IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Ore.: Lawsuit over animal-themed artworks can move forward, (Feb 9, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Animals were laid out in bathtubs and laundry baskets in a similar enough manner to imply copying.

A California artist was entitled to move forward on her claim that a Portland art studio infringed upon her copyrights by marketing a series of animal-themed wall art pieces that borrowed the style and layout of her own, the federal court for Portland has held. The court, in dismissing a motion to dismiss the case, also found that the artist stated a claim against a third-party distributor for secondary copyright infringement as well as breach of the terms of an earlier settlement agreement (Peterson v. Berggren, No. 3:25-cv-01268-AB (D. Or. Feb. 5, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by Amy Peterson, a California artist and the owner and proprietor of Amy Peterson Art Studio. In 2017, Peterson created and began selling a series of works featuring “studio photo” style images of animals in bathtubs. Peterson markets those so-called “Bathroom Works” direct to consumers viaSociety6.com and Etsy.com and also licenses them for sale via major online retailers such as Walmart, Target, and Marshall’s, among others. More recently, Peterson has also marketed a series entitled “Laundry Works” which features animals in laundry baskets, on folded towels, on piles of laundry, and the like.

Peterson’s lawsuit takes aim at Portland-based art studio Lettered and Lined and its owner Kelly Berggren. According to the lawsuit, the Portland studio allegedly created and marketed 175 different pieces of artwork that it purloined from the Bathroom Works and Laundry Works series. The lawsuit also accuses Rhode Island wall décor company Stupell Industries of participating in the infringement by distributing Lettered and Lined’s works via online retailers such as Walmart, Wayfair, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Overstock.com. In addition, the lawsuit also alleges that Stupell’s conduct violated the terms of a settlement agreement that had been entered into between them after a different earlier dispute.

The two art companies moved to dismiss the claim, leading to this opinion.

Direct copyright infringement. The court found that Peterson stated a valid copyright infringement claim against Lettered and Lined. To make such a claim, the court noted, Peterson was required to allege that the Portland art studio had access to her works, that the similarities between the two sets of works were sufficiently probative of copying, and that the Portland studio did not create those works independently. Peterson cleared the threshold on all three elements, the court found.

Peterson adequately alleged access, the court found, because she adequately alleged that her works were widely disseminated. Indeed, the court noted, Peterson alleged that she has sold her works directly to customers on Society6.com, her own website, and her Etsy shops since as early as December 2017, and that they have been distributed for sale in “major online retailers” and “major brick and mortar retailers” since as early as April 2019. Moreover, the court noted, Peterson alleged she and Lettered and Lined participate in the same consumer market, including by selling their products on Etsy and through Walmart, Wayfair, Bed Bath & Beyond, Home Depot, and Overstock.com. “Taking these allegations as true,” the court found, Peterson “plausibly alleges that [Lettered and Lined] had reasonable opportunities to view [her] works.”

The complaint also alleged facts sufficient to be probative of copying, the court found. “Similarities probative of copying,” the court noted, “include similarities that are more likely attributable to copying, rather than coincidence, independent creation, or prior common source.” Here, Peterson argued, she alleged probative similarity because Lettered and Lined “utilized the very same animals in the very same positions in the very same types of tubs and baskets, along with the same towels, baskets, and sock accessories.” The Court agreed. In comparing the two sets of works, the court noted, “the Court finds there are obvious conceptual similarities between the images sufficient to create a presumption of copying.”

The complaint also adequately alleged that Lettered and Lined did not create the images independently. To the extent that Lettered and Lined sought to introduce evidence extrinsic to the complaint to prove independent creation, the court noted, that was premature for consideration at this stage. Putting that evidence aside and focusing on the allegations of the complaint alone, the court found that the complaint adequately alleged that the accused images were created after Peterson’s Bathtub Works and Laundry Works and therefore were not prior independent creations.

Secondary infringement. The court also found that Peterson adequately alleged both vicarious as well as contributory infringement against Stupell. Assuming the allegations in the complaint were true, the court noted, Peterson plausibly alleged that Stupell had “the right and ability to supervise” Lettered and Lined’s infringing conduct because it was a licensor of its works. Moreover, the court noted, Peterson plausibly alleged that Stupell had a direct financial interest in the infringing conduct because it profited from distributing the images to retailers. As to contributory infringement, the court noted, Peterson plausibly alleged that Stupell knew of the infringing conduct and that it materially contributed to the infringement by publishing the works to retailers. That was enough for the complaint to move forward against Stupell at this stage.

Breach of contract. The court also refused to limit the scope of Peterson’s breach of contract claim against Stupell. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Stupell was required to take down within five days any image that Peterson considered to be “unauthorized or to constitute an act of infringement.” Stupell argued that the only way Peterson could prove a breach of such a contract was if she could prove a claim of direct copyright infringement against Lettered and Lined. But the agreement required, the court noted, that Stupell take down images Peterson considered to be “unauthorized or to constitute an act of infringement of their copyright interests.” The term “unauthorized” and the conjunction “or” the court noted, “reasonably could mean something other than copyright infringement.” Thus, even if there were no valid direct copyright infringement claim against the Portland art company, the court reasoned, this breach of contract claim would still survive.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-01268-AB.

Judge: Baggio, A.

Attorneys: Susan L. Ford (Res Nova Law) for Amy Peterson d/b/a Amy Peterson Art Studio. Kohel Haver (Haver & Associates) for Kelly J. Berggren a/k/a Kelly J. Bernal and Lettered and Lined, LLC. Shawn J. Kolitch (Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLC) for Stupell Industries, Ltd. Inc.

Companies: Amy Peterson Art Studio; Lettered and Lined, LLC; Stupell Industries, Ltd. Inc.

Cases: Copyright OregonNews GCNNews