Fair use of images lets you use a copyrighted picture without permission only when a court’s case-by-case weighing of four statutory factors comes out in your favor, and there is no shortcut, percentage rule, or credit line that changes that. Section 107 of the Copyright Act tells judges to weigh the purpose of your use, the nature of the original, how much you took, and the effect on the market for the original. No single factor decides the outcome, and after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the analysis got harder for commercial uses that share a purpose with the original.
The Four Factors
Section 107 also lists favored purposes — criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research — but appearing on that list does not guarantee protection. Every use runs through the same four-factor balancing test, and the result is often hard to predict.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 107 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use
Purpose and Character of the Use
The first factor asks what you did with the image and why. A use is more likely to be fair when it is “transformative,” meaning it adds new expression, meaning, or purpose rather than just repackaging the original. Using a vintage advertisement to illustrate an essay about racial stereotypes in marketing is transformative because the original purpose was selling a product, while the new purpose is cultural criticism. Commercial uses are not automatically disqualified, but they face a steeper climb than nonprofit or educational ones.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work
The second factor looks at the original image itself. Factual or informational images such as technical diagrams, maps, and charts get less copyright protection than highly creative works like fine art photography or illustrations. Courts also consider whether the original has been published. Using an unpublished image weighs against fair use because the creator has a recognized right to control the first public release of their work.
Amount and Substantiality Used
The third factor considers how much of the original you took, and not just in raw quantity but in importance. Using a tightly cropped portion of a photograph is more defensible than reproducing the entire image. Even a small crop can sink a fair use claim if it captures the most recognizable or essential element of the work. Sometimes using the full image can be justified, as when an art critic reviews a painting, though using a low-resolution or thumbnail version strengthens the argument.
Effect on the Market
The fourth factor asks whether your use harms the copyright holder’s ability to sell or license their image. That includes direct competition, like posting a high-resolution photo people download instead of buying from the photographer, and harm to potential licensing markets. If the photographer could reasonably license the image for the kind of use you are making, your unpaid use cuts into that revenue stream. Courts have found this kind of harm even when a use was somewhat transformative; an artist who turned a copyrighted photograph into a series of sculptures was found to have damaged the photographer’s market for derivative works.
How the Warhol Decision Changed the Analysis
Before 2023, many courts treated “transformative” broadly. If a secondary work changed the meaning or aesthetic of the original, that often tipped the first factor toward fair use regardless of the commercial context. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith narrowed that approach.
The case involved Andy Warhol’s stylized portrait of Prince, created using photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s reference photo. When the Warhol Foundation licensed the image to Condé Nast for $10,000 to illustrate a magazine story about Prince, the Court held that this licensing shared “substantially the same purpose” as Goldsmith’s original photograph. Both were portraits of Prince used to illustrate magazine stories about Prince. Because the purpose was the same and the use was commercial, the first factor weighed against fair use.2Supreme Court of the United States. Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
Adding new meaning or expression is no longer enough on its own. The Court explicitly stated that if that were the standard, “the fair use defense would swallow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works.” What matters now is whether the new use has a genuinely distinct purpose from the original. Commentary, criticism, and providing otherwise unavailable information about the original still qualify. Licensing a stylized version of someone’s photograph for the same kind of commercial placement the photographer could pursue does not.
Uses That Typically Qualify
Criticism and Commentary
A film critic embedding a still from a movie in a review, or an art blogger reproducing a painting to discuss the artist’s technique, is classic fair use territory. The use serves a different purpose than the original, informing the audience rather than entertaining or decorating, and Section 107 specifically identifies criticism and comment as favored purposes. The more directly the image ties to the point being made, the stronger the argument.
News Reporting
News organizations regularly use copyrighted images to illustrate coverage of current events. A news outlet publishing a photograph from a public protest or disaster scene to accompany a breaking story serves an informational and public interest function that differs from the original’s commercial purpose. Using a professional photographer’s image when the outlet could have sent its own photographer weakens the claim, especially if the image becomes the story’s main draw.
Search Engine Thumbnails
Search engines displaying small, low-resolution thumbnail versions of images in search results is a well-established example of fair use. In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., the court found that creating thumbnails served a fundamentally different purpose, helping users locate images across the web, and did not harm the market for the full-resolution originals.3Berkeley Law. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
Parody
Parody enjoys relatively strong fair use protection because it needs to borrow from the original to make its point. As the Supreme Court explained in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, “parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s imagination.” Satire, which uses someone’s work to comment on broader social issues rather than the work itself, gets less protection because it “can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”4Legal Information Institute. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
The practical distinction matters. A meme that exaggerates a photograph to mock the photograph itself is parody. Using that same photograph as a backdrop for unrelated political humor is satire, and you would need a stronger justification for borrowing it.
Classroom Instruction
Displaying images during face-to-face teaching at a nonprofit school is actually covered by a separate copyright exemption under Section 110, not just fair use. An instructor can project copyrighted photographs, artwork, or diagrams to students in a physical classroom without permission, as long as the copy used was lawfully obtained.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 110 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Exemption of Certain Performances and Displays
The exemption has limits. It applies to nonprofit institutions, requires the instructor and students to be physically present in the same place, and does not cover transmitting the image to remote students. Online course materials involve different, more restrictive rules under the TEACH Act.
Beliefs That Get People Sued
Giving Credit Does Not Create Fair Use
Attribution is good practice, but it does nothing to establish a fair use defense. Courts do not ask whether you credited the photographer. They ask about the four statutory factors. Captioning an image with “Photo by Jane Smith” does not protect you from an infringement claim. If the use does not pass the four-factor test, the credit line is legally irrelevant.
Non-Commercial Use Is Not Automatically Fair
The first factor favors nonprofit and educational uses, but it is only one of four. A personal blog that posts entire copyrighted photographs with brief captions is not generating revenue, but it is also not transformative, uses the entire work, and could substitute for the original in image searches. A use can be completely non-commercial and still infringe.
There Is No 10 Percent Rule
A persistent myth holds that using less than 10 percent of a copyrighted work is automatically safe. No court has ever applied such a rule. What matters is the significance of what you took, not the percentage. The Supreme Court has found infringement where the copied portion was only a few paragraphs of a book, because those paragraphs were the most newsworthy part, the “heart” of the work. For images, the concept is even harder to apply.
Images on Public Websites Are Not Free
The vast majority of images you find through a Google search or on social media are protected by copyright. Their availability online does not mean the copyright holder gave permission for anyone to download and reuse them. Unless an image carries an explicit license, like a Creative Commons license, or is old enough to have entered the public domain, assume it is copyrighted.
Social Media Reposting Is Not Exempt
When you upload a photo to a platform like Instagram, the terms of service typically grant the platform a broad license to display and distribute your content. That license runs to the platform, not to other users. Screenshotting someone’s Instagram photo and posting it to your own account, or downloading a photographer’s image from one platform and uploading it to another, is not covered by the platform’s terms. Using a platform’s built-in sharing tools like retweet or share to story generally stays within the license the original poster granted; downloading and re-uploading does not.
Fair Use and AI Image Training
Whether using copyrighted images to train AI models qualifies as fair use is the biggest open question in copyright law right now, with dozens of active lawsuits. The U.S. Copyright Office issued a detailed report in 2025 concluding that some AI training will qualify as fair use and some will not.6U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training Pre-Publication Version
The Copyright Office identified the dividing lines. Training an AI model on copyrighted images for noncommercial research purposes, where the model does not reproduce portions of those images in its outputs, is likely fair use. Scraping expressive works from pirate sources to build a commercial model that generates competing images, when licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify. Most real-world cases fall between these poles.
The market harm factor looms large here. Courts are beginning to recognize that even when AI-generated images do not directly copy originals, they can flood the same creative market and reduce demand for human-created work, a form of indirect substitution that did not exist when the fair use framework was written. Anyone building or using AI image generators commercially should treat copyright compliance as an active concern rather than a settled question.
What Happens If You Get It Wrong
Takedown Notices
The most common consequence of using an image without authorization is a DMCA takedown notice. Under Section 512 of the Copyright Act, a copyright holder can send a written notice to an internet service provider or platform identifying the infringing material, and the provider must remove it promptly to maintain its own legal protection.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online
The Copyright Claims Board
Since 2022, copyright holders have had the option of bringing small claims before the Copyright Claims Board, a tribunal within the Copyright Office that handles disputes with total damages of $30,000 or less. The process is simpler and cheaper than federal court, no lawyer is required, and proceedings happen online. Participation is voluntary. If you receive a CCB claim, you can opt out, which forces the copyright holder to file in federal court or drop the matter.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 1504 – Nature of Proceedings
Federal Lawsuits and Damages
A copyright holder can also file a full lawsuit in federal court. If the court finds infringement, it can order you to pay either actual damages, meaning the financial losses the copyright holder suffered plus any profits you made from the infringement, or statutory damages. Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work, with the exact amount left to the court’s discretion.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 504 – Remedies for Infringement: Damages and Profits
The range shifts dramatically depending on your intent. If you can prove you had no reason to believe your use was infringing, the “innocent infringer” defense, the court can reduce statutory damages to as little as $200 per work. If the copyright holder proves the infringement was willful, the ceiling jumps to $150,000 per work. The court can also order you to pay the copyright holder’s attorney’s fees and court costs.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 505 – Remedies for Infringement: Costs and Attorneys Fees
Whether the Copyright Was Registered Changes Everything
A copyright holder generally cannot file a federal lawsuit until they have registered the work, or had registration refused, with the Copyright Office.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 411 – Registration and Civil Infringement Actions
Statutory damages and attorney’s fees, the remedies that give infringement lawsuits real financial teeth, are only available if the copyright was registered before the infringement began, or within three months of the work’s first publication.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 17 USC 412 – Registration as Prerequisite to Certain Remedies for Infringement
This cuts both ways. If you are a photographer whose work gets stolen, registering promptly is essential to preserving your strongest remedies. If you are on the receiving end of an infringement claim, whether the copyright was registered before you used the image significantly affects your financial exposure.
A Separate Trap: Right of Publicity
Even if your use of an image clears the fair use bar for copyright purposes, you may face a completely different claim if the image shows a recognizable person. Most states have right-of-publicity laws that restrict using someone’s name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent. These laws are state-level, vary widely, and fair use under federal copyright law is not a defense to a publicity rights claim.13National Library of Medicine. Privacy and Publicity Rights
If you are using an image of someone to sell a product, endorse a service, or imply an association that does not exist, you need their permission regardless of who owns the copyright in the photograph.
Safer Alternatives to Claiming Fair Use
Fair use is a defense you raise after someone accuses you of infringement. It is not a license. If you want certainty rather than a legal argument, you have better options.
- Creative Commons licenses. Millions of images are released under Creative Commons licenses that grant specific reuse rights. A CC BY license lets you use and modify the image for any purpose as long as you credit the creator. CC BY-NC limits reuse to noncommercial purposes. CC0 puts the image in the public domain entirely, with no conditions.14Creative Commons. About CC Licenses
- Public domain images. Works published in the United States before 1931 are now in the public domain and free to use without restriction. Government works created by federal employees are also in the public domain.
- Stock photo licenses. Paid stock photo services sell licenses that grant clear usage rights. The cost is typically far less than the legal risk of an infringement claim.
- Direct permission. Contacting the copyright holder and asking for a license, even a free one, eliminates the uncertainty. Many photographers and artists will grant permission for non-commercial or educational use if you simply ask.
The fair use analysis is genuinely unpredictable. Two copyright lawyers reviewing the same use will regularly reach different conclusions, and the outcome often turns on facts that seem minor, like how the image was cropped, whether it appeared next to advertising, or how much traffic the page received. When a legal alternative exists, it is almost always smarter to use it than to gamble on a four-factor test that even federal judges struggle to apply consistently.