Library Guides: Fair Use and Creative Commons for Images: Welcome

Welcome to the Copyright & Image Use Guide

Note: This guide is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance, contact the Ohio State Bar Association.

This guide is designed to support students, faculty, and creators—especially those working in art, design, and visual communications—who regularly use images and want to make informed, ethical choices.

Whether you're new to copyright or already familiar with the basics, this guide will help you:

Understand the core concepts of copyright, fair use, and Creative Commons licensing
Make responsible decisions about image use and reuse
Know when to seek additional guidance—because copyright is complex, and questions are normal

You’ll also find:

A breakdown of how Creative Commons licenses work
Considerations around moral rights, ethical reuse, and when these issues extend beyond legal requirements
Case studies and current issues in image copyright, including AI-generated content and digital platforms

Stay Current: AI & Copyright Updates

Andersen v. Stability AI
A group of visual artists claim AI companies infringed their copyrights by copying and storing their artworks without permission to train AI systems. The case is shaping how copyright law applies to AI training data.
Anthropic, Meta Win Early Copyright Rulings (June 2025)
U.S. federal judges ruled that Anthropic’s use of copyrighted books to train its Claude chatbot and Meta’s AI did not infringe, citing fair use comparisons to how writers learn from reading
Getty Images, Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.
Getty alleges that Stability AI illegally used millions of Getty’s copyrighted images to train its AI model without permission. This ongoing lawsuit is one of the first to challenge the use of copyrighted images in AI training.
Thaler v. US Copyright Office (2022–2023)
This case questions whether an AI can be recognized as the author of a work. Courts have ruled that only humans can hold copyright, impacting AI authorship debates.
U.S. Copyright Office Clarifies AI Guidance (March 2023)
On March 16, 2023, the Office issued formal guidance stating that works created solely by AI without human direction are ineligible for copyright. They also launched an ongoing initiative (through reports, public sessions, and inquiries) exploring AI’s impact on copyright registration
US artists score victory in landmark AI copyright case
In a significant ruling on August 12, 2024, U.S. District Judge William Orrick denied a motion by AI companies Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI to dismiss copyright infringement claims brought by a group of visual artists. The artists allege that their works were unlawfully stored and used to train AI image generators without permission. While some claims were dismissed, the core copyright allegations remain active, marking an important development in the evolving intersection of AI and copyright law.

Stay Current: Copyright News

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Lynn Goldsmith (2023)
The Supreme Court ruled that Andy Warhol’s silkscreen portrait of Prince was not fair use because it did not sufficiently transform the original photograph’s purpose, setting an important precedent on transformative use in art.
Naruto v. Slater (2018)
A famous case where a monkey took selfies, and the court ruled animals cannot hold copyright, highlighting the boundaries of non-human authorship.
Birkenstock Sandals Not Protected as Art (Feb 2025)
Germany’s top court ruled that Birkenstock’s sandal design is not protected by copyright because it’s primarily a functional product, not an artistic work. The case tested whether everyday product designs—like shoes—can qualify as “applied art.” The court said no: the sandals were designed for comfort and wearability, not to express artistic intent.
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M (2024)
A dispute over fabric patterns: Unicolors accused H&M of copying its copyrighted print. H&M argued the works were registered incorrectly (grouped in one filing). This case highlights the consequences of misfiled registration, which can weaken enforcement
Kat Von D (Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg) (2024)
A jury ruled that Kat Von D did not infringe photographer Jeff Sedlik’s copyright when featuring a Miles Davis tattoo she created on social media — even though some tattoo images were substantially similar. This case underscores how visual likeness doesn’t always mean infringement

University Libraries

Fair Use and Creative Commons for Images

Welcome to the Copyright & Image Use Guide

Stay Current: AI & Copyright Updates

Stay Current: Copyright News

OHIO UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES