Tenth Circuit Sides With Netflix In Tiger King Copyright Challenge

On April 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Netflix and Royal Goode Productions in Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., rejecting a copyright challenge to the Tiger King documentary series. The decision is a notable post‑Warhol ruling that both applies the Supreme Court’s refined fair‑use framework from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith and squarely rejects the contention that a secondary use must “target” or directly comment on the original copyrighted work to qualify as fair use.

Background

Plaintiff Timothy Sepi worked as a videographer at the Gerald Wayne Interactive Zoological Park (the “Park”) operated by Joseph “Joe Exotic” Maldonado‑Passage. During his employment, Sepi filmed seven videos at the Park. After his employment ended, Sepi filmed an eighth video documenting the funeral of Exotic’s husband (the “Funeral Video”).

In March 2020, Netflix released Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness, a seven‑part documentary series produced by Royal Goode Productions. The series incorporated brief excerpts from each of the eight videos, which the producers understood had been licensed through Exotic or a successor owner of the Park. Following the series’ release, Sepi registered copyrights in the videos and sued Netflix and Royal Goode, alleging ownership of all eight works and claiming that defendants had used the video clips without authorization.

In April 2022, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on two independent grounds. First, it held that the seven employment‑era videos were works made for hire because Sepi created them within the scope of his employment at the Park (i.e., Sepi was not the copyright owner). Second, it concluded that defendants’ limited use of excerpts from the Funeral Video constituted fair use under the Copyright Act.

While the initial appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, refining the analysis of “transformative use” and emphasizing justification and market substitution in fair‑use determinations.

The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in March 2023, and issued a decision in March 2024 affirming the district court’s work‑for‑hire ruling but reversing as to fair use. The panel reasoned that Tiger King did not comment on or “target” Sepi’s Funeral Video itself and therefore did not satisfy the first fair‑use factor.

After defendants—supported by multiple amici—petitioaned for rehearing, the Tenth Circuit vacated its March 2024 opinion and granted panel rehearing in part. The court directed supplemental briefing on three discrete questions concerning the application of prevailing fair‑use principles to documentary uses identified in the preamble to 17 U.S.C. § 107, as well as the impact of Warhol on that analysis. The parties, along with several amici curiae submitted supplemental briefs, and the court heard a second round of oral argument focused on those questions.

Holding

As to the seven videos filmed during Sepi’s employment, the Tenth Circuit again held that plaintiffs did not own the works. The court concluded that plaintiffs had waived any new scope‑of‑employment theory by failing to raise it in the district court and, accordingly, affirmed summary judgment on work‑made‑for‑hire grounds.

With respect to the Funeral Video, the court held that Tiger King’s limited use—at most 66 seconds of a nearly 24‑minute video, appearing in a single episode and interwoven with critical commentary from the decedent’s mother—constituted fair use under all four statutory factors. The Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor as to the Funeral Video.

• Purpose and Character. The Tenth Circuit undertook an extensive analysis of Warhol and related precedent, distilling the first fair‑use factor into several guiding principles: 
  • Whether the secondary use is transformative by virtue of its different purpose or character, and, if so, the degree to which it is transformative.
  • If the secondary use is transformative in this broad sense, then no independent justification is likely to be necessary, and the use will be justified by furthering the goals of copyright. 
  • On the other hand, if a secondary use does not have a sufficiently distinct purpose or character, then the use is likely to require an independent justification—that is, to require justification in a narrower sense. 
  • Finally, the degree of transformativeness is then weighed against the commerciality of the secondary use. If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Applying these principles, the court held that defendants used the Funeral Video excerpt as part of a work serving recognized preamble purposes—advancing a broader narrative that commented on and educated viewers about Joe Exotic and the “big cat world.” Defendants used the excerpt to illustrate Exotic’s purported megalomania, highlight his showmanship, and comment more generally on the culture surrounding big‑cat breeders. That purpose was distinctly different from the Funeral Video’s original purpose as a memorial to Travis Maldonado.

Because the use was significantly transformative and aligned with copyright’s goal of promoting the arts through education and commentary on notable personalities and social phenomena, the court held that defendants were not required to rely on a narrower justification, such as parody or direct targeting of the original work. Given both the transformative character of the use and the insubstantial amount copied, the court found no indication that defendants materially benefited from commercial exploitation of Funeral Video. Commerciality therefore did not weigh meaningfully against fair use.

• Nature of the Work. The court held the Funeral Video was “more factual than creative,” consisting of largely unedited tripod footage, with plaintiffs “not even attempt[ing] to argue that Mr. Sepi exercised creative decision-making when filming this video.” The court further observed that Sepi exercised control over the first public appearance of the Funeral Video by choosing to livestream and post it on YouTube. Because defendants used the clip only after that public release, plaintiffs could not claim interference with any right of first publication.

• Amount and Substantiality. The court characterized the 66‑second excerpt as quantitatively insubstantial and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants had taken the “heart” of the work. Defendants, the court concluded, used no more of the Funeral Video than reasonably necessary to accomplish their transformative, documentary purpose.

• Market Effect. The court held that the fourth factor weighed in defendants’ favor because plaintiffs did not dispute that Tiger King was not a market substitute for the Funeral Video and failed to identify any protectable derivative markets that might be harmed. The court further emphasized that defendants’ use was significantly transformative and that the record contained no evidence of harm to any plausible derivative market.

Takeaways

• Targeting is not mandatory after Warhol. The Tenth Circuit clarified that Warhol’s emphasis on “targeting” applies where the secondary work shares a similar purpose to the original. Where the purpose is materially different, a use may be justified in a broader sense without parody or commentary on the source work itself.

• Fourth fair-use factor requires concrete market harm, not hypothetical licensing claims. Copyright plaintiffs must do more than invoke abstract licensing possibilities; they must identify realistic derivative markets that creators typically exploit or license. Courts may continue to reject circular arguments that equate fair use with market harm simply because a license could have been demanded.

• Documentary fair use remains robust. While documentaries do not receive automatic fair‑use protection, courts are likely to find fair use where short clips are used to comment on people or real‑world phenomena rather than to supplant the original work.

The case is Whyte Monkee Prods. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-6086, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12524 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.