BlendedBoris Blog: Simple Blockchain Ownership Registration

Copyright Cases: 30+ Landmark Copyright Cases and What They Mean for 3D Artists (1884-2026) | Blended BORIS | Digital Art IP

TL;DR: copyright cases

Copyright cases are court decisions that set the rules everyone else follows: what counts as original, when copying is fair use, who owns a commissioned work, and when a platform is liable for its users. This guide covers more than 30 landmark copyright cases from 1884 to 2026, grouped by what they decided, with the lesson each one holds for 3D, Blender and digital artists.

The short version: exact copies of real things are not protected (Meshwerks v. Toyota), a car design can be a protected character (DC Comics v. Towle, the Batmobile case), making something "new" is not enough for fair use when it competes with the original (Warhol v. Goldsmith), you need a registration before you sue in the US (Fourth Estate), and in 2026 the courts are still deciding how copyright applies to AI training.

Key takeaways

Originality, not effort, decides protection. Faithful copies of photos, paintings or real products get little or no copyright, however long they took.
Fair use turns on purpose. Since Warhol v. Goldsmith (2023), a new look or meaning is not enough if your use serves the same market as the original.
Commissioned work belongs to the artist unless a signed agreement says otherwise (CCNV v. Reid).
Platforms are rarely liable for users after Cox v. Sony (March 2026): knowing about infringement is not enough. You still act against the uploader.
AI is the open front: pure AI output has no US copyright, the first appeals court to rule on AI training (September 2026) found it was not fair use for a competing tool, and 3D artists are now suing over models taken from Sketchfab.

What are copyright cases and why do they matter?

Copyright law is written in statutes, but courts decide what the words mean. A decision of the US Supreme Court binds every US court; a federal appeals court binds the courts in its circuit; in the EU, rulings of the Court of Justice (CJEU) bind all 27 member states. That is why a handful of copyright cases shape what you can do with every model, texture and render you make. For the practical problems these cases grew out of, see the most common copyright issues for 3D artists; for the rules themselves, start with copyright basics for 3D artists.

Copyright cases on what is protected

These cases answer the first question in any dispute: is there a protected work at all? They matter most for 3D artists, because so much 3D work copies real objects.

Case	Court and year	What it decided	Lesson for 3D artists
Burrow-Giles v. Sarony	US Supreme Court, 1884	A photograph of Oscar Wilde was protected because of the photographer's creative choices of pose, light and costume	Creative choices, not the machine, make a work protected; this is the root of the human-authorship rule
Feist v. Rural Telephone	US Supreme Court, 1991	A phone book's white pages were not original; hard work ("sweat of the brow") does not earn copyright	Hours of modelling do not create protection by themselves; creative decisions do
Bridgeman v. Corel	US district court, 1999	Exact photos of public domain paintings were not original	Faithful reproductions of public domain art can be used freely in the US
Meshwerks v. Toyota	US 10th Circuit, 2008	Wireframe models that faithfully copied Toyota cars were not original	An exact digital twin of a real object gets little or no copyright
Infopaq	CJEU, 2009	Originality means the author's own intellectual creation; even 11 words can qualify	The EU test: your free and creative choices, not effort or size
Painer	CJEU, 2011	Portrait photos can be protected through choices of setting, pose and lighting	Lighting and camera choices in a render count as creative choices
Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth	UK Supreme Court, 2011	Stormtrooper helmets made as film props were not "sculptures", so no UK copyright; UK courts can still hear claims under US copyright	Props and functional objects are treated differently from art, and the answer can change at the border
DC Comics v. Towle	US 9th Circuit, 2015	The Batmobile is a protected character; selling replica kits infringed	A vehicle or prop design can be protected like a character; fan replicas are risky
Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands	US Supreme Court, 2017	Artistic features of a useful article are protected if they can be imagined as art on their own	Decoration on a 3D-printed product can be protected; the function cannot
Cofemel	CJEU, 2019	Designs get copyright if they are original; no extra aesthetic test	Product models and designs can be protected in the EU like any other work
Brompton Bicycle	CJEU, 2020	A shape dictated only by its technical function is not protected, but creative choices within it can be	Functional parts are free to model; creative shapes are not
Mio / konektra	CJEU, 4 December 2025	Applied art needs only ordinary originality, no higher threshold; infringement means recognisable copying of the creative elements	Furniture, product and prop models are judged by the same test as art

Put together, these copyright cases draw a clear line for 3D work: the real object you copy is usually not yours, the creative choices you add are. Read do 3D models automatically have copyright protection? and designing functional 3D printed objects for where that line sits in practice, and what has no copyright for the full list of unprotected material.

Fair use copyright cases

Case	Court and year	Outcome	What it means for artists
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose	US Supreme Court, 1994	2 Live Crew's commercial parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" could be fair use	Parody that comments on the original can qualify, even for money
Cariou v. Prince	US 2nd Circuit, 2013	25 of Richard Prince's 30 artworks reusing Cariou's photos were fair use	A high point for appropriation art; later narrowed by Warhol
Authors Guild v. Google	US 2nd Circuit, 2015	Scanning millions of books to make them searchable was fair use	Copying whole works can be fair when the use is very different and shows only snippets
Google v. Oracle	US Supreme Court, 2021	Reusing the Java API's declaring code to build Android was fair use	Reimplementing an interface can be fair; relevant for add-on and tool developers
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith	US Supreme Court, 2023 (7-2)	Licensing Warhol's "Orange Prince" to a magazine was not fair use	A new style or meaning is not enough when your use competes with the original's licensing market
Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg	US jury 2024; 9th Circuit 2026	A jury found Kat Von D's tattoo of a Miles Davis photo not infringing; the full 9th Circuit reheard the case in September 2026, decision pending	How courts compare two works for similarity may change for the whole Western US

The Supreme Court's opinion in Warhol v. Goldsmith is the one to read: it asks whether your use has the same purpose as the original, not only whether it looks different. For fan art, references and remixes, that is the deciding question. Practical guides: fair use guidelines for digital artists and fair use in digital art.

Copyright cases on ownership and registration

Case	Court and year	What it decided	What to do
CCNV v. Reid	US Supreme Court, 1989	A sculptor commissioned by a charity was an independent contractor, so he owned the copyright, not the charity that paid	Freelancers keep copyright unless they sign it away; clients should get a written assignment
Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com	US Supreme Court, 2019	You can sue only after the Copyright Office registers the work (or refuses it), not when you apply	Register valuable work early; processing takes months
Unicolors v. H&M	US Supreme Court, 2022	Honest mistakes in a registration, of fact or of law, do not make it invalid	Small errors in your application will not cost you the case

These copyright cases are why registration and contracts matter more than any notice. Step-by-step help: how to register copyright and copyright notice and licence examples.

Copyright cases on platforms and secondary liability

Case	Court and year	What it decided
Sony v. Universal (Betamax)	US Supreme Court, 1984	Selling VCRs was lawful because they had substantial non-infringing uses; home time-shifting was fair use
MGM v. Grokster	US Supreme Court, 2005	A file-sharing service that actively encouraged infringement was liable for its users
Cox v. Sony Music	US Supreme Court, 25 March 2026 (9-0)	An internet provider is not liable just because it knew some users infringed; liability needs inducement or a service tailored to infringement. A $1 billion verdict was set aside

For artists, Cox v. Sony means you cannot expect to win against a platform simply because it was told about infringement. Your route is a takedown against the specific upload and, if needed, action against the uploader: see the DMCA takedown guide for artists and legal remedies for digital art infringement.

AI copyright cases in 2025 and 2026

Case	Court and date	Status and holding	Why 3D artists should care
Thaler v. Perlmutter	US D.C. Circuit, March 2025; Supreme Court denied review March 2026	Work made entirely by an AI system cannot be registered; human authorship is required	Your modelling, edits and arrangement are protectable; raw AI output is not
Thomson Reuters v. Ross	US 3rd Circuit, 29 September 2026	The first appeals-court ruling on AI training: copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing, non-generative legal search tool was not fair use, partly because it harmed a developing market for licensing training data	Training that builds a direct competitor is the weakest fair use case; generative AI was left open
Bartz v. Anthropic	US district court, June 2025	Training on lawfully bought books was fair use, but keeping pirated copies was not; the case settled for $1.5 billion	How the training data was obtained matters as much as the training itself
Kadrey v. Meta	US district court, June 2025	Meta won because the authors did not prove market harm; the judge stressed the ruling was narrow	Evidence that AI output replaces your sales may decide future cases
Getty Images v. Stability AI	UK High Court, November 2025	A trained model is not an "infringing copy"; only limited trademark infringement found; appeal pending	UK law currently gives artists little against training itself
Andersen v. Stability AI	US district court, filed 2023	Artists' core copyright claims against Stability AI, Midjourney and others survived dismissal; still being litigated	The leading image-generator case for visual artists
Beaulier v. Meta, Nvidia, Microsoft, Roblox	US courts, filed March 2026	A 3D artist's claims over Creative Commons models taken from Sketchfab with a "NoAI" tag; the Meta claims were dismissed in August 2026 with leave to amend, but the court accepted the NoAI tag as copyright management information	The first copyright cases about 3D models in AI training datasets

These AI copyright cases are moving fast, and outcomes differ between countries. Keep authorship records for anything you make with AI help, and use the opt-out tools you have: legal precedents for AI art ownership, AI art ownership precedents, how to opt out of AI training datasets and international AI art copyright laws.

US vs EU: how copyright cases differ

Question	United States	European Union
Originality test	Modest creativity (Feist)	The author's own intellectual creation (Infopaq, Painer)
Designs and useful objects	Only separable artistic features (Star Athletica)	Protected if original, no higher bar (Cofemel, Mio / konektra)
Exceptions	Open-ended fair use	A closed list of exceptions, such as quotation, parody and text and data mining
Registration	Needed before suing over a US work (Fourth Estate)	No registration system for copyright
AI training	Being decided case by case under fair use	Allowed for commercial text and data mining unless the rights holder opts out

If you sell worldwide, the same model can be treated differently in each market. See international copyright protection for Blender artists and international copyright protection.

7 lessons from copyright cases for 3D and digital artists

Document your creative choices. Courts protect choices, not hours (Feist, Painer). Keep versions that show your decisions.
Do not rely on copyright for exact replicas. A faithful digital twin is weak (Meshwerks, Bridgeman); add your own design or protect it by contract.
Treat famous vehicles, props and characters as protected. The Batmobile was (DC Comics v. Towle); selling replicas without a licence is risky.
Ask what your use is for. After Warhol, a remix that competes with the original's market is unlikely to be fair use.
Put ownership in writing. Without a signed transfer the freelancer owns the work (CCNV v. Reid).
Register valuable work early in the US. No registration, no lawsuit (Fourth Estate); early registration also unlocks statutory damages.
Keep dated proof for the AI era. Authorship and metadata were decisive in Thaler and Beaulier; a record of what you made, and when, is your strongest evidence.

Litigation is the expensive end of all this: copyright litigation costs and when to hire an IP attorney help you decide whether a case is worth bringing. For trademarks and patents alongside copyright, read copyright vs trademark vs patent.

Copyright cases are won with evidence. BlendedBoris is a free plugin for Blender that records your 3D model on the blockchain and gives you a lifetime ownership certificate. It creates a digital fingerprint that links the model to you, so if your work ends up in a dispute, a takedown or an AI dataset, you can show a dated record of every version you made.

👉 Get the free BlendedBoris plugin

Copyright cases in numbers

Fact	Figure
Oldest case in this guide still cited on authorship	1884 (Burrow-Giles v. Sarony)
US Supreme Court vote in Warhol v. Goldsmith (2023)	7-2 against fair use
US Supreme Court vote in Cox v. Sony (2026)	9-0 for the internet provider
Verdict set aside in Cox v. Sony	$1 billion
Settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic (2025)	$1.5 billion
Prince artworks found to be fair use in Cariou v. Prince	25 of 30
AI lawsuits filed by one 3D artist on 26 March 2026	4
First US appeals-court ruling on AI training and fair use	29 September 2026 (Thomson Reuters v. Ross)
US statutory damages for a registered work	$750 to $30,000 per work, up to $150,000 if willful

Conclusion

Copyright cases turn general rules into concrete answers. For 3D artists, the most important ones say that creative choices are protected and faithful copies are not, that famous designs can be protected like characters, that fair use depends on whether you compete with the original, that ownership needs a signature and US lawsuits need a registration, and that AI training is still being decided. You do not need to memorise case names: keep proof of what you made, put deals in writing, register what matters, and check the lessons above before you build on someone else's work.

This is general information, not legal advice. Case law changes and differs by country; for a real dispute, talk to an IP lawyer.

FAQ: copyright cases

What are the most famous copyright cases?

In the US: Feist v. Rural (originality), Sony v. Universal (the Betamax case), Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (parody), Google v. Oracle (software) and Warhol v. Goldsmith (fair use). In the EU: Infopaq and Cofemel.

Which copyright cases matter most for 3D artists?

Meshwerks v. Toyota (faithful 3D copies of cars), DC Comics v. Towle (the Batmobile), Star Athletica (useful objects), Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth (Stormtrooper helmets) and, since 2026, the Beaulier lawsuits over 3D models used for AI training.

What did Warhol v. Goldsmith decide?

That licensing Warhol's "Orange Prince" to a magazine was not fair use, because it served the same purpose as Goldsmith's photo. A new look or meaning alone does not make a use fair.

Is a 3D model of a real car protected by copyright?

Usually only weakly. In Meshwerks v. Toyota, faithful wireframe models of Toyota cars were not original. Your own design choices can be protected, and the car's brand is protected by trademark.

Can a car or prop be copyrighted as a character?

Yes, in some cases. In DC Comics v. Towle the Batmobile was treated as a protected character, and selling replica kits infringed.

What was decided in Cox v. Sony in 2026?

The US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that an internet provider is not liable for users' infringement just because it knew about it. Liability requires inducement or a service tailored to infringement.

Can AI-generated art be copyrighted after Thaler v. Perlmutter?

Not if it was made entirely by AI. The courts require a human author; your own creative contributions to AI-assisted work can still be protected.

Is training AI on copyrighted work fair use?

Not settled. In September 2026 the US 3rd Circuit held that training a competing, non-generative tool on Westlaw headnotes was not fair use; a 2025 trial court found training on lawfully bought books fair use; generative AI cases are still pending.

Do I need to register copyright before going to court?

In the US, yes, for US works: Fourth Estate requires a registration decision before you sue. In the EU there is no registration system.

Where can I find a list of copyright cases?

Court databases and legal research sites keep full lists. This guide groups the cases that matter most for digital and 3D artists by what they decided.

Copyright cases glossary

Term	Meaning
Case law	Law made by court decisions, which later courts follow
Precedent	An earlier decision that binds or guides courts in later cases
Originality	The threshold for protection: modest creativity in the US, the author's own intellectual creation in the EU
Fair use	A US defence weighing purpose, nature of the work, amount used and market effect
Transformative use	A use with a new purpose or meaning; after Warhol, not enough on its own
Separability	The test for when artistic features of a useful object can be protected
Work made for hire	Work owned by the employer or commissioner from the start under US law
Secondary liability	Liability for someone else's infringement, such as a platform for its users
En banc	A rehearing by the full appeals court instead of a three-judge panel
Certiorari	The US Supreme Court's decision to hear a case; a denial leaves the lower ruling in place

Violetta Bonenkamp, CADChain co-founder

2026-10-14 18:00 Guides