Copyright Litigation Update

A roundup of some developments in the copyright world.

“Go Home, Ball!”

PerfectPinz LLC v. K9 King, LLC

PerfectPinz LLC (“PerfectPinz”) sells golf paraphernalia. It created four cartoon images depicting scenes from the Adam Sandler movie, Happy Gilmore.

One of the images is a cartoon image of the Happy Gilmore character on the ground, yelling at a golf ball to get in the cup (“Go home, ball!”) Another cartoon image of Mr. Gilmore is captioned “Just Tap It In.” A third one is a cartoonized version of the scene in the movie in which he brawls with Bob Barker. It is captioned, “The Price Is Wrong.” The last image depicts the Gilmore and Chubbs characters and is captioned “It’s All in the Hips.”

K9 King also produced golf paraphernalia based on these same scenes from Happy Gilmore.

Apparently, neither party secured permission from Universal Pictures to copy or make derivative works based on the movie.

PerfectPinz LLC filed a copyright infringement claim against K9 King, LLC in the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). The Board denied the claim.

To prevail on a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized exercise of one of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership, such as the right to make copies of the original elements of the work. The Board rested its decision on the second requirement, ruling that PerfectPinz had not established that K9 King copied enough elements of the works that were original to PerfectPinz to qualify as infringement.

The four images at issue in PerfectPinz v. K9 King, compared to the corresponding scene from the movie "Happy Gilmore" and to each other

Because the copied elements were copies of scenes from the movie, they were not original to PerfectPrinz. Therefore, the Board ruled that K9 King had not copied any content original to PerfectPinz’s images.

Sanctions

The Board found that PerfectPinz acted in bad faith in failing to mention that the scenes it depicted in its images were copies of scenes in Happy Gilmore. This was not mentioned in the copyright registrations, either. This omission, the Board held, warranted an award of attorney fees to K9 King, in the amount of $900.

This is the first time the CCB has awarded attorney fees in a case. It is also one of those very rare times when a company that has made an unauthorized derivative work sues another company for also making an unauthorized derivative of the same work.

Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement Approved

Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC

As I described in a 2025 blog post (“Ai OK; Piracy Not: Bartz v. Anthropic“), a federal district court in California last year determined that Anthropic was liable for copyright infringement in connection with its unauthorized copying of copyright-protected works to use in training its generative AI. Since then, the parties have entered into a settlement.

On July 20, 2026, the court issued an Order approving the settlement and awarding attorney fees. The settlement fund consists of $1.5 billion plus interest. $101,561,111 of it will go to the attorneys and several million dollars will be applied toward reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred and to be incurred in the future.

Copyright Infringement Guardrails

While this is not news about a court case, it is about a response to copyright infringement litigation.

As I explained in Generative AI: The Top 12 Lawsuits, OpenAI has been sued more than once for copyright infringement in connection with the training of its generative AI product, ChatGPT.

In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., authors alleged that ChatGPT was trained on the text of books they and other proposed class members authored, without their permission, and that it facilitates output copyright infringement. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized dozens of AI copyright lawsuits against OpenAI into a single venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation. Tremblay is included in this consolidation.

Silverman et al. v. OpenAI is another such lawsuit. Sarah Silverman (comedian/actress/writer) and others alleged that OpenAI, by using copyright-protected works without permission to train ChatGPT, infringed copyrights. The case was subsequently consolidated into the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of New York.

Blocking users from reproducing large swaths of text from books or creating derivative works based on books used during training are “guardrails” against output infringement. According to Ars Technica, OpenAI’s ChatGPT is now refusing user requests to generate text that mimics the style of famous authors.

To test this, I prompted ChatGPT to “write something in the style of Tom James.” Here is the response I received:

As it happens, I am indeed the author of Tuber Tips, an offbeat compilation of whimsical and completely worthless suggestions of uses for sweet potatoes, along with some actual recipes. I had kind of hoped my name might bring to mind E-Commerce Law or IP Law for Non-IP Attorneys, but such is life.

The snippet it produced was completely bereft of humor. Everything in it was completely practical. The guardrails appear to be working.

AI Litigation Tracker

The website ExhibitAI.info is tracking “every lawsuit shaping the future of advanced AI.” The coverage spans 190 cases, 342 claims, 47 defendants, 117 plaintiff firms, and 44 courts.

The dataset reportedly is “updated continuously as new cases are filed and decided across jurisdictions.”

The dataset can be filtered by case type (copyright, tort, trademark, etc.), claims, date filed, defendants, forum, etc.

It looks like it could be a useful resource.

Buc-ee’s Redux

In a previous post (“Last Exit from Paradise“) I mentioned a trademark infringement lawsuit that Buc-ee’s, a popular chain of gas-and-convenience stores in the South. filed against Mickey’s gas stations. Well, now it has filed another one. This time, it is against Ohio-based Hanes Road Carryout, Inc.

Hanes Road Carryout, Inc. operates Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek, Ohio.. The complaint alleges that their logo is confusingly similar to Buc-ee’s because it “incorporate[s] a cartoon beaver with wide eyes and a smile” and “uses red as a predominant color in its exterior signage with its anthropomorphic representation of a cartoon beaver mascot.”

(Top: Buc-ee’s logo. Bottom: Beaver’s Mini Mart logo.)

What do you think, Beave?

Need help with a CCB case?

If you need help with a CCB case or other copyright matter, contact the Law Office of Tom James.

Copyrights in Architecture

Copyrights in architectural designs may be registered as architectural works or as drawings (“pictorial, graphical or sculptural works”). The decision can be critical to the viability of an infringement claim. Here’s why.

Samphel v. Wu

Tenzin Samphel, Xiaoyu Gu, Chef Creative Offices, Inc., and Design Next Agency, Inc. filed a complaint against Lily Qiaorong Wu, Shuxian Yu, Shuaicheng Zhang, Moge Tee Blacksburg, LLC, and Blacksburg Fusion Restaurants, LLC alleging claims of defamation and infringement of copyrights in architectural and interior designs. Defendants moved to dismiss copyright infringement claims. The court granted the motion. Samphel v. Lily Qiaorong Wu, No. 7:25-cv-00710-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va. Jul. 15, 2026).

The complaint alleged that plaintiffs, through companies they operate, were hired to provide design and constuction services for a bubble tea shop and a restaurant. The owners allegedly terminated the contracts and hired other people to complete the work. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and defamatory statments about them.

The complaint also includes claims for copyright infringement, alleging that the owners and their companies, in completing the work on the buildings, used their designs without permission to construct and operate the buildings with interiors that were “nearly identical or substantially similar” to those designs.

The parties did not dispute that the plaintiffs, through one of their companies, owned registered copyrights in the drawings as pictorial, graphic or sculptural works under 17 U.S.C. § 101 and 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5). The court, however, ruled that protection for the drawings themselves does not extend to the contruction of a structure depicted in the drawings. If they had wanted that kind of protection, the court ruled, then they should have registered them as architectural works under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8).

Two kinds of copyrights

The Copyright Act defines “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” as “two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added).

It defines “architectural work” as:

“the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features.”

17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added).

As the language of the Act demonstrates, architectural plans can be registered as pictorial works or as architectural works (or both). This is because an individual who creates an architectural work by depicting it in a drawing will have two distinct copyrights: one in the drawing (section 102(a)(5)) and one in the architectural work (section 102(a)(8)). See T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 109–10 (1st Cir. 2006)

Scope of protection for pictorial works

A copyright in a pictorial work protects only the drawing itself. It prohibits copying the drawing itself. It does not protect against the construction of a buliding based on the architectural design depicted in the drawing.

Scope of protection for architectural works

Copyright protection in an architectural work extends to the as-built structure.

The distinction may seem confusing, but it makes more sense when it is remembered that copyrights in architectural works are a special kind of copyright, an exception to the usual rule that copyright may only be claimed in expression, not ideas or designs. Ideas about the composition and arrangement of spaces in a building are not protected by a copyright in a drawing of a building. They can only be protected by a copyright in an architectural work.

Derivative works?

The owner of a copyright in a drawing or other expressive work has an exclusive right to make derivative works based on the copyrighted work. A sculpture based on a pictorial work is a derivative work of the pictorial work. A sculpture, in copyright law, is any three-dimensional structure. This could include a building.

Might the owner of a copyright in an architectural drawing who registered it only as a pictorial work be able to argue that constructing a building based on it is the unauthorized makiing of a derivative work, and therefore copyright infringement? What factors should a court consider to assess the viability of such a claim?

Your answers are due by next Friday.*

*Just kidding. This is not a real homework assignment.

Have a question about copyright law? Visit my Copyright FAQs page. Need help registering a copyright? Contact me.

Copyright Fee Changes

On July 14, 2026 the U.S. Copyright Office submitted a proposed new fee schedule to Congress. Changes could be coming in November, 2026. Read what the proposed fee increases are.

On July 14, 2026 the U.S. Copyright Office submitted a proposed new fee schedule to Congress. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. sec. 708(b), Congress now has 120 days to enact legislation disapproving the proposed changes, if it chooses to do so. If no such legislation is enacted, the new fees will go into effect in November, 2026.

The increases are substantial. For example, the fee to register updates and revisions to a database of photographs will be three times what it currently is. The fee to register an album of sound recordings (sound recordings, photographs, artwork, and liner notes) will double. The fee to record a document, such as a notice of termination of a license or transfer of copyright, will more than double. And there is some bad news for website owners and bloggers: The fee to register a group of short online literary works will be twice what it currently is (increasing from $65 to $130). The fee to register updates to a news website will nearly triple (increasing from $95 to $275.)

For an explanation of the Copyright Office’s justifications for the increases, read their Proposed Schedule and Analysis of Copyright Fees (July 14, 2026).

Library of Congress housing the U.S. Copyright oFfice

The Proposed Changes

Registration

One work

  • Single application (Single author, same claimant, one work, not a work made for hire, e-filed): Current: $45. New: $55.
  • Standard application (e-filed): Current: $65. New: $85.
  • Paper filing: Current: $125. New: $185.

Group Of works

  • Contributions to periodicals (e-filed): Current: $85. New: $130.
  • Photographs (e-filed): Current: $55. New: $85.
  • Updates and revisions to a photograph database:: Current: $250. New: $700.
  • Updates and revisions to a database consisting of non-photographic works (paper filing): Current: $500. New: $700.
  • Serials, per issue (e-filed): Current: $35. New: $50.
  • Newspapers or newsletters (e-filed): Current: $95. New: $130.
  • Unpublished works (e-filed): Current: $85. New: $130.
  • Album of musical works (e-filed): Current: $65. New: $85.
  • Album of sound recordings, including liner notes, photographs, artwork, and the sound recordings (e-filed): Current: $65. New: $130.
  • Short online literary works (e-filed): Current: $65. New: $130.
  • Artwork, 2-dimensional (e-filed): Current: $85. New: $130.
  • Updates to a news website (e-filed): Current: $95. New: $275.

Restored Work

Form GATT (paper filing only): Current: $100. New: $165.

Correction or Amplification

  • E-filed: Current: $100. New: $85.
  • Paper filing of correction or amplication of renewal, GATT, or group registration of non-photographic database: Current: $150. New: $185.

Renewal

  • Registration of renewal claim (Form RE): Current: $125. New: $165.
  • Addendum (in addition to renewal registration fee): Current: $100. New: $135.

Mandatory Deposit

Issuance of a receipt for a mandatory deposit: Current: $30. New: $30.

Recordation

Notice of intent to make a cover version

  • Notice of intent to exercise a compulsory license to make and distribute copies of a cover version of a song: Current: $75. New: $100.
  • Additional titles (per group of 1 to 100 titles) (e-filed): Current: $10. New: $15.
  • Additional titles (per group of 1 to 10 titles (paper): Current: $20. New: $25.

Other Documents

This includes, e.g., a transfer of copyright or an interest in one, notice of termination of a license or transfer, notice of the identity of the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work, notice of the death of an author, and a notice of intention to enforce a restored copyright.

  • Base fee (1 title and/or registration number) (e-filed): Current: $95. New: $215.
  • Base fee for a Notice of Termination (1 title and/or registration number) (paper filing): Current: $125. New: $275.
  • Base fee for all other documents (1 title and/or registration number) (paper): Current: $125. New: $350.
  • Additional transfer (per transfer) under section 205: Current: $95. New: $215.
  • Additional works and alternate identifers: Varies depending on the nubmer of additional works adn wether the filing is electronic or paper.
  • Correction of online Public Catalog data due to erroneous electronic title submission (per work or alternative identifer): Current: $7. New: $10.

Certifications

  • Additional certificate of registration: Current: $55. New: $80.
  • Certification of other records, including search reports (per hour): Current: $200. New: $300.

Search Reports

  • Search report prepared from official records other than licensing records (per hour, two-hour minimum): Current: $200. New: $300.
  • Estimate of search fee (credited to search fee): Current: $200. New: $300.
  • Search report, prepared from licensing records (per hour, one-hour minimum): Current: $200. New: $300.

Conclusion

Until 2014, the maximum fee for a notarization in Minnesota was $1. Since 2014, a Minnesota notary public has been permitted to collect as much as a whole $5 per notarization. The cost to become a notary public in Minnesota is $140 ($120 to the state and $20 to the county), in addition to the cost of supplies (notary stamp, etc.) These fees and expenses must be paid again, periodically, to continue to be one. Nothing is free.

On the trademark front

The USPTO has announced that it will begin transitioning outbound international trademark application filings from the U.S. Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Madrid e-Filing system. All Madrid Protocol filings originating from the USPTO are expected to transition to the WIPO system by October 1, 2026.