Eight Years of Copyright Infringement, an International Dead End, and Why My Case Against Meta Is Just Beginning

Tara Mapes

Sep 2

8 min read

Disclaimer: As usual, I am not an attorney or intellectual property professional. This article reflects my personal experiences and opinions as a photographer, artist, and small business owner whose copyrighted work has been infringed multiple times. Nothing here is legal advice.

In 2025, I filed a federal copyright lawsuit involving Meta Platforms, its Facebook Editing Groups as well as South African photographer Tanisha Lloyd, who operates Angelic Ice Photography.

My attorneys filed in Indiana, where I reside, but the courts are forcing me to file where Meta is--isn't that funny? Small plaintiffs need to spend more money to make things more convenient for the big defendants?

The court did not decide whether Meta infringed my copyrights or rule on the merits of those claims.

And the story isn't over.

I am now working with a new law firm to refile the case against Meta in the proper venue.

Tanisha Lloyd and Angelic Ice Photography, however, will not be joining us this time.

And the reason why illustrates an entirely different problem creators face when copyright infringement crosses international borders.

First let's start with the foundation:

My dispute with Facebook did not arise from a single unauthorized use of one photograph. It developed after repeated infringement of my work, repeated reports to Facebook, and my growing concern that accounts, pages, and groups associated with repeat infringement were being allowed to remain on the platform.

The Facebook Editing Groups

A significant part of the dispute involves multiple Facebook editing groups where photographers' images were shared with members for downloading, editing, and reposting.

Collectively, the groups I identified had more than 700,000 members.

My photographs appeared within these groups without my authorization. But my reports to Facebook were not limited to asking the company to remove individual copies of my work.

I specifically raised the issue of repeat infringement.

In my communications, I told Facebook that some of the same individuals and groups had been involved in infringement year after year. I pointed out that despite repeated copyright complaints, the groups remained active and the individuals involved continued to maintain Facebook accounts.

In some instances, members even publicly bragged about how many copyright strikes they had received.

I reported these circumstances to Facebook because I believed removing individual posts while leaving the same accounts and groups intact did not address the underlying problem. Content could be removed, yet the communities and users responsible for distributing photographers' work remained in place.

343 Infringements Reported Against Angelic Ice Photography Alone

The situation involving Tanisha Lloyd and Angelic Ice Photography was even more concentrated.

I submitted copyright infringement reports to Facebook identifying 343 separate infringements involving my photographs and Angelic Ice Photography.

Despite those reports, the Angelic Ice Photography Facebook page remained active.

For me, 343 separate reported infringements moved the issue far beyond an occasional mistake or isolated copyright complaint. I had identified the material and reported the individual infringements to Facebook, yet the page itself remained.

What I Told Facebook

My communications with Facebook documented more than the location of individual photographs.

I repeatedly raised concerns about repeat infringers. I told Facebook that the infringement had continued over multiple years. I identified groups where the conduct was occurring. I reported that the same users remained on the platform despite prior copyright complaints. I pointed Facebook to users discussing or bragging about receiving multiple copyright strikes.

And in the case of Angelic Ice Photography, I ultimately submitted 343 separate infringement reports.

In other words, my communications were not simply requests to remove URLs. I was expressly asking Facebook to address what I believed was an ongoing repeat-infringer problem.

Now, onto the last year:

I filed a federal lawsuit against Meta in the Southern District of Indiana. Ultimately, the courts decided I should pick a different state, but during the course of that lawsuit, I had several issues with Tanisha Lloyd with Angelic Ice in South Africa as well.

What Angelic Ice Photography Did

This wasn't a case involving someone accidentally sharing one of my photographs.

In addition to the Facebook editing groups, the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will was the egregious infringement of my work by Angelic Ice Photography. According to the evidence I documented, Tanisha Lloyd with Angelic Ice Photography used my copyrighted photographs repeatedly over a period spanning approximately eight years.

I ultimately documented approximately 343 uses of my work.

My photographs weren't simply shared with my name attached.

I documented images where my copyright information and branding had been removed or obscured and where Angelic Ice Photography's own branding was placed on or alongside my work. She pretended she took my photos and then used them to market sessions.

My photographs were then used in connection with the promotion of another photographer's business.

These included photographs I had created of minor children.

A photographer's portfolio is our storefront.

It's how potential clients decide whether to hire us.

Using another photographer's work in that context doesn't merely take an image.

In my opinion, it takes the commercial reputation, skill, creative decisions and years of work represented by that image.

Trying to Enforce My Rights in South Africa

Before the federal lawsuit, I attempted to pursue the matter directly in South Africa with the assistance of an attorney there.

My experience was incredibly frustrating. South Africa's entire legal system SUCKS. They place no urgency on anything and have very little experience with infringement.

So I decided to sue her in the US instead, along with Meta.

Eventually, when Lloyd was named in the U.S. federal lawsuit, we faced another obstacle:

We had to serve her internationally.

Serving someone in another country isn't necessarily as simple as hiring a process server and knocking on a door.

Although my attorney was there...at her place of employment. But it takes more than that.

South Africa and the United States are parties to the Hague Service Convention, which provides procedures for serving judicial documents internationally.

In theory, there is a system.

My experience with that system was another matter entirely.

Months of Waiting

The process moved extraordinarily slowly.

At one point, our documents apparently sat within the South African postal system for approximately four months without being processed.

Eventually, a sheriff became involved in attempting service.

The rules communicated by the legal system changed. First we were able to serve her by sheriff, then they said they needed it to come a different way, through a months long process.

Then came requests for more money.

And more money.

Continuing the effort was going to require spending thousands of additional dollars, with no guarantee that service would ultimately be accomplished.

After my earlier experience attempting to pursue the matter through counsel in South Africa, it began to feel painfully familiar.

There was always another delay.

Another procedure.

Another expense.

Another obstacle.

And meanwhile, I was the copyright owner supposed to fund it.

The International Enforcement Problem Nobody Talks About

This experience taught me something I don't think creators hear enough about.

Having a legal right and being able to practically enforce that right are two very different things.

Enforcement does not magically become simple because those protections exist.

A creator may have evidence.

They may have registrations.

They may know who infringed their work.

They may even be willing to file a lawsuit.

But first you have to reach the defendant through the legal mechanisms required by the country where that person lives.

And every additional procedural hurdle costs time and money.

Eventually you reach a point where you have to make a business decision.

Why I Dismissed Angelic Ice Photography

Ultimately, continuing to chase international service stopped making financial sense.

Thousands more could be spent attempting service, followed by the cost of actually litigating against someone on another continent, followed by another question:

Even if I won, what would enforcement and collection look like?

South Africa is not a foreign filer friendly country in my opinion. They make things seem not so expensive and then flip the script when you're several hundreds or thousand dollars in. I wasn't going to play the game.

So I made the decision to dismiss Tanisha Lloyd and Angelic Ice Photography from the federal action.

I want to be very clear about what that means.

I did not dismiss her because I decided what happened was acceptable.

I did not suddenly lack evidence.

And a court did not rule that Angelic Ice Photography had permission to use my photographs.

I made a practical decision after the international service process became increasingly expensive and unsuccessful.

Sometimes enforcing your rights means recognizing when the system itself is costing more than continuing the fight against one particular defendant makes sense.

That is an incredibly frustrating lesson for any creator to learn.

Then There Was Meta

Meta presented an entirely different issue.

My original lawsuit alleged that Meta had received repeated notice concerning the use of my copyrighted works on its platforms yet failed to adequately address the continuing infringement over the course of YEARS.

The original complaint also raised allegations concerning the way access to certain infringing material appeared to change after reports were made.

The case against Meta was eventually dismissed because the Indiana federal court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Meta and that I should file in a state where they have a business registration.

That's a procedural ruling and something my legal team argued against.

Because its always the victims who have to do the most....

It is not the same thing as a ruling that Meta did nothing wrong.

The court did not consider the ultimate merits of my copyright claims against Meta.

They just want me to file in a different state. So I am.

So We're Filing Again

This time, things will be different.

I am working with a new law firm, and we intend to file the case against Meta in the proper venue.

That means the next chapter isn't about trying to convince a court that Indiana has jurisdiction over Meta.

It's about putting the underlying dispute before a court that can actually hear it.

And frankly, that's where I wanted this conversation to be all along.

What did Meta know?

When did it know it?

What happened after it received notice?

What records exist concerning my reports?

What happened internally when those reports were made?

What information does Meta retain about the accounts, posts, advertisements and activity involved?

What financial benefit, if any, did Meta receive from leaving my work up?

What, if any, additional implications result from Meta not expeditiously removing my images of minor children?

Those are the kinds of questions litigation and discovery are designed to answer.

What I've Learned From All of This

"Just sue them."

I see that advice constantly.

There is no "just" about suing someone.

You have to identify the proper defendant.

Determine jurisdiction.

Determine venue.

Serve them.

Sometimes serve them internationally.

Pay filing fees.

Pay attorneys.

Preserve evidence.

Respond to motions.

Conduct discovery.

And potentially spend years getting to the question you wanted answered in the first place:

Was my copyright infringed?

The Angelic Ice portion of this experience demonstrated how international procedure can make pursuing an individual infringer economically unrealistic.

The Meta portion taught me something different:

A procedural dismissal doesn't necessarily mean the underlying fight is over.

Sometimes it means you filed in the wrong courtroom.

So you find the right one.

Tara

Mapes