"Not 'Free Material When It Goes Viral' ― Why an AI Company Turning Popular Memes into Ads Was Sued"

Images frequently seen on the internet can start to feel like "something anyone can use freely" without realizing it.

People replace words on the image and use it in conversations with friends or in social media posts. They save it without knowing the original creator and send it to someone else. Through this chain of replication and modification, a single image transforms from a mere work into a shared language known as a "meme."

But what happens when companies start selling that shared language as an advertising product?

The creator of a popular meme has sued a company operating an AI-based advertising production service for copyright infringement. This dispute goes beyond a single comic's usage rights. It is becoming a case that questions the differences between personal jokes and corporate advertising, the ownership of widely shared works on the internet, and the responsibilities of AI platforms handling large volumes of content.

A popular meme became "material for paid advertisements"

The lawsuit was filed by Elmer Saflor, a digital artist based in the Philippines, who operates online under the name "Superelmer."

The issue revolves around a two-panel comic commonly known as "Running Away Balloon."

In the first panel, a person reaches out with a smile towards a yellow balloon. In the next panel, a large pink figure behind them holds them back, and the person's expression shows sweat and anxiety. In the original work, the balloon represented "opportunity," and the figure holding them back symbolized "shyness."

The scenario of wanting to reach for something but being hindered by other emotions or circumstances is relatable to many, leading to a surge of derivative images around 2017.

People changed the words on the balloon to "sleep," "healthy lifestyle," "work-life balance," etc., and assigned different troubles to the figure holding them back. The simple structure allowed for application in various situations like school, work, relationships, and hobbies.

Saflor has sued Memes Apps, the company said to operate services like Memes.ai and Memes AI Studio.

According to the complaint, the company's service offered a feature to select existing meme images and generate advertising creatives tailored to a company's products or website. Saflor's comic was reportedly displayed with its title as one of these templates.

He claims he never granted permission for this use or provided a commercial license.

The crucial point here is that this is not just about users posting memes on social media. The service in question was marketed as an ad generation tool for brands, ad agencies, and marketers, offering commercially usable images to subscribers paying a monthly fee.

The complaint explains that there were plans ranging from $40 to $199 per month, allowing the generation of 100 to 1,000 meme ads monthly, depending on the contract. It also included features like video generation and automatic ad scheduling.

In other words, this is not about posting an image found online just once. It is about incorporating someone else's work as material for a service and turning it into a repeatable advertising production system.

"Widely used work" and "work that has lost its rights" are not the same

The difficulty of copyright issues surrounding memes lies in the fact that the more a work is spread, the less visible the creator becomes.

Seeing an image used by many, users tend to think, "It must already be a freely usable image." However, the fame of a work and the expiration of its copyright are separate issues.

Copyright typically arises at the time a work is created. Just because it is repeatedly shared online does not automatically make it public domain.

On the other hand, if all meme posts were regulated by the same standards, the current internet culture would not survive. Much of meme culture is created through the citation and reuse of existing works, such as posts that modify parts of an image, GIFs using scenes from movies or TV shows, and jokes adding words to news photos.

One concept that helps reconcile this contradiction is fair use under U.S. copyright law.

Is the use for criticism, commentary, education, reporting, or parody? Does it add new meaning or purpose to the original work? To what extent was it used? Does it harm the market for the author to sell or license the work? These and other factors are considered in the judgment.

Therefore, it cannot be uniformly decided that "it's legal because it's a meme" or "it's okay because I changed the text a little."

Especially when used for advertising or promotion, it tends to be evaluated more strictly than non-commercial personal posts. If a company uses someone else's work to attract attention, sell products, and earn advertising fees, it is difficult to justify it with the explanation that "it was popular online."

Past rulings have shown the difference between "advertising and memes"

A past court case involving the famous meme known as "Success Kid" provides a reference for considering this lawsuit.

Success Kid originated from a photo of a young child clutching sand with a determined expression. It has been officially licensed for corporate advertising, among other uses.

The campaign of former U.S. Congressman Steve King used this photo in a political fundraising post. The rights holder had not granted permission, and the court recognized it as copyright infringement.

The appeals court also did not recognize the campaign's use as fair use. The court pointed out that even though memes are posted millions or billions of times worldwide, "just because others are doing it" is not a sufficient reason. Furthermore, it determined that while most general meme posts are non-commercial, the post in question had a commercial purpose of soliciting donations.

From this precedent, one can discern a way of distinguishing between personal use on social media as a joke and use for advertising or fundraising.

In the lawsuit over Running Away Balloon, this distinction may also become significant.

The act of a general user editing an image and posting it to amuse friends differs in purpose and scale from a corporate service registering an image in advance and offering it as part of an ad creation function, even if they look similar.

The former is closer to personal expression or conversation. The latter is part of a business model that generates revenue by utilizing someone else's work.

The real issue is not just "whether AI created it"

While this event is reported as a lawsuit involving an AI company, reducing the issue to a simple "AI vs. artist" framework risks missing the essence.

The core of the lawsuit is not the suspicion that AI generated a drawing similar to the author's from scratch. It is the claim that the existing comic itself, or a very similar image, was displayed as a selectable template for creating ads.

Even if a human designer had registered the same image in an ad template collection without permission, a similar copyright issue would arise.

Nonetheless, AI is significant because it rapidly expands the scale of use.

In traditional ad production, the person in charge would need to find images, think of text, adjust designs, and format the post. With AI services, entering a product's URL or description can generate numerous ad ideas in a short time.

If a single unauthorized material is incorporated into the system, it could lead to the creation of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of ads using it. Moreover, if generation, scheduled posting, and performance measurement are automated, content with potential infringement might spread without sufficient human review.

AI did not invent copyright issues. However, it has accelerated unauthorized use, made it repeatable, and easier to expand as a business.

This "scale issue" is the challenge that platforms in the AI era must face.

The company providing the template, not the advertisers, was sued

Another notable point in this lawsuit is that Saflor sued the company operating the ad generation service, not individual advertisers.

In traditional meme lawsuits, companies or political groups using images in ads often became direct defendants. This time, the responsibility of the platform providing the materials and generation functions before users create ads is being questioned.

The complaint alleges that the service operator registered the work as a template, allowed users to search and select it, and permitted commercial use.

Whether the service merely provided a place to store user posts or actively encouraged use and sold it as an advertising product makes a big difference.

On social media and posting sites, users sometimes upload images without permission. The operating company may receive limited liability if it responds appropriately to takedown notices from rights holders.

However, if the company itself selected the material and offered it as "you can create ads with this template," it is hard to claim it was merely a neutral storage place.

On the other hand, it is not an easy case for the plaintiff either.

As of the time of reporting, it is unclear how many companies actually used the problematic template and to what extent ads were created. Saflor reportedly aims to confirm usage and profits through the discovery process in court.

Proving that the work was displayed on the service and how much profit it generated are separate issues. In a subscription service, it is also challenging to calculate what portion of the usage fee is revenue from a specific template.

Attention will be paid to how the court judges not only the presence of infringement but also the scope of damages and profits.

On social media, "support for the creator" and "concerns about meme culture" clash

 

Opinions are divided on social media and online forums regarding this lawsuit.

In Reddit's AI-related community, voices supporting Saflor were posted, stating, "Providing someone else's work as material for paid advertisements is different from individuals playing with memes" and "It's natural for profit-earning companies to seek permission from the creator."

There were also reactions criticizing the corporate stance of consuming artists' works as cheap advertising materials, calling AI-generated products low-quality "AI slop." For these users, the issue is not the technical novelty of AI but the attitude of monetizing on a large scale without paying creators.

On the other hand, there were concerns that "if this lawsuit is widely recognized, existing meme generation sites and GIF search services might also be held accountable."

Since most memes are based on some copyrighted work, strictly applying copyright could potentially erase everyday online expressions.

There were also posts questioning the criteria for exercising rights, such as "Why sue only a specific service when the creator has welcomed sharing by many people until now?" and "What's the difference between use by SNS or video channels earning ad revenue?"

In response, counterarguments were made, stating, "Suing individual users who shared the work is not the same as suing a company selling it as an advertising product" and "Copyright holders do not lose their rights if they do not sue all users simultaneously."

Additionally, there was a remark that "this is not an AI issue but a long-standing problem of unauthorized commercial use."

This perspective is persuasive. Regardless of whether AI is used, incorporating someone else's work into an advertising product without permission can lead to copyright issues. However, the fact that AI enables mass generation and automatic distribution, potentially expanding damage and impact, cannot be ignored.

These are opinions confirmed in specific public threads and do not represent a survey of the general public. Nonetheless, it can be read that this issue includes multiple points of contention, such as commercial use, fair use, and platform responsibility, rather than a simple "pro-AI vs. anti-AI" debate.

Advertisers also need an attitude of not assuming "it's safe because it was generated"

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, the lesson for companies and advertisers is clear.

Even if AI tools explain that "commercial use is possible" and "users have the rights to the generated products," it does not necessarily mean that the rights processing of input materials or templates is complete.

The right to use generated products and the right to use third-party copyrighted material included in those products are separate.

For example, even if an ad creation service states in its terms of use that "the images created can be used freely," if there are issues with the licenses of the underlying photos, illustrations, characters, fonts, or music, advertisers may also be drawn into trouble.

Especially with memes, it is difficult to identify the creator or origin.

Who took the original photo? Is it footage from a TV show? Is it an individual's comic? Does a corporate license already exist? Just because it is freely spread does not mean commercial use is permitted.

When companies introduce AI advertising tools, they need to at least verify the source of materials, the scope of licenses, compensation if rights infringement is discovered, and how to respond to takedown requests.

Service providers are also required to verify template rights, compensate authors, store usage history, and ensure prompt takedown procedures.

Even if AI shortens the time for ad production, it does not automatically erase the responsibility for rights verification.

Memes are a shared culture but also someone's work

The charm of memes lies in the ability for many people to freely interpret a single image and add different meanings to it.

Uses that the creator never imagined emerge, and they are shared across countries and languages. Sometimes the derivative version becomes more famous than the original work, serving as a common language in people's conversations.

This is why applying copyright logic directly to meme culture is challenging.

However, being a shared culture does not mean companies can commercialize it without permission.

Posts to amuse friends, parodies critiquing society, posts selling products with advertising budgets, and services offering templates on a subscription basis. Even if they look like the same meme, the purpose, scale, profit, and impact on the creator differ.

The lawsuit at hand is not posing a simple question of "is it okay to let AI create memes."

Whose work is being used? Who profits from it? Does the creator know about its use? Did the service verify the rights? And how do we stop commercial exploitation while preserving free expression online?

AI may have merely expanded the contradictions of meme culture, which have been ambiguously managed until now, into a visible form.

From an era of laughing and sharing a single image to an era where AI converts it into thousands of ads. Now that memes have become both cultural and economic assets, it is time for creators, platforms, advertisers, and users