After a Golden Globe pre-party in January of this year, Jennifer Lopez posted at least nine photos to her social accounts featuring her in designer attire. She labeled the post “Weekend Glamour.”
The problem? They were not Lopez’s photos to share. Rather, the copyrights are co-owned by photographer Edwin Blanco and Backgrid USA. So, Blanco and Backgrid USA sued Lopez for copyright infringement.
According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, the involved parties communicated in the weeks after Lopez shared the photos, with the megastar’s team agreeing to a monetary settlement orally. However, those settlement papers were never signed by Lopez, nor has she paid the sum that was agreed upon. Moreover, the photos still remained live on her social accounts.
Because of all this, Blanco and Backgrid sued Lopez in May, asking for statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each photo and a jury trial.
What strikes me about all of this, though: this is not the first time Lopez has had legal run-ins over alleged copyright law violations. Back in 2019, she faced quite similar claims over sharing images without permission. In so many words, she should have known better this time around.
Why is this a problem, though? The pictures were of Lopez. Should she not be allowed to share them?
How Copyright Law Works
Her use of the photos without permission is a big deal because, under U.S. copyright law, the creator of a photograph (not the subject) owns the rights to that image. Even when photos are taken in public, they are protected. Posting them without permission can trigger statutory damages of exactly what the claimants are asking — up to $150,000 per image if willful infringement is found. In Lopez’s case, that could mean over $1 million in liability.
Could She Claim “Fair Use”?
A common defense of using copyright protected material without permission is fair use. It applies for things such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and other transformative uses of the work.
However, the claimants are alleging that Lopez used the images to showcase her outfit and associated designer brands, which would make that use promotional rather than commentary or transformative use. This is something that would seem to be supported by the name Lopez’s team gave to the post: “Weekend Glamour.” As such, it would undermine any fair use defense.
Even worse for Lopez? Posting the photos to promote specific designers signals clear intent, which increases the risk of her getting hit with statutory damages.
What Does This Show Us About IP Law and How We Should Go About Using Protected Works?
Jennifer Lopez’s case is a high-profile reminder: in the digital age, everyone (from DIY bloggers to multinational celebrities) must respect copyright law. Posting someone else’s work without permission is more than merely risky; it can be expensive.
Even if you’re not a global icon, this case highlights important takeaways:
- Ownership matters. The photographer (not the person in the picture) owns the copyright from the moment the shutter clicks.
- Permission is essential. Whether for a blog, social media repost, or commercial use, securing written permission or licensing is key.
- Fair use is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is a limited doctrine, unlikely to protect promotional reposts.
- Settle smart. Verbal agreements mean little. Written, signed settlements or licenses are crucial. Had Lopez followed through on the deal her team allegedly agreed to, she would likely be facing a far smaller possible payout.
Still, we started by asking why Lopez would do this — especially as someone who has faced claims like this before. While it is impossible to truly know her motives unless she decides to share them, there are a couple of possibilities:
Someone on her team less knowledgeable about IP law shared them. This is a fairly strong possibility. Assistants and low-level marketing professionals are often put in charge of social accounts, and they may have thought they could get away with posting the photos.
Her team believed the payout to be worth the cost. Remember, all signs point to Lopez posting the photos as a way of promoting the designers she was wearing. It is possible she was paid to do this. Perhaps the money she made will exceed the cost of the suit.
Neither of these, however, address why Lopez never followed through with the settlement her team supposedly negotiated. There is a simple and straightforward answer to that:
She does not believe she will lose the case. Even though the facts that are currently known about this case would seem to be in favor of the claimants, there may be information that has not come out yet that could tip the scales toward Lopez.
Beyond this, “not losing” really just means that she can reduce her payout to less than what was offered in the settlement. While that figure has not been released, neither is there any guarantee that the claimants will actually get $150,000 per photo — anything can happen if a case goes to trial. And if anyone has the deep pockets to make the case drag out until the other side is no longer able to fund the fight, it is Lopez.
How will this all play out? We will just have to see.
Curious to know whether you have a use that might qualify as fair? Reach out and discuss with an intellectual property lawyer who know copyright law — or, better yet, obtain proper permission to make sure you avoid trouble.