Mapes Vs Meta PlatForms: A photographers Copyright INfringement lawsuit against The Facebook GIant

When Copyright Law Meets Facebook’s Editing Economy

For years, my work has circulated online the way many artists’ work does: shared, admired, and unfortunately, taken. What followed was not a single infringement or a misunderstanding, but a sustained pattern of exploitation over the course of years, ignored notices, and platform indifference that ultimately forced legal action.

This lawsuit did not happen quickly. It came after years of effort, documentation, and repeated attempts to resolve the issues without court involvement.

This post explains what happened, broken into three parts:

1. The Facebook editing groups with more than 700,000 combined members

2. The separate, targeted infringement by Angelic Ice Photography

3. Where the lawsuit stands now

4. 
   

Part One: Facebook Editing Groups and Mass Infringement at Scale

The first issue involves a network of Facebook “photo editing” groups, some with memberships in the hundreds of thousands. Collectively, the groups identified in the lawsuit exceed 700,000 members.

These groups were not passive communities. They were structured to:

• solicit photographs from users,

• redistribute copyrighted images,

• create, edit into, and sell/redistribute copies and derivative works, and

• compete directly with professional photographers and editors

  
  

My registered photographs were repeatedly posted in these groups as templates. They were edited, redistributed, and offered as finished products without permission.

Watermarks and copyright identifiers were often removed. In many cases, after I reported an infringement, I was blocked from the group, allowing the infringement to continue out of view.

Over several years, I submitted thousands of infringement reports to Meta Platforms, Inc. through its Facebook platform. Between 2021 and 2024 alone, approximately 3,372 infringing URLs were reported.

I followed the DMCA process precisely:

• identifying specific URLs,

• providing links,

• proving ownership, and

• explaining repeat infringement patterns

• And as the years dragged on and my image templates took a nosedive after mass redistribution, I began adding notices to my DMCA that these were repeat infringers, that Meta had knowledge and took no action, I named the groups and how they had uploaded my same images over and over for years causing harm.

  
  

Despite this, Facebook routinely failed to remove infringing content, left repeat infringers active, and continued to allow the same groups to operate.

In March 2025, after submitting 17 DMCA reports in a single day, my ability to file further reports was blocked, with warnings that my account could be disabled if I continued.

At that point, I escalated to email and certified mail. Even then, responses were evasive, contradictory, or redirected me back to a broken reporting system. Meanwhile, infringing content remained live.

Part Two: Tanisha Lloyd of Angelic Ice Photography and 343 Documented Uses

The second issue is distinct and more targeted.

Angelic Ice Photography owner Tanisha Lloyd from South Africa downloaded my images, removed my copyright information, replaced my logo with her own, and used my work to advertise their services. This included images depicting minor children.

This happened over the course of eight years before I found out. The likely reason she was able to do so for so long was because she restricted US view of her page so she could operate with location specific rules implemented by Facebook, to block me and my US colleagues and friends from seeing her infringement of my work.

In total, 343 separate infringements tied to Angelic Ice Photography were documented and reported. These were not accidental or isolated uses. The images were:

• altered,

• reposted as original work,

• used to market sessions and edits, and

• published to business pages with tens of thousands of followers.

  
  

Despite hundreds of reports and clear evidence, Angelic Ice Photography and Tanisha Lloyd still maintains Facebook accounts. The infringing conduct continued long after notice.

This pattern also included the removal of copyright management information, a separate violation under federal law.

Part Three: Why This Became a Lawsuit and Where It Stands

This lawsuit exists because Meta refused to take appropriate action. It refused in many cases to respond to me at all. For years. In other cases, it rejected my valid DMCA notices outright without response.

I did not rush to court. I documented. I reported. I followed the rules. I gave platforms and infringers every opportunity to stop.

Instead, I encountered:

• repeat infringers left untouched,

• enforcement tools disabled against me,

• contradictory responses from the platform,

• continued monetization of infringing groups, and

• ongoing harm to my business.

The case now pending in federal court alleges:

• direct copyright infringement,

• removal of copyright management information, and

• contributory and vicarious infringement by Meta for knowingly allowing mass infringement to continue.

The goal is not just damages. It is accountability, injunctive relief, and enforcement of the very copyright protections creators are told to rely on.

There is more than just black and white infringement here. It's the rotting of a business facilitated by big names who choose to not take action.

Big companies who think the little guy can't and won't take action to stop the bleeding.

If you have had your work infringed and have faced filing DMCA after DMCA, you know the toll it takes on you: time and mental health combined.

It's stressful to have valid legal notices ignored.

It's stressful to have a company tell you that your work is not your own and block you from responding.

It's stressful to allocate hours each day to filing notices that these companies are required to follow, and choose not to.

It's worse to watch your business suffer as your work is redistributed to hundreds of thousands of people for free and to get not so much as a shrug from the platforms who facilitate it.

Not only that, if you have taken federal legal action against an infringer, you know how time consuming, costly and mentally draining it is.

Copyright law is written in favor of the creator, but actual justice favors those who have the money and the mental health to deal with it.

I want that to change. Artists should not have to become litigators just to stop theft. But when platforms profit from inaction, and infringers learn that ignoring creators has no consequence, lawsuits become the only remaining option.

This case is about drawing that line.

After years of begging, crying, and losing so much, I filed my federal lawsuit against Meta, the editing groups and Angelic Ice Photography. The case is Mapes v. John Does 1-9, Meta Platforms, Angelic Ice Photography Case No. 1:25-cv-01574, filed on August 7, 2025 in the Southern District of Indiana. The John Does 1-9 represent nine editing groups that partook in the years-long infringement of my work because the owners and operators of the groups are not known officially, so they are John Does until discovery.

Meta is named for its role, and then Angelic Ice and Tanisha Lloyd are named as well.

The case is in pre-discovery as we serve via an international process to Tanisha Lloyd. Meta has been served.

Stay tuned for updates in this case here. For journalists, reach out to legal@taramapes.com for additional details.

Meta Platforms Infringement Lawsuit Mapes Vs. Meta Platforms

Press Release Copy:

Tara Mapes has filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ: META) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging systemic, willful copyright violations across Meta’s platforms.

The lawsuit, Mapes v. John Does 1-9, Case No. 1:25-cv-01574, filed on August 7, 2025, asserts that Meta failed to address more than 3,300 documented instances of infringement between 2021 and 2025, despite repeated DMCA notices. The complaint further alleges that large Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members repeatedly used Mapes’ work without authorization redistributing it, selling it outright, or using it to promote paid services all while Meta ignored takedown requests and or failed to take action against repeat infringers.

According to the complaint, Meta also blocked Mapes’ access to reporting tools, refused to disable repeat infringer accounts, and profited from the widespread infringement through increased engagement and advertising revenue.

“Artists should not have to fight one of the largest technology companies in the world simply to protect their work,” said Mapes. “Meta has received thousands of infringement reports, stripped me of reporting access, and allowed repeat offenders with massive groups with hundreds of thousands of members to continue exploiting my work for profit. This lawsuit is about accountability and protecting the rights of creators.”

Key Allegations in Meta Platforms Infringement Lawsuit

• Over 3,300 instances of copyright infringement submitted to Meta Platforms from 2021–2025.

• Large repeat infringer groups with hundreds of thousands of members redistributed Mapes’ work, sold it without authorization, and/or used it commercially to sell services.

• Meta disabled the plaintiff’s DMCA reporting access, preventing further enforcement.

• Repeat infringer accounts and groups were left active despite clear violations of Meta’s own policies.

• Meta profited from infringement through engagement metrics and ad revenue.

• One defendant and Meta user Tanisha Lloyd with Angelic Ice Photography infringed a documented 343 times on Mapes' work and Facebook did not disable her account for repeated violations.

Relief Sought

The meta platforms infringement lawsuit complaint seeks:

• Statutory damages for each infringed work under 17 U.S.C. § 504 which could reach in the multi-millions.

• Injunctive relief requiring Meta to comply with its obligations under the DMCA and remove infringing content.

• Attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

Case Information

• Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana

• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01574

• Filed: August 7, 2025

• Plaintiff: Tara Mapes

• Defendants: Meta Platforms, Inc., Angelic Ice Photography, John Does 1-9, Tanisha Lloyd

• Judges: Hon. James Russell Sweeney II, Hon. Mark J. Dinsmore

• Plaintiff Counsel: Revision Legal, PLLC

• Case Type: Intellectual Property – Copyright (820)