The Whyte Monkey Productions v. Netflix case has sparked a significant debate over the boundaries of fair use, particularly for documentary filmmakers. Timothy Sepi, a former employee of "Joe Exotic," sued Netflix for using a minute of footage from his camera during the funeral of Joe Exotic’s husband. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Netflix, stating the use did not qualify as fair use because it lacked commentary on the footage itself and instead focused on Joe Exotic.
This decision challenges established principles that allow creators to use copyrighted material for biographical context. Precedents such as Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates and Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley have long protected the use of clips to illustrate historical or cultural narratives. However, the 10th Circuit’s narrow interpretation risks undermining these practices, leaving filmmakers uncertain about how to justify their work without facing legal exposure.
Legal experts and creators have criticized the ruling, arguing it misapplies the Warhol standard. A rehearing is pending, but the outcome could reshape how documentary creators balance artistic expression with copyright compliance.
AI Training and the "How" of Data Acquisition
AI litigation in 2025 established a complex legal framework, with two landmark cases defining liability for data acquisition. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court split on whether training models on legally obtained materials qualifies as fair use. While transformative use was recognized, the creation of a "central library" using pirated content was deemed infringing, leading to a $1.5 billion settlement.
Similarly, Kadrey v. Meta highlighted the tension between fair use and market harm. Courts acknowledged AI training as fair use but warned that outputs displacing original works - such as near-verbatim reproductions - could erode this defense.
The rise of "stealth scraping" - using undeclared crawlers to bypass robots.txt - adds new layers of risk. Courts will soon determine whether such practices mirror the piracy in Bartz, reshaping how developers approach data sourcing.
Trademark Infringement and the Rogers Test
The HomeVestors v. Warner Bros. case underscores the evolving nature of trademark law, particularly the application of the Rogers Test. HomeVestors, owners of "Ugliest House of the Year," sued Warner Bros. over the show Ugliest House in America, arguing it caused consumer confusion.
The court rejected Warner Bros.’s Rogers Test defense, noting the Jack Daniel’s decision does not permit a blanket defense if a mark is used to identify a source. The ruling suggests courts are re-evaluating whether the Rogers Test, designed to protect expressive works, has been overextended.
This case marks a critical inflection point. Brand owners must now carefully assess how their trademarks interact with expressive content, balancing First Amendment protections against consumer confusion.
Navigating the 2026 Legal Landscape
For filmmakers, the 10th Circuit’s stance on biographical anchors remains a key uncertainty. Monitoring ongoing litigation will be essential to avoid costly missteps.
AI developers face mounting pressure to document their data acquisition methods. Stealth scraping and pirated inputs are increasingly dispositive factors in liability, requiring transparency and compliance.
Brand owners and studios must adapt to a trademark environment where the Rogers Test is no longer a guaranteed shield. Proactive monitoring and strategic naming choices will be critical to avoid disputes over source identification.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, offering a cost-effective solution for businesses seeking to protect their intellectual property. With coverage across 50+ countries, including the EU, US, and Australia, the service ensures brands stay ahead of potential threats.