IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—M.D. Pa.: Dog breeder’s use of photographer’s copyrighted images not protected under fair use, (May 15, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The dog breeder did not dispute copying, and the court found that all four fair use factors weighed against it, given the commercial, non-transformative nature of the use.

A professional photographer secured summary judgment on his copyright infringement claims against a Labrador dog breeder and seller, as the federal district court in Pennsylvania was unpersuaded by the defendant’s fair use defense. The court found that the dog breeder copied and displayed the photograph without authorization, used it for a commercial purpose, and failed to show any transformative use. The court also granted judgment against the defendant on its affirmative defense, holding that all four statutory fair use factors weighed against protection and that no genuine dispute of material fact existed (Vedros v. Sterling Group of the Twin Tiers, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-02183-MWB (M.D. Pa. May 14, 2026)).

The plaintiff, Nick Vedros, is a commercial photographer known for producing staged, animal-themed images for advertising campaigns. The defendant, The Sterling Group of the Twin Tiers, Inc. (Sterling), operates a business selling English Labrador puppies through its website, which also features blog content relating to canine health and care.

Vedros owned a registered copyright in a photograph titled “071015_DogStandingOnScale,” registered in 2014, depicting a dog standing on a scale with a cat nearby. The image was created for a commercial dog food advertising campaign and involved significant production effort and expense.

The dispute began when the Sterling published a blog article titled “A Breeder’s Note on Canine Obesity” on its website and displayed the photograph in full at the top of the article without authorization or attribution. The article promoted dietary recommendations and linked to products sold through the website. Vedros filed suit alleging copyright infringement and moved for summary judgment. Sterling opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting the fair use doctrine under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Copyright infringement. The court first addressed the underlying infringement claim and found that Vedros had established ownership of a valid copyright and that unauthorized copying of protected elements had occurred. Citing Pyrotechnics Mgmt., Inc. v. XFX Pyrotechnics LLC, 38 F.4th 331, 335 (3d Cir. 2022), the court noted that a plaintiff must show ownership and copying. The defendant did not dispute these elements and instead relied solely on its fair use defense, effectively conceding liability on the infringement claim.

Commercial and non-transformative use. The first fair use factor, purpose and character of the use, weighed strongly against Sterling. The court found that the photograph was used on a commercial website that promoted dog sales and related products. Although the defendant characterized the blog as educational, the record showed that it was integrated into a for-profit business and provided at least indirect commercial benefit.

Citing Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), the court emphasized that commercial exploitation without payment weighs against fair use. It also relied on American Society for Testing & Materials v. UpCodes, Inc., 172 F.4th 253 (3d Cir. 2026), to emphasize that the inquiry is objective and not dependent on Sterling’s stated intent.

The court further found that the use was not transformative. The photograph was copied in its entirety and used for the same purpose as the original—to illustrate canine weight and draw attention to dog food or obesity-related messaging. Citing Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), the court held that merely republishing a work without adding new meaning or purpose does not qualify as transformative use.

Creative nature of the work. The second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, also weighed against fair use. The court characterized the photograph as a creative and staged work rather than a factual depiction. Citing Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 691 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2012), it noted that creative works lie at the core of copyright protection and are less amenable to fair use.

Entire work copied without justification. The third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, strongly favored the plaintiff. The defendant reproduced the entire photograph without alteration. While wholesale copying does not automatically defeat fair use, the court found no justification for using the entire image, particularly where the photograph was not integral to the article’s content.

Citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the court reiterated that copying must be reasonable in relation to the purpose of the use. Here, the photograph functioned merely as an attention-grabbing visual and was not necessary to convey the article’s message.

Market harm presumed and supported. The fourth factor, the effect on the market, also weighed against fair use. Because the use was commercial and non-transformative, the court applied a presumption of market harm. Citing Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, 650 F.3d 295, 307 (3d Cir. 2011), the court noted that such uses are likely to substitute for the original.

Although the specific use caused minimal direct harm due to limited website traffic, the court emphasized the broader impact of widespread unauthorized use. Vedros testified that he licenses his work commercially and relies on such licensing for income. Sterling failed to present any evidence to rebut this showing or demonstrate the absence of market harm. The court also rejected several of Sterling’s arguments, including claims that the photograph lacked commercial value and that similar images could be generated using artificial intelligence. It characterized these arguments as unsupported and inconsistent with established copyright principles.

Fair use defense rejected. Weighing all four factors together, the court concluded that Sterling failed to meet its burden of proving fair use. None of the factors supported the defense, and the evidence overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff. As an affirmative defense, fair use required the defendant to produce favorable evidence, which it failed to do.

Conclusion. Thus, the court granted Vedros’s motion for summary judgment on both liability and the fair use defense, and denied Sterling’s cross-motion in full. Judgment was entered in favor of Vedros on liability, with the issue of damages left for further proceedings. The parties were directed to submit a status report on how they intended to proceed on damages.

The Case is No. 4:24-cv-02183-MWB.

Judge: Brann, M.

Attorneys: Renee Jennifer Aragona (Sanders Law Group) for Nick Vedros. Joseph F. Orso, III (Rudinski Orso and Lynch) for The Sterling Group of the Twin Tiers, Inc.

Companies: The Sterling Group of the Twin Tiers, Inc.

Cases: Copyright PennsylvaniaNews