Rodney Woodland v. Montero Lamar Hill, AKA Lil Nas X; Does 1-10, Inclusive

136 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2025 · No. 23-55418

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Rodney Woodland’s copyright infringement action against Montero Lamar Hill, also known as Lil Nas X. The court held that Woodland did not plausibly allege Hill had access to his Instagram photographs and therefore failed to adequately plead copying. The court also held that the photographs were not substantially similar in their protectable selection and arrangement of elements.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Kenneth K. Lee; Ronald M. Gould; Mark J. Bennett
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
May 16, 2025
Docket number
23-55418
Procedural posture
Appeal from dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of a copyright-infringement action. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to amend.
Standard of review
De novo review of an order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; factual allegations are accepted as true and pleadings are construed in the nonmoving party's favor, but the complaint must state a plausible claim for relief.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Rodney Woodland v. Montero Lamar Hill, AKA Lil Nas X, Does 1-10, Inclusive
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

copyright infringementcopyright lawmotions to dismissstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

CopyrightCivil procedureAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Woodland plausibly alleged that Hill had access to his Instagram photographs and therefore copied copyrighted material.
  2. Whether Hill's photographs were substantially similar to the protectable expression in Woodland's photographs so as to constitute unlawful appropriation.
  3. Whether the number of allegedly similar photographs supported an inference of copying sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Holdings

  1. Woodland did not plausibly allege that Hill had access to his photographs. Merely alleging that both parties used Instagram and that Woodland's photographs were posted there established only a bare possibility, not a reasonable possibility, that Hill viewed them; without access, Woodland did not adequately allege copying.
  2. Woodland did not plausibly allege unlawful appropriation because Hill's photographs were not substantially similar to the protectable expression in Woodland's photographs. Copyright protection covered the photographs' sufficiently original selection and arrangement of otherwise unprotected elements, not the individual poses, lighting, costumes, makeup, or general ideas viewed in isolation.
  3. The allegation that Hill allegedly copied twelve photographs did not itself establish access or otherwise permit Woodland's copyright claim to survive dismissal.

Key quotations

To sum up, social media and other digital-sharing platforms could make it easier for plaintiffs to show that defendants had access to their materials—but only if they can show that the defendants had a reasonable chance of seeing their work under that platform’s algorithm or content-sharing policy. (136 F.4th at 1205)
What is protected by copyright is the photographer’s selection and arrangement of the photo’s otherwise unprotected elements. If sufficiently original, the combination of subject matter, pose, camera angle, etc., receives protection, not any of the individual elements standing alone. (136 F.4th at 1209)

Factual background

Rodney Woodland posted original semi-naked photographs of himself in various poses and settings on Instagram between August 2018 and July 2021. Montero Lamar Hill, known as Lil Nas X, posted eight photographs on Instagram between March and October 2021 that Woodland alleged infringed twelve of his photographs. Woodland's photographs received between eight and seventy-five likes, while Hill's posts received hundreds of thousands or millions of likes. Woodland alleged that Instagram's recommendation algorithm created a reasonable possibility that Hill viewed his photographs.

Procedural history

Woodland sued Hill for copyright infringement, declaratory relief, an accounting, and unjust enrichment based on alleged similarities between Woodland's Instagram photographs and Hill's photographs. After dismissing the initial claims with leave to amend, the district court dismissed the second amended complaint, which asserted only copyright infringement, without leave to amend. Woodland appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…