The lines between ownership, access, and creative freedom are being redrawn. Several cases could make it to the Supreme Court this year and reset the rules for writers, artists, entrepreneurs, platforms, and publishers. If you’re tracking lower and Supreme Court copyright cases, you probably know that the copyright legal battles coming to a head in 2025 aren’t just high-profile; they’re deeply consequential. Understanding which copyright lawsuits courts are weighing, and what they might mean, can help you prepare, pivot, or protect your business now.
If you need strategic guidance before the gavel drops, Michael Jones of Jones Intellectual Property offers the kind of precise, real-world counsel that transforms legal ambiguity into actionable protection.
What Makes These Potential Supreme Court Copyright Cases Important?
The Supreme Court doesn’t take intellectual property (IP) cases lightly. When it agrees to hear copyright lawsuits, it is usually because conflicting rulings, evolving technology, or large-scale consequences demand clarity.
Though none of the 2025 cases below have reached the Supreme Court yet, they reach beyond niche disputes. They ask foundational questions such as:
- What counts as fair use in the age of remix culture?
- Who owns AI-generated content?
- Can internet platforms claim safe harbor when infringement occurs?
The answers will shape content creation, distribution, and enforcement strategies for years.
Key Lower Cases and Potential Supreme Court Copyright Lawsuits to Watch
Each of these cases strikes at the heart of how copyright interacts with technology, creativity, and control, and their outcomes will reverberate far beyond the courtroom.
Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg et al.
Case No. 24-3367 U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Photographer Jeffrey Sedlik is appealing a jury verdict in favor of celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D, who used his Miles Davis photograph to reference a tattoo. Despite visual similarities, the jury found no substantial similarity and deemed her social media posts covered by fair use. Sedlik’s appeal questions whether the court misapplied the Supreme Court’s Warhol ruling and whether reference-based works can truly be “transformative.” A ruling here may further refine how courts handle visual appropriation, tattoos, and the increasingly blurred line between homage and infringement.
Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence
Case No. 1:20-cv-00613, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters, concluding that ROSS Intelligence infringed upon over 2,000 of Westlaw’s headnotes. The court determined these headnotes were sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection, emphasizing that their selection and arrangement introduced creative elements beyond mere factual reporting.
This decision is significant as it addresses the applicability of copyright law to AI systems trained on proprietary content. By rejecting ROSS’s fair use defense, the ruling sets a precedent that could influence how courts evaluate the use of copyrighted materials in AI training, particularly concerning the originality and market impact of such content.
The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. and OpenAI
Case No. 1:23-cv-11195, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
In a landmark lawsuit filed in December 2023, The New York Times accused Microsoft and OpenAI of using millions of its articles without permission to train AI models like ChatGPT. The Times alleges this practice constitutes direct copyright infringement and that the AI outputs sometimes replicate its content verbatim or attribute fabricated articles to the publication.
In March 2025, Judge Sidney Stein allowed most of the Times’ claims to proceed, denying most of OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. This ruling is poised to set a significant precedent regarding using copyrighted materials in AI training, particularly concerning the boundaries of fair use and the rights of content creators in the digital age.
Gifford et al. v. Sheil et al.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00423 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
This first-of-its-kind lawsuit explores aesthetic copying and brand mimicry among influencers. Sydney Gifford alleges that Alyssa Sheil copied her visual style and product placement techniques after a collaborative shoot, amounting to misappropriation of likeness and vicarious copyright infringement. The court has allowed key claims to proceed. As creators increasingly monetize visual identity, this case could usher in a new wave of copyright and right-of-publicity disputes in the influencer economy, particularly on platforms like TikTok and Instagram.
Whyte Monkee Productions LLC et al. v. Netflix Inc. et al.
Case No. 22-6086 U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
This evolving case examines whether Netflix’s inclusion of a real funeral video in “Tiger King” qualifies as fair use under the Supreme Court’s 2023 Warhol ruling. After initially finding Netflix’s use unprotected, the Tenth Circuit vacated its opinion and reheard arguments in July 2024. The next ruling may clarify whether courts should require “commentary” or “targeting” in transformative use claims. Attorneys remain divided: some say the panel correctly rejected fair use; others argue its logic could chill documentary filmmaking and digital storytelling that rely on archival material.
Looking Ahead: What Could Shift After These Rulings?
These cases aren’t just technical copyright lawsuits; they’re flashpoints for the future of authorship, attribution, and artistic control. Here’s what hangs in the balance:
- The boundaries of “transformative” art may be redefined,
- Training AI may come with a copyright price tag,
- Newsrooms and content creators could regain leverage,
- Aesthetic imitation might spark influencer liability, and
- Fair use in documentaries faces a tighter standard.
Depending on their outcomes, these rulings could shape the creative contracts, risk assessments, and content strategies of every business navigating copyright in 2025.
Stay Ahead of the Curve: Work with Jones Intellectual Property Today
At Jones Intellectual Property, Michael delivers more than filings. He provides strategic foresight custom-tailored to your business goals, brand identity, and risk profile. Michael brings unmatched clarity and commitment, whether you’re seeking to defend your original work, register new rights, or confidently navigate uncertainty.
Clients from emerging creators to Fortune 500 giants trust Michael because he understands the landscape. His litigation experience spans digital content, software platforms, and novel business models. And his work isn’t theoretical—it’s battle-tested in the forums where copyright and commerce collide. Work with a legal partner who understands both innovation and enforcement. Contact Jones Intellectual Property today and stay protected while the law evolves around you.
