When digital fame collides with legal disputes, the results are often stranger than fiction. These incredible cases reveal the complex intersection of viral content, intellectual property, and reputation management in the digital age.

The internet has created new paths to fame and fortune that would have been unimaginable just a generation ago. But with these new opportunities come unprecedented legal complications as influencers, brands, and everyday people who suddenly find themselves viral sensations navigate the murky waters of intellectual property, privacy rights, and reputation management.

From meme creators fighting multi-million dollar corporations to accidental internet celebrities battling for control of their image, these legal showdowns offer fascinating glimpses into how our legal system is struggling to adapt to the realities of internet culture.

Let's examine seven of the most unusual legal battles over internet fame and extract valuable lessons for anyone navigating digital reputation management.

1. The Dancing Baby vs. Prince's Publishing Company

The Case: In 2007, Stephanie Lenz uploaded a 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" playing in the background. Universal Music Group issued a DMCA takedown notice, claiming copyright infringement. Instead of accepting the removal, Lenz fought back with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, arguing "fair use."

The Verdict: After an eight-year legal battle that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court established that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices. The case, known as Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, became a landmark in establishing that brief, incidental use of copyrighted material in user-generated content can qualify as fair use.

The Lesson: This case highlights the tension between intellectual property protection and freedom of expression online. For brands and content creators, it underscores the importance of understanding fair use principles before attempting to enforce copyright claims. Heavy-handed legal responses to minor, non-commercial uses can backfire dramatically, creating reputation damage far exceeding any potential licensing revenue.

2. The Infamous "Monkey Selfie" Copyright Dispute

The Case: In 2011, British wildlife photographer David Slater set up a camera in an Indonesian forest, which a curious macaque monkey named Naruto promptly used to snap several selfies. When these charming photos went viral, Slater claimed copyright ownership and published them in a book. Wikimedia Commons and others argued the images were in the public domain since they were taken by an animal. In 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit claiming the monkey should own the copyright.

The Verdict: After years of litigation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2018 that animals cannot own copyrights under U.S. law. However, the case had already depleted Slater's finances and thrust him into an unwanted spotlight.

The Lesson: This bizarre legal battle demonstrates how viral content can become a double-edged sword. While the monkey selfies gave Slater initial publicity, the ensuing legal controversy nearly ruined him financially. For content creators, this case emphasizes the importance of establishing clear ownership rights before content goes viral, and the potential pitfalls of assuming that creating the conditions for content automatically confers ownership rights.

3. The Tattoo Artist vs. "The Hangover Part II"

The Case: When "The Hangover Part II" featured Ed Helms' character waking up with a face tattoo identical to Mike Tyson's, few viewers realized they were witnessing the setup for a major copyright lawsuit. S. Victor Whitmill, the tattoo artist who created and copyrighted Tyson's distinctive facial design, sued Warner Bros. for unauthorized reproduction of his work.

The Verdict: The case, Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, was settled out of court just before the film's release, but not before a judge acknowledged that tattoos could indeed be protected by copyright and that Whitmill had a "strong likelihood of success" in his claims. The settlement amount remains confidential, but industry analysts speculate it was substantial.

The Lesson: The Hangover tattoo case reveals how internet culture's casual attitude toward replication and parody can clash with established intellectual property law. For brands leveraging memes or viral content in their marketing, it serves as a reminder that even seemingly trivial elements (like a tattoo design) can carry serious legal implications. Proper clearance and licensing are essential, even for content that exists primarily in the digital realm.

4. The "Bad Luck Brian" Yearbook Photo Fight

The Case: In 2012, a yearbook photo of Kyle Craven wearing suspenders, a plaid sweater vest, and an awkward smile became the massively popular "Bad Luck Brian" meme. When Craven and his friend Ian Davies (who posted the photo) tried to capitalize on the meme's success through merchandise, they discovered a complex web of parties claiming ownership rights to the yearbook photo.

The Verdict: While no major court case ensued, Craven faced significant challenges in monetizing his own image due to competing claims from the photography company that took the yearbook photo. Eventually, he was able to secure enough rights to sell official merchandise, reportedly earning tens of thousands of dollars from his unexpected internet fame.

The Lesson: The Bad Luck Brian saga illustrates the complicated nature of image rights in the digital age. When content goes viral, multiple parties may have legitimate claims to different aspects of the intellectual property. For individuals who suddenly find themselves meme-famous, this case suggests the importance of quickly securing legal advice and potentially trademarking elements of "their" meme before others do.

5. The Battle for "Left Shark"

The Case: During Katy Perry's 2015 Super Bowl halftime show, one of her backup dancers dressed as a shark (dubbed "Left Shark" by the internet) appeared to forget the choreography and dance improvisationally. The moment became an instant viral sensation. When designer Fernando Sosa began selling 3D-printed Left Shark figurines, Perry's lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters claiming copyright infringement.

The Verdict: The U.S. Copyright Office ultimately rejected Perry's attempt to register a copyright for the Left Shark costume design, stating that costumes are generally not copyrightable. However, Perry did secure a trademark for "Left Shark" merchandise, giving her control over the use of the term, if not the costume design itself.

The Lesson: The Left Shark controversy highlights the distinction between copyright and trademark protection in internet culture. While Perry couldn't copyright the shark costume design, she could trademark the term that emerged from the viral moment. For brands seeking to protect viral assets, this case suggests that quickly securing trademark protection for associated terms and phrases may be more effective than pursuing copyright claims for visual elements.

6. The "Success Kid" Meme's Political Standoff

The Case: Sam Griner became known as "Success Kid" when a photo of him as a toddler making a determined face and clenching his fist went viral. Years later, in 2020, his mother Laney Griner (who took the original photo) discovered that Congressman Steve King was using the meme in fundraising materials without permission.

The Verdict: Griner sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that King stop using her son's image and pay for the unauthorized use. After public pressure mounted, King's campaign removed the image. While the case didn't go to court, it represented a successful assertion of rights by the meme's creator.

The Lesson: The Success Kid political controversy demonstrates how memes can transcend their original context to become valuable assets in political and commercial speech. For the creators of viral content, it highlights the importance of monitoring how their work is being used, particularly in political contexts that might imply endorsement. For brands and campaigns, it serves as a reminder that memes, despite their ubiquity, aren't free-use public domain content.

7. The Epic Games "Fortnite" Dance Moves Lawsuits

The Case: Between 2018 and 2019, multiple performers including Alfonso Ribeiro (the "Carlton Dance" from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), rapper 2 Milly (the "Milly Rock"), and the teen behind the "Backpack Kid" dance sued Epic Games for incorporating their distinctive dance moves as purchasable "emotes" in the video game Fortnite without permission or compensation.

The Verdict: Most of these cases were withdrawn after a 2019 Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com established that copyright infringement suits can only be filed after the Copyright Office has made a decision on registration applications. The Copyright Office subsequently rejected several of these dance copyright applications, noting that "social dances" and simple routines aren't eligible for copyright protection. While most plaintiffs dropped their lawsuits, the controversy sparked ongoing debate about cultural appropriation in digital spaces.

The Lesson: The Fortnite dance lawsuits expose the gap between cultural ownership and legal protection. While creators may feel strong moral ownership over movements or expressions they popularized, current copyright law offers limited protection for such ephemeral creations. For companies leveraging internet culture, this suggests that legal clearance should be supplemented with ethical considerations about attribution and compensation, even when technically not required by law.

The Digital Frontier of Intellectual Property

These cases reveal several important patterns at the intersection of viral fame and legal rights:

1. Traditional IP law struggles with internet culture: Existing copyright and trademark frameworks weren't designed for the reality of memes, viral videos, and internet phenomena that build on shared cultural references.
   
   
2. Attribution matters, even when legality is unclear: Many legal disputes could have been avoided if the secondary users had simply sought permission and offered attribution or compensation to the original creators.
   
   
3. Viral fame creates value that many parties may claim: When content unexpectedly goes viral, multiple stakeholders often emerge claiming ownership rights—photographers, subjects, platforms, and even animals!
   
   
4. Quick action is essential: In several cases, those who moved fastest to establish legal protection gained significant advantages in subsequent disputes.
   
   
5. Public opinion often trumps legal technicalities: Even when technically within their legal rights, companies that appear to be exploiting viral creators often face backlash that far outweighs any benefit from the contested content.
   
   

For brands and individuals navigating the treacherous waters where viral content meets intellectual property law, these cases offer valuable lessons in both legal protection and reputation management. The most successful players in this space understand that legal rights are just one dimension of a complex ecosystem where attribution, goodwill, and perceived fairness often matter more than technical legal positions.

As our digital and legal worlds continue to collide, we can expect even more bizarre and precedent-setting cases at the frontier of internet fame. The wisest approach combines solid legal counsel with ethical consideration of the human stories behind viral content. After all, in the court of public opinion, technical legal victories can still translate to devastating reputational losses.

This article is part of our series on digital rights and online reputation. For more insights on protecting your digital presence, visit our services page or contact our team of reputation management experts.

‍