation is rampant. It also showcased the challenges in proving trademark infringement when designs share common, generic elements.

Bratz vs Barbie (Mattel vs MGA)

In 2008, Mattel sued MGA Entertainment over the Bratz dolls, claiming that the idea for Bratz was developed by Carter Bryant while employed at Mattel, thus Mattel owned the intellectual property.

MGA countered, accusing Mattel of spying and underhanded tactics to thwart their business model. After years of litigation, MGA won and was awarded $170 million, though Mattel later appealed.

The case exemplifies the complexity of intellectual property in creative industries, especially when employees move between companies. While Bratz ultimately emerged victorious, the drawn-out legal battle underscored the cutthroat nature of the toy industry’s competitive landscape.

Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams vs Marvin Gaye

In 2013, the estate of Marvin Gaye sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, claiming their hit song “Blurred Lines” copied the “vibe” of Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.”

The court sided with Marvin Gaye estate, ruling that the elements of the two songs were strikingly similar, awarding $5.3 million in damages and a 50% royalty share. The case was controversial, as it blurred the line between inspiration and copyright infringement.

Many in the music industry feared it set a dangerous precedent, potentially stifling creativity. Nevertheless, the ruling marked one of the largest payouts in music copyright history.

Art Buchwald vs Paramount

In 1990, writer Art Buchwald sued Paramount Pictures, alleging they had used his screenplay idea for the hit film Coming to America without credit or compensation.

Paramount argued the film hadn’t made a profit under Hollywood accounting practices. The court ruled in Buchwald’s favor, awarding him $900,000, while condemning Paramount’s accounting methods as unethical.

This case shed light on the notorious practice of “Hollywood accounting,” where studios claim films didn’t make a profit despite generating substantial revenue. It also highlighted the challenges writers face when protecting their creative ideas from being exploited by major studios.

Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

In 2011, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill sued Warner Bros., claiming they used his original tattoo design, which appeared on Mike Tyson’s face, in The Hangover Part II without permission.

Whitmill argued the film’s reproduction of the tattoo was a violation of his copyright. Warner Bros. argued “fair use,” but the judge acknowledged Whitmill’s strong case. Though Whitmill sought to delay the film’s release, the parties eventually settled privately, allowing the movie to hit theatres on time.

This case underscored the importance of intellectual property even in unconventional forms like tattoos, especially when used in commercial media.

Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

In 2014, rapper Marcus Gray sued Katy Perry, claiming her hit song “Dark Horse” copied the beat and riff from his song “Joyful Noise.”

Perry’s legal team argued that the similarity element were coincidental and based on common musical aspects. Initially, the court ruled in Gray’s favour, awarding him $2.78 million in monetary damages.

However, in 2020, the verdict was overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence, ruling that the musical elements in question weren’t unique enough to warrant copyright protection. This case highlighted the fine line between musical inspiration and infringement in a highly competitive industry.

Apple vs Samsung (Smartphone Patent Wars)

Beginning in 2010, Apple and Samsung engaged in a global legal battle over smartphone design patents, particularly around Apple’s claim that Samsung copied the look and feel of its iPhone.

The conflict extended to broader disputes over software features, with Apple targeting Samsung’s use of the Android operating system, developed by Google.

Apple initially won a $1 billion settlement in 2012, but subsequent appeals reduced the amount. This famous copyright case reflected the intensifying competition between major tech players in the smartphone market and raised questions about patent law and innovation in fast-evolving industries like technology.

Viacom vs YouTube

In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, claiming the platform allowed users to upload over 150,000 copyrighted Viacom-owned videos without authorisation.

YouTube defended itself, arguing that as a service provider, it wasn’t responsible for user-uploaded content and was protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

During the lawsuit, it was revealed that Viacom had secretly uploaded content for promotional purposes, complicating their case.

Ultimately, the court sided with YouTube, a decision that was pivotal in establishing the platform’s legal responsibility for copyrighted material. This case significantly shaped the future of digital content sharing.

Shepard Fairey vs The Associated Press

Shepard Fairey, a street artist, used a photo taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia as the basis for his famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. In 2009, the Associated Press sued Fairey for copyright infringement.

Fairey argued that his use of the image was transformative and thus fell under fair use. However, the case ended in a settlement where both parties agreed to share the profits from the poster.

This case sparked widespread debate on the boundaries of fair use in art and the intersection between copyright and creative expression.

Mathew vs Disney (Pirates of the Caribbean)

In 2013, Mathew claimed Disney had stolen his ideas for supernatural pirate characters in their Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. He argued that Disney used his work without permission.

However, Disney countered by demonstrating they had developed the franchise’s concept based on their own theme park attractions, predating Mathew’s claims. The court sided with Disney, dismissing Mathew’s lawsuit.

This case emphasised the importance of proving clear, original ownership when claiming intellectual property infringement and highlighted the ongoing challenges artists face when contesting major corporations over creative rights in highly successful franchises.

Vanilla Ice vs Queen and David Bowie

In the early 1990s, Vanilla Ice’s hit song “Ice Ice Baby” used an unauthorised sample of Queen and David Bowie’s song “Under Pressure.” When sued for copyright infringement, Vanilla Ice initially claimed the sample was altered enough to be considered original.

However, the case was settled out of court, with Vanilla Ice agreeing to pay an undisclosed amount and giving Queen and Bowie songwriting credit for the track.

This case is a classic example of the music industry’s long history of unauthorised sampling and the legal and financial consequences artists face when not properly licensing material.

John Fogerty vs Fantasy Records

In a bizarre 1988 case, John Fogerty was sued by his former record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarising himself.

Fantasy claimed Fogerty’s solo song “The Old Man Down the Road” copied his earlier Creedence Clearwater Revival hit “Run Through the Jungle,” for which Fantasy owned the rights. Fogerty won the case, with the court ruling that an artist cannot infringe upon their own work.

The case set an important precedent in copyright law, affirming that creative artists retain certain inherent rights to their artistic expression, even when record labels control the original recordings.

Napster vs Metallica

Napster, a peer-to-peer file-sharing service, was sued by Metallica in 2000 for enabling the free distribution of the band’s copyrighted music without permission.

Metallica argued that Napster’s platform facilitated widespread piracy, undermining artists’ control over their work. In 2001, Napster was found guilty of copyright infringement and was forced to shut down its services.

The case highlighted the evolving digital landscape and the music industry’s struggle with piracy. It also marked a pivotal moment in the battle between content creators and emerging technologies, ultimately leading to the development of paid music streaming services.

Disney vs Emerson Elementary School

In 2020, Emerson Elementary School in California screened The Lion King at a fundraising event, unaware they needed a license to show the movie.

Disney sent a $250 copyright infringement fine, sparking public outrage. Critics pointed out the company’s strict enforcement against a non-profit school fundraiser, especially considering Disney’s wealth.

Amid the backlash, Disney’s CEO apologised and donated to the school, acknowledging the PR misstep.

This case illustrated the challenges that even well-meaning organisations face with copyright enforcement and the potential public relations fallout for corporations perceived as overly aggressive in protecting their intellectual property.

Rogers vs. Koons

Photographer Art Rogers took a photo of a couple holding puppies, which he later sold as cards and other merchandise.

Artist Jeff Koons saw the image and used it to create sculptures for an exhibit focused on ordinary objects. Koons sold the sculptures for a significant profit. Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement, and Koons defended his work as parody, claiming fair use.

However, the court found that the two works were too similar, and the majority of viewers would recognise the sculpture as a direct copy of Rogers’ photograph. The court rejected Koons’ defense, stating he could have used other sources for his artistic statement.

As a result, Koons was required to pay a settlement to Rogers.

Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation

Modern Dog Design sued Target and Disney for unlawfully appropriating their graphic design, citing copyright infringement and plagiarism.

According to the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA), designers must promote free competition while respecting copyrights and intellectual property. This case highlights the ethical issue of design theft, analysed through virtue theory, which deems the act unethical.

Stakeholders affected include Modern Dog employees, Target’s reputation, and its stock performance due to negative press. The lawsuit led to extensive copyright protection for all twenty-six dog graphics created by Modern Dog.

The case sets a precedent, empowering small design firms to defend their rights and moral values, even against large corporations that attempt to misuse their work.

3 Cases Of Copyright Violation in India

RG Anand v Delux Films & Ors

This case involved a playwright claiming copyright infringement against a film. Both works centered on “provincialism,” but the court ruled that copyright protects expression, not ideas.

The court established that infringement occurs if an average person perceives substantial similarity between works. However, in this instance, the court found no such similarity between the play and the film.

This case highlights the distinction between protecting ideas and their expression in copyright law, emphasising that mere thematic similarities are insufficient for proving infringement.

It also introduces the “lay observer” test for determining substantial similarity in copyright cases, which remains a significant precedent in Indian copyright jurisprudence.

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors.

This Delhi High Court case involved Sushant Singh Rajput’s father seeking an interim injunction against films about the actor’s life. He claimed violations of publicity, privacy, fair trial rights, and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court denied the injunction, finding no valid case for violating celebrity rights due to appropriate disclaimers and non-use of SSR’s image or name. It noted that celebrity rights might not persist post-mortem and using public record facts may not incur liability.

The Court emphasised that freedom of expression prevails over Article 21 for public information. This case highlights the complexities of balancing personal rights, freedom of expression, and public interest in biographical works.

Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors

In this case, Sony Pictures sought to protect its broadcasting rights for cricket matches between India and England/Sri Lanka. The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against unauthorised reproduction, distribution, and broadcasting of the matches.

The Court issued a dynamic injunction against rogue websites and directed ISPs to block infringing sites. It also involved MSOs, cable operators, and appointed local commissioners to monitor violations. This case demonstrates the evolving nature of copyright protection, particularly for live sports broadcasts.

It showcases the use of dynamic injunctions and the involvement of various stakeholders in enforcing copyright in the online sphere.

3 Literary Copyright Infringement Cases

Gopal Das vs. Jagannath Prasad & Anr

Gopal Das sued Jagannath Prasad, claiming copyright infringement after both authored books on the same topic, but Jagannath’s was published three years later.

Gopal argued that Jagannath had copied not just the idea but also the expression, including the layout and sequence of the text. Jagannath defended himself by asserting that they both used similar sources, and only the general idea was the same, which cannot be copyrighted.

However, the court determined that Jagannath had imitated both the idea and its expression, thus infringing Gopal’s copyright. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Gopal Das, ordering Jagannath Prasad to pay damages for the copyright violation.

E.M. Forster & Ors. vs. A.N. Parasuram

E.M. Forster and others filed a lawsuit against A.N. Parasuram, accusing him of copyright infringement for publishing a guidebook based on their textbook, which was selected for matriculation exams.

The guidebook simplified the textbook’s content for students, prompting the original author to claim portions of it were copied.

Upon examining both works, the court found that although Parasuram used sections of the textbook, his guidebook contained original interpretations and explanations, making it a distinct creation.

The court emphasised that copyright should not stifle creativity and upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling that Parasuram’s work was an independent, transformative piece and did not infringe Forster’s copyright.

Chancellor Masters & Scholars vs. Narendra Publishing House

Chancellor Masters & Scholars sued Narendra Publishing House, accusing them of copying a mathematics textbook by releasing a similar guidebook.

The plaintiff argued that the guidebook copied questions, answers, and explanations from their textbook. The defendant invoked the fair use defence, claiming their guidebook had a different purpose by offering step-by-step solutions, unlike the plaintiff’s theoretical explanations.

The court examined both works and determined that the defendant’s guidebook served a distinct function and was transformative in nature. As a result, it ruled that there was no copyright infringement, since the defendant’s guidebook offered a unique approach to the material.

Media Copyright Infringement Cases

Newspapers Win Copyright Case Against Website

Two major newspapers, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, sued the website Free Republic for posting their articles without permission.

Free Republic defended its actions by claiming fair use, stating that the articles were shared for user discussion and commentary on how the media portrayed the news.

However, the court ruled in favor of the newspapers, stating that Free Republic’s verbatim posting of articles, even with added comments, did not qualify as fair use.

The court emphasised that Free Republic’s use was not “transformative” and deprived the newspapers of potential revenue from archived articles.

This case underscored that even factual content like news articles is protected by copyright laws, and fair use does not always apply.

Dainik Jagran Wins Copyright Infringement Case Against Telegram

Dainik Jagran, an Indian newspaper company, successfully sued the messaging app Telegram for copyright infringement. The case arose when Telegram groups began distributing PDF copies of Dainik Jagran’s newspaper, downloaded for free from its website.

Despite being notified, Telegram failed to remove the groups or stop the sharing of the newspaper. The court ruled in favour of Dainik Jagran, finding that Telegram had violated the newspaper’s copyright.

An ad-interim injunction was issued, requiring Telegram to provide details about the group administrators and remove the infringing channels. This case highlights the importance of copyright protection and demonstrates the legal recourse available to content creators to defend their intellectual property rights.

3 Music Cases of Copyright Infringement

Lana Del Rey vs. Radiohead

In 2018, Lana Del Rey revealed that Radiohead was suing her over similarities between their 1992 hit “Creep” and her 2017 song “Get Free” from the album Lust for Life. While Radiohead’s publishers denied taking legal action, they requested songwriting credit for “Creep.”

Musical analysis showed both songs had rare chord progressions and similar melodies, but the resemblance was deemed unintentional. Del Rey later announced at Lollapalooza Brazil that the dispute was resolved, allowing her to continue performing “Get Free.”

Interestingly, Radiohead themselves had faced a plagiarism lawsuit over “Creep” due to its similarities to The Hollies’ 1974 song “The Air That I Breathe,” resulting in a settlement involving shared royalties and co-writing credits with Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood.

The Chiffons vs. George Harrison

In 1970, George Harrison released his hit “My Sweet Lord,” which was soon accused of copying The Chiffons’ 1962 song “He’s So Fine.” The song’s publisher, Bright Tunes Music, filed a plagiarism lawsuit against Harrison in 1971.

Despite Harrison’s claim of unintentional copying, the court ruled in 1976 that he had committed “subconscious plagiarism” due to the striking similarities between the two songs.

Harrison was initially ordered to pay $1.6 million in damages, but after a complex legal battle, the amount was reduced to $587,000.

This case became a landmark in copyright law, establishing that even subconscious replication of a song can be grounds for infringement, setting a precedent for future music plagiarism lawsuits.

Chuck Berry vs. John Lennon

In 1969, John Lennon was sued by Chuck Berry’s publisher, Big Seven Music, for alleged plagiarism of Berry’s 1956 song “You Can’t Catch Me” in Lennon’s hit “Come Together.”

Berry’s team claimed that Lennon copied both lyrics and melody, only altering the tempo and style. The lawsuit resulted in an out-of-court settlement, with Lennon agreeing to record three of Berry’s songs on a future album.

Lennon ultimately recorded only two, leading to a breach of contract lawsuit filed by Morris Levy, the owner of Big Seven Music. The court ruled against Lennon, ordering him to pay $6,795.

Additionally, Lennon later won $109,700 in lost royalties after Levy improperly released his demo recordings without permission.

The Impact of Copyright Violation Cases

The impact of copyright infringement cases extends across creative industries, affecting artists, businesses, and the wider cultural landscape.

These cases serve as a vital mechanism for protecting intellectual property, ensuring that creators receive due recognition and financial compensation for their work.

Copyright infringement can take many forms, including unauthorised copying, distribution, or performance of protected content, and each infringement case brings significant legal, economic, and ethical consequences.

For creators, successful copyright lawsuits often lead to financial compensation and, in some cases, increased visibility.

However, they also highlight the importance of balancing legal protection with the encouragement of new creative works. A ruling in favour of the copyright holder can serve as a deterrent against future violations, reinforcing the need to respect intellectual property rights.

On the flip side, defendants found guilty of infringement may face hefty fines and reputational damage. For example, cases like George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” demonstrated how “subconscious plagiarism” can lead to costly legal battles and long-lasting impacts on an artist’s career.

Similarly, Lana Del Rey’s case with Radiohead highlights how disputes over musical similarities can spark significant public attention and legal scrutiny.

At a broader level, copyright infringement cases help clarify the boundaries between inspiration and theft, shaping how intellectual property laws evolve. They also spark debates around “fair use” and how much of someone else’s work can be used without permission.

Overall, copyright infringement cases contribute to the evolving landscape of how creative rights are understood, protected, and enforced in the modern world.

What’s Next?

Copyright infringement cases play a vital role in protecting intellectual property, ensuring creators’ rights are upheld while fostering respect for creative boundaries.

These cases not only safeguard financial interests but also set legal precedents that shape the evolving landscape of intellectual property law.

By addressing issues of originality, fair use, and creative ownership, these rulings clarify the fine line between inspiration and infringement.

Ultimately, they reinforce the importance of respecting creators’ work while maintaining a balance that encourages innovation and the continued growth of creative industries.

Protect your brand’s integrity with Bytescare’s Brand Protection Solutions. Our advanced system monitors, identifies, and safeguards your intellectual property from unauthorised use, phishing, and trademark infringement.

Defend your brand’s identity across the digital landscape and maintain your reputation. Contact us today for reliable brand security.

FAQs