Daily Mail Could Face Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit for Repeatedly Using Social Media Photos Without Paying Creators

The Daily Mail is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in the United States over allegations that it routinely used photographs taken from social media without obtaining permission or paying their creators.

Filed in New York, the complaint alleges that the publisher's practice of republishing images with credit only to platforms such as Instagram could expose it to more than £7.3 million ($10 million) in potential liability each year if the claims are upheld.

The lawsuit was brought by photographer Matthew Moore, who alleges one of his copyrighted photographs was republished by the Daily Mail after it appeared on Instagram. Moore is seeking to represent other US-based creators who claim their images were similarly used during the past three years.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the Daily Mail had not responded publicly to the claims at the time of publication.

'Systematic' Use Of Social Media Images

According to the legal complaint, the publisher engaged in what it describes as a 'systematic' practice of copying photographs from users' social media accounts while attributing the images only to the platform where they appeared, rather than to the individual photographer who owns the copyright.

The lawsuit argues this was not an isolated mistake but an established business practice that allowed the Daily Mail to publish images without paying licensing fees typically required when using copyrighted photographs.

Lawyers representing Moore said they reviewed nine days' worth of Daily Mail articles published in June and identified 107 stories containing at least one photograph allegedly taken from social media with a copyright credit attributed only to the platform, such as Instagram.

Based on statutory damages available under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the complaint estimates that alleged infringements at that rate could expose the publisher to liability exceeding £7.3 million ($10 million) annually. That figure represents the plaintiffs' calculation rather than an amount awarded by any court.

The complaint also alleges the publication's attribution practices make it more difficult for photographers to discover when their work has been used because the images are credited to social media platforms instead of the copyright holders themselves.

Photographer's Image Sits At Centre Of Copyright Claim

Moore's case uses a photograph he took of actress Annie Sertich.

According to the complaint, he provided Sertich with a copy of the image while retaining the copyright. After Sertich later shared the photograph on Instagram, the Daily Mail allegedly copied the image for a story about the VHS Dates video series, which features the actress.

The lawsuit claims the publication did not embed the Instagram post or use a screenshot but instead copied the photograph directly into its own content management system while listing only Instagram as the copyright credit.

The filing argues that many photographers never pursue legal action because US copyright law often requires works to have been registered before infringement, or within specific time limits after publication, to qualify for certain damages.

Moore's proposed class action therefore seeks to represent both photographers with registered copyrights and creators whose claims relate to alleged violations involving copyright management information.

The complaint further argues that while the Daily Mail regularly licenses photographs from wire services and commercial picture agencies, it allegedly follows a different approach when images originate from individuals' social media accounts.

It also points to previous copyright disputes involving the publisher, including a legal action brought by celebrity photo agency Mavrix Photo in 2010 over alleged unauthorised use of images. That dispute was ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement, according to the complaint.

Exploring the Legality of Social Media Photos

It's worth noting that just because a photograph is publicly visible on social media does not mean anyone else can legally copy and republish it. Under US copyright law, the photographer owns the copyright the moment the image is created, and posting it on platforms such as Instagram or Facebook does not transfer that ownership to the public.

That rule also applies to celebrity selfies. If a celebrity takes and posts their own selfie, they generally own the copyright, meaning publishers still need permission or a valid legal defence, such as fair use, before republishing it. If someone else took the photograph, such as a paparazzi photographer, that photographer usually owns the copyright instead.

News organisations, businesses and other users therefore generally need permission or a licence to download and republish social media images unless an exception applies or they use the platform's official embedding tools where permitted. Importantly, crediting the platform, such as writing '© Instagram', does not replace the need to credit or obtain permission from the copyright holder.

That distinction sits at the centre of the proposed lawsuit against the Daily Mail, which alleges the publisher copied images from social media while attributing them only to the platform rather than to the photographers who owned the copyrights.