Blogger Defeats Photographer’s Copyright Declare-Sokolskyfilm v. Messiah

I’m running a blog this case solely as a result of it’s a type of “what are we even doing here?” lawsuits. Cases like this belong within the CCB or, higher but, shouldn’t be introduced in any respect!

* * *

The case includes a photograph known as the “Parker Train Photo.” It was taken in 1962, nevertheless it was first printed in a e-book in 2000. The plaintiff claims it licenses the picture for high quality artwork reproductions for as much as $5k every.

Messiah ran a weblog initially entitled “Ask Fashion Kitty.” In 2009, she wrote a submit entitled “Style Suggestions for Army Wives” about what a spouse ought to put on when greeting her husband who’s coming back from an 8 month navy tour in Afghanistan. Messiah discovered the Parker Train Photo in a Google picture search and used it for instance her submit:

In 2011, Messiah transferred the weblog (together with the submit) to a brand new web site, LaurenMessiah.com. Here’s how the post looked post-transfer. The opinion doesn’t point out how a lot site visitors that submit received, however given its age, I think about site visitors to the submit throughout the statute of limitations was de minimis.

The plaintiff found Messiah’s submit/picture in 2025 and despatched a C&D. The courtroom describes what occurred subsequent:

Defendants’ assistant dismissed the cease-and-desist as spam, deleted it, and didn’t ahead it to Messiah. Defendants’ authenticated Slack communications affirm that Messiah described the copyright declare as “some stupid like copyright infringement thing for an old blog post.”

Messiah had the weblog submit deleted, however the picture remained on-line at its (presumably extremely obscure) direct URL (this finally received deleted too). In 2025, the plaintiff sued for copyright infringement and 1202 violations.

Remarkably, the opinion doesn’t point out the statute of limitations in any respect, although the unique submit had been printed at least 14 years earlier (I’m crediting the 2011 weblog switch as a potential republication). This silence displays that the statute of limitations doesn’t functionally exist in on-line copyright regulation any extra. Each new view/obtain nominally constitutes a brand new infringement, wherein case the SOL resets to the newest go to to the submit.

Nevertheless, on abstract judgment, the courtroom dismisses the copyright infringement declare on honest use grounds:

Nature of Use. The weblog submit is transformative as a result of “the Parker Train Photo is part of a broader work as published in the blog and accompanies fashion guidance, rather than being part of an anthology of the Photographer’s work.” Later, the courtroom acknowledges that “the question-and-answer commentary does not appear to substantively reference the Photo at all,” however the textual content’s lack of substantive engagement with the picture doesn’t appear to have an effect on the courtroom’s transformativeness dedication. This is a defense-favorable method. I believe different courts would reject transformativeness when the picture is used purely for its illustrative impact with none commentary.

Although Messiah’s web site had a business goal, “There is no evidence in the record of any revenue or commercial benefit earned from the blog or, more specifically, the Parker Train Photo blog post.”

Nature of Work. “the Parker Train Photo is a fashion photograph. Generally, photos are viewed as creative expressions.”

Amount Taken. “the question-and-answer commentary renders the Parker Train Photo insubstantial in context.” This is a extremely defense-favorable conclusion as a result of 100% of the picture was used.

Market Effect. “Plaintiff’s market, by its own admission, is fine art, whereas Defendants’ blog post served a different market function.” This can be a extremely defense-favorable conclusion. The plaintiff did have a licensing program for the picture.

I interpreted the opinion’s defense-favorable twists to the courtroom’s motivation to dismiss this case. Either the courtroom was unmoved by the low-stakes nature of the alleged infringement (photographers ought to cease suing bloggers for copyright infringement!), or honest use was a backdoor manner for the courtroom to accommodate the shortage of a statute of limitations.

1202.

there’s a dearth of proof on the document that Messiah knowingly didn’t credit score the Photographer when she posted the Parker Train Photo on her weblog, or that she did so with the intent to induce, allow, facilitate, or conceal infringement. Messiah merely discovered the Photo on Google Images by looking out “army fashion,” saving the file on her pc with out altering the Photo or the filename, after which publishing the Photo on her weblog. She testified that at the moment, she seemed for a watermark, couldn’t discover one, and had no data of the Photographer. She additionally testified that the filename, “Melvin-Sokolsky5.jpg,” was offered by the supply web site and she or he didn’t realize it referenced the Photographer.

The plaintiff identified that Messiah had often credited different photographers in different posts. The courtroom responds: “Plaintiff does not point to any case law to suggest that Defendants providing credit to some photos while missing credit for others indicates a pattern of deliberate conduct.”

* * *

Last month, I blogged about one other case the place a blogger illustrated their submit with a third-party picture, and that didn’t qualify for honest use. I’m undecided how you can reconcile the 2 instances, although the time delays on this case make it appear much less sympathetic.

In my prior weblog submit, I made the next observations that principally apply right here as nicely:

• “Verbatim republishing of a third-party photo is inherently risky, even for bloggers.”
• “I was struck by the fact that the blog post had 43 views. With such low stakes, how did this case make it to federal court and reach summary judgment???”
• “why isn’t this case in the CCB, which seems like it was tailor-made for low-value cases like this?”
• “the photographer’s actual damages should be near-zero… I don’t see how the photographer is going to get any real payoff here”
• “All of this makes it a bummer for everyone–plaintiff, defendant, and society–that the parties couldn’t settle this case pre-filing.”
• “other than ignorance of copyright law, why would a blogger cut-and-paste a copyright photo from the Internet when a non-infringing substitute is just a few extra clicks away? A lawsuit like this heightens the demand for Generative AI replacements.” This recommendation doesn’t work right here as a result of the copying is so previous that we have been nonetheless at battle with Afghanistan and Generative AI wasn’t widespread.

Case Citation: Sokolskyfilm, Inc. v. Lauren Messiah Inc., 2026 WL 1772787 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2026)