Taboola Sued by Photographer for Infringement

When an Ad Network Becomes the Infringer : My infringement case against Taboola

The Taboola Lawsuit, the Paper Trail, and Why This Case Matters

When Notice Isn’t Enough

What Actually Happened (Short Version, Still Serious)

Beginning in April 2025, I discovered my copyrighted images appearing in Taboola-served ads without permission.

I sent:

• Multiple DMCA-compliant notices

• Certified demand letters

• Follow-up documentation

• Screenshots, URLs, source identifiers, and proof of registration

We aren't talking about 1-2 images. We are talking about multiple multiple images of minor children used in this ad network:

The images with the girls in dresses are mine. And Taboola received DMCA take downs for each one.

Now you might be asking why did I notify Taboola and not the company they were advertising for?

I did. The company advertising is Alibaba/AliExpress.

A Chinese held company who has a long history of infringement and not processing notices.

This is the precise reason the DMCA outlines how to get a hosting provider to remove the images: because the original infringer does not always respond. And....Taboola wasn't passively advertising. They were profiting from the use of my images, too.

• 

  

  

  

  

So as my emails were ignored, I continued to email, make legal threats, send certified mail.

Finally, after serving their registered agent, they responded.

But my work was not removed.

I filed a CCB case against them for infringement.

The CCB Filing: The Infringement Case against Taboola (How We Got Here)

Before filing in federal court, I initiated a proceeding with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) after repeated takedown efforts failed.

• CCB Case Number: 25-CCB-0192

• Purpose: Efficient resolution after persistent infringement and ignored DMCA notices

• Outcome: Taboola opted out of the CCB proceeding

• 
  

That opt-out is critical. It meant the matter could no longer be resolved administratively and required escalation to federal court.

The CCB filing now serves as procedural history and evidence of notice, not the controlling case.

So what did I do? I hired an attorney.

We filed a federal lawsuit.

I Federal Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Taboola

As you can see, for a long time, I tried to resolve this without court involvement. I followed the rules. I documented everything. I gave notice, then notice again, then formal notice.

What happened next is why this is no longer just a DMCA story.

The Federal Case (This Is the One That Matters Now)

MAPES v. TABOOLA, INC. United States District Court Case No. 1:26-cv-00234

Plaintiff: Tara MapesDefendant: Taboola, Inc.

This federal action alleges direct, contributory, vicarious, and willful copyright infringement, as well as DMCA violations, false designation of origin, false endorsement, and unfair competition arising from Taboola’s continued distribution and monetization of advertisements using my registered photographic works.

The federal case follows months of documented infringement and a failed attempt to resolve the dispute through the Copyright Claims Board.

What Was Being Infringed

The ads at issue incorporated multiple federally registered photographic works, of minor children. These images were used in commercial advertisements, often promoting counterfeit or unauthorized goods offered through AliExpress and affiliated sellers, and were served across major publisher websites via Taboola’s ad network.

Repeat Infringement and Monetization

The evidence shows:

• The same advertiser (or affiliated advertisers under a common umbrella) repeatedly submitted the same images

• Taboola knew this advertiser was a repeat infringer

• Taboola did not terminate or meaningfully restrict that advertiser

• Taboola continued to ingest, store, distribute, and monetize the ads

This is not passive hosting. It is active ad delivery tied directly to revenue.

Why the DMCA Safe Harbor Is Being Challenged

The federal lawsuit alleges that Taboola forfeited any DMCA safe harbor by:

• Failing to act expeditiously after knowledge

• Continuing to profit from infringing content

• Failing to reasonably implement a repeat-infringer policy

• Exercising control over ad ingestion, storage, and delivery while monetizing every impression

Safe harbor is conditional. The complaint explains why those conditions were not met.

Where the Case Stands Now

• Federal case filed: Case No. 1:26-cv-00234

• CCB: Closed due to Taboola’s opt-out, now part of the evidentiary record

• Claims include:

  • Direct and willful copyright infringement

  • Contributory and vicarious infringement

  • DMCA §512(i) violations

  • False designation of origin and false endorsement

  • Unfair competition

Injunctions, statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees are all being sought.

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Photographer

This lawsuit is about whether large ad-tech platforms can:

• Ignore repeated copyright notices

• Keep infringing creatives live in their systems

• Profit from every impression

• Then claim they’re just intermediaries

  
  

If that model stands, creators bear all the risk while platforms collect all the revenue.

This case asks a different question:

What happens when an ad network knows, controls, and profits anyway?

That question is now before a federal court.

More to come.