After 18 Months of Copyright Infringement Notices, I Filed a Federal Lawsuit Against Alibaba/ALIEXPRESS
On September 1, 2026, I filed a federal copyright lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding Limited for copyright infringement, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Mapes v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al
Case No. 1:26-cv-07466
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
This lawsuit did not begin with a single photograph, a single notice, or a decision to immediately run to federal court.
It came after approximately 18 months of documenting what I allege was unauthorized commercial use of over one hundred images my copyrighted photography of minor children, sending notices, providing evidence, following up, attempting to navigate intellectual-property enforcement systems, pursuing a Copyright Claims Board proceeding, and ultimately involving legal counsel.
What My Lawsuit Alleges
I am a photographer and artist. The photographs involved in this dispute are original works that I created and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
My lawsuit alleges that my copyrighted photographs were used without authorization by Alibaba in connection with products offered through Alibaba's AliExpress marketplace and in digital advertising promoting those products.
Importantly, my allegations are not limited to photographs uploaded to marketplace listings by individual third-party sellers.
My complaint alleges that copyrighted photographs were also reproduced, displayed or distributed in advertising associated with Alibaba/AliExpress and delivered through advertising platforms and networks that you see online when reading news articles, browsing or even checking your email, among other things.
That distinction became increasingly important as I investigated and documented what was happening.
I was not simply finding photographs sitting on individual product pages. I was documenting photographs appearing in advertising and promotional placements outside those listings. I even found them using my work on their main site blog promoting certain products. So it was not limited to sellers using them in the Alibaba and Aliexpress marketplace.
I Spent Approximately 18 Months Trying to Resolve This Before Filing Suit
I tried so hard to resolve this with Alibaba directly.
I did not discover this issue and immediately file a federal lawsuit.
Beginning in February 2025, I repeatedly reported alleged infringement, submitted DMCA notices and supporting evidence, followed up when material remained available or appeared again, used intellectual-property reporting processes, escalated my concerns through multiple channels, initiated a Copyright Claims Board proceeding, and eventually retained counsel in another attempt to resolve the dispute.
I BEGGED them to take action and remove my work of minor children from their ads and platforms.
The following is a condensed chronology of those efforts. It does not identify every email, submission, report, screenshot, follow-up or communication involved in the litigation.
February 28, 2025 — I documented the initial alleged infringement and began the reporting process.
April 1, 2025 — Formal DMCA notice sent concerning advertising use.
April 4 & 16, 2025 — Additional notices and follow-up communications.
April 23 & 30, 2025 — Formal legal escalation and certified demand communications.
May 20, 26 & 28, 2025 — Additional enforcement notices and follow-ups after the earlier notices did not fully resolve the issue.
June 3, 2025 — I initiated a proceeding with the U.S. Copyright Office's Copyright Claims Board and sent additional notice concerning advertising. They ignored it.
June 5, 2025 — Additional notice and service-related communication. They ignored it.
June 25, 2025 — Additional service through the Copyright Claims Board process. They ignored it.
July 6, 7 & 10, 2025 — Additional escalations concerning the alleged infringement and enforcement process, including regulatory and corporate communications. They ignored it.
July 11, 2025 — Additional communication concerning the dispute and CCB proceeding. They ignored it.
August 2025 — I continued documenting additional uses and submitting additional notices.
After this point, I discovered dozens and dozens of my works being used without authorization, so instead of trying the case at the CCB, I dismissed that proceeding with the intention of filing a federal lawsuit against them.
August 13 & 14, 2025 — Renewed notices and communications after I documented additional allegedly unauthorized uses.
August 19, 2025 — Additional marketplace and advertising notices submitted.
August 26, 2025 — Additional follow-up and notice.
September 4, 2025 — Follow-up documenting advertising that I alleged remained active.
November 5, 2025 — Five additional notices submitted.
November 19 & 21, 2025 — Additional communications and follow-up concerning those notices.
December 19, 2025 — Another notice submitted concerning additional use.
January 27, 2026 — Additional formal DMCA notice concerning marketplace and advertising uses.
February 27–28, 2026 — Additional notices concerning newly documented uses.
March 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27 & 31, 2026 — Additional notices, follow-ups and escalations concerning advertising that I alleged remained in circulation despite previous notice.
April 1, 2 & 15, 2026 — Additional communications concerning continued availability and enforcement.
May 18–20, 2026 — Additional DMCA notice and direct submission to Alibaba.
June 2026 — Additional communications concerning enforcement and preparation for potential litigation.
July 17, 2026 — My attorney sent a formal demand to Alibaba in another attempt to resolve the dispute without filing a federal lawsuit. It had been 17 months of demands mostly ignored.
July 28, 2026 — With the dispute unresolved, counsel followed up regarding the deadline for resolution and potential litigation.
August 2026 — Additional evidence and communications were preserved as we prepared for litigation.
September 1, 2026 — After approximately 18 months of notices, takedown attempts, follow-ups, administrative proceedings, direct communications and attorney involvement, I filed my federal lawsuit.
But I didn't just collect evidence of the infringement, I also investigated exactly what was happening with my images of minor children being used to sell products that aren't on the marketplace.
I Purchased Some of the Products Being Sold
During this process, I also wanted to understand what consumers were actually receiving from listings that used photographs of original handmade couture garments worn by minor children that I had photographed for the designers of those dresses.
So I purchased some of the dresses.
What arrived was not the original handmade couture garment depicted in my photograph. I received substantially different reproductions of the original designer creations.
That added another dimension to my concerns.
From my perspective, my photographs were not simply being displayed online without authorization. They were being used to market physical products that, based on my own purchases, did not match the original designer garments depicted in those photographs.
I preserved the products I received, the corresponding listings, photographs, purchase records and related documentation.
Whether particular products legally constitute counterfeit goods or violate the intellectual-property rights of the designers is a separate determination. What I can establish from my own experience is what was pictured, what I ordered and what actually arrived.
My Experience Did Not Occur in a Vacuum
As I continued researching the enforcement issues I was encountering, I learned that intellectual-property concerns involving Alibaba-associated marketplaces had previously been documented by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
USTR publishes its annual Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, which identifies online and physical markets reported to engage in or facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy.
In its 2021 review, USTR added AliExpress to the Notorious Markets List for the first time. USTR described AliExpress as a significant China-based online market reported to facilitate substantial trademark counterfeiting.
AliExpress continued to appear in the 2022 review.
The history involving Alibaba-associated marketplaces extends further. USTR records show that Alibaba.com and Taobao had previously been identified by the U.S. government in connection with concerns involving counterfeit and pirated goods.
More recently, Alibaba's Taobao marketplace has continued to appear in USTR's Notorious Markets reviews.
The 2025 Notorious Markets List, released in March 2026, is particularly relevant to the type of enforcement concerns I encountered.
In discussing Taobao, USTR reported continuing concerns from some rightsholders regarding the transparency of notice-and-takedown procedures and the amount of information required to support takedown requests, particularly for copyright holders.
That caught my attention because my own lawsuit raises issues concerning the process I encountered while attempting to enforce my copyrights.
To be clear, USTR's reports do not prove the allegations in my lawsuit. USTR itself expressly cautions that inclusion in the Notorious Markets List does not constitute a finding of a violation of law.
Nor am I suggesting that a USTR report concerning Taobao establishes what occurred on AliExpress in my case.
It does, however, provide relevant context: other intellectual-property owners have reported concerns to the U.S. government regarding enforcement and takedown procedures on an Alibaba-operated marketplace.
The Enforcement Process Became Part of My Dispute
One aspect of my experience that became increasingly significant was Alibaba's Intellectual Property Protection, or IPP, process.
As described in my complaint, I allege that I encountered requirements beyond simply identifying my copyrighted work, identifying the allegedly infringing material and providing the information ordinarily associated with a copyright notice.
The complaint describes requirements involving identification, business and ownership documentation, and additional supporting materials, as well as instances in which further information or resubmission was required.
I also documented situations in which material I had reported remained accessible while the matter moved through the platform's internal process.
And even after getting through the grueling process that I feel intentionally creates barriers to IP holders asserting their rights, my images remained.
At times, the experience became particularly frustrating because I was being required to establish my own identity and ownership of photographs I created while attempting to report what I believed was unauthorized commercial use of those same photographs.
The legal significance of those procedures, including their relationship to protections available to online service providers under the DMCA, is now for the court to determine.
Why the Advertising Matters
Online marketplaces frequently involve products and content uploaded by independent third-party sellers.
My allegations go beyond that scenario.
My lawsuit alleges that my copyrighted photographs were also used in advertising associated with Alibaba/AliExpress and distributed through advertising technology companies.
I documented what I believed to be unauthorized uses not only on marketplace listings, but also in advertisements and promotional placements intended to direct consumers toward products.
That distinction is one of the issues I am asking the court to examine.
Copyright Is How Creators Control Their Work
For an independent artist or photographer, copyright is not an abstract legal concept.
My photographs are part of my livelihood.
I create the concepts. I photograph them. I edit them. I register them. And I decide whether another business may use them commercially.
A photograph becoming easy to copy does not make it free to use.
Nor should the size of the company on the other side determine whether an independent creator can enforce those rights.
When I discovered what I believed was unauthorized commercial use of my work, I tried repeatedly to resolve it outside federal court.
I sent notices. I supplied evidence. I followed up. I used the available reporting systems. I pursued the Copyright Claims Board process. I continued documenting what happened after notice.
And eventually, I hired an attorney and tried again.
What Happens Now
On September 1, 2026, I filed Mapes v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07466, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit seeks relief under federal copyright law. My complaint includes allegations concerning copyright infringement, secondary copyright liability and conduct following notice of alleged infringement.
Those remain allegations for the purpose of this educational blog.
Alibaba will have the opportunity to respond. Filing a complaint does not establish liability, and ultimately the court or a jury will determine disputed issues that are not otherwise resolved.
Because litigation is now pending, I will not publicly disclose litigation strategy, privileged attorney communications, confidential settlement discussions or evidence that should first be presented through the judicial process.
But the existence of the lawsuit, the public records surrounding it, and my own experience leading up to filing it are matters I can discuss.
Mapes v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al. Case No. 1:26-cv-07466United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Filed September 1, 2026
For approximately 18 months, I tried to resolve this without filing a federal lawsuit.
The lawsuit wasn't where I started, but it's where those efforts ultimately led.
Stay tuned for updates.
