Meme Culture's Legality in the Digital Age - Griner v. King (2024–2025): “Success Kid”

 


Success Kid" meme copyright summarise case (Griner v. King):

In the "Success Kid" meme, a young youngster makes a fist as if he's just accomplished something amazing. The shot was taken by his mother, Laney Griner, who is the owner of the copyright. A U.S. politician called Steve King utilized the meme to solicit contributions for his 2020 campaign. However, he did not request permission to use the picture; therefore, Laney filed a lawsuit against him for violating copyright.


The court declared the campaign incorrect in 2024. They used the image to generate money, which was a commercial use, and they didn't alter it enough to qualify it as "fair use." The smallest allowable fine, $750, was imposed on the campaign by the court. Despite the campaign's attempt to appeal, the court decided in favor of Laney.

The ruling remained unchanged in 2025 because the highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court, declined to rehear the issue. This lawsuit demonstrates that copyright still protects amusing memes like "Success Kid." A person may face legal repercussions if they utilize a meme to promote something or earn money without authorization. It's not always acceptable to utilize a photo just because you added some text to it.

Legal Action:

Laney Griner, the mother of the child featured in the popular "Success Kid" meme and the copyright owner of the original photograph, took legal action for copyright infringement. She argued that the image had been used commercially without her permission or a proper license, violating her exclusive rights as the copyright holder.

Court Decision (2024):
  • In 2024, the court rejected Steve King's campaign, ruling in favor of Laney Griner, the original "Success Kid" image's copyright owner, who had complained about the unapproved use of her image.

  • The court determined that the campaign's use of the meme did not adhere to the legal standards for fair use, which normally permits the restricted use of copyrighted content for parody, education, criticism, and commentary.

  • It served a commercial function by enticing people to donate money to assist Steve King's political campaign. This was accomplished through the inclusion of the image in political fundraising mailings.

  • The usage was against the rights of the copyright owner: The court found that the campaign had breached Griner's exclusive rights as the copyright holder because the photo was used without authorization and did not meet the requirements for fair use.
  • The minimal statutory damages granted by the court were $750. Although the monetary punishment was the lowest possible under copyright law, it nonetheless functioned as an official statement that an infringement had occurred.
Final Appeal:

In an attempt to reverse the court's conclusion of copyright infringement, Steve King's campaign team chose to appeal the initial decision in favor of Laney Griner. But after reviewing the case in 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals maintained the initial decision. The appellate court concurred that the campaign had infringed Griner's copyright and that the use of the "Success Kid" meme was not covered by fair use. King's legal team, nevertheless unsatisfied, decided to take the case to the next level and ask the US Supreme Court to consider it. The lower court's ruling was essentially upheld when the Supreme Court declined to hear the issue in 2025. This last step confirmed Griner's copyright triumph by making the decision against the campaign legally binding and preventing any more appeals.

Why does it matter?: 
  •  Even if an image goes viral, like “Success Kid,” it does not mean the photo is free for public or commercial use.

  • Copyright still belongs to the original creator or rights holder, and using their work without permission can lead to legal consequences.

  • Using memes in advertising, marketing, or political campaigns requires proper licensing, especially when there’s profit, promotion, or public messaging involved.

  • The ruling serves as a warning to brands, creators, and public figures to be cautious when using popular internet content.

  • It highlights the importance of getting permission or using royalty-free or licensed images to avoid legal issues.

  • Overall, the case reinforces that copyright law applies even in the digital age of memes and viral content.

Lesson Learned:

Using a meme in ads, political campaigns, or anything that makes money can lead to a copyright lawsuit if you don’t get permission. Even if it’s a popular meme, that doesn’t mean it’s free to use. The original photo still belongs to the person who took it, and they have legal rights. Just adding text or changing it a little doesn’t make it okay. This case shows that it’s important to always ask for permission or use images that are free to use, especially in commercial or public projects.





Comments

Post a Comment