Netflix Wins 'Tiger King' Copyright Appeal, Easing Fair Use Fears for Documentarians

A federal appeals court in Denver reversed course this week on a question that has haunted documentary filmmakers for two years: whether you can use someone else's video without permission if it serves a larger creative purpose. The case centered on a 66-second clip of a funeral, filmed by videographer Tim Sepi, that appeared in Netflix's "Tiger King" series. Sepi sued, arguing the streamer had taken his work without compensation. The first time the three-judge panel considered the case, in 2024, they sided with him.

That initial ruling sent tremors through the documentary community. Filmmakers routinely build their work from archival footage—old news clips, home videos, surveillance recordings—material that anchors their stories in lived reality. Sometimes they secure licenses from copyright holders. Often they cannot: the original creator has vanished, or the asking price is prohibitive, or the holder simply refuses. In those moments, documentarians have traditionally relied on "fair use," a legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without permission if the new work transforms it into something meaningfully different. The 2024 decision suggested that doctrine was shrinking.

The panel's reasoning had been shaped by a Supreme Court ruling about Andy Warhol's silkscreen prints of Prince. That decision tightened the definition of "transformative," holding that Warhol's work, despite its artistic power, had not sufficiently reimagined the underlying photograph to escape copyright liability. Applying that logic to "Tiger King," the judges concluded Netflix had simply taken Sepi's funeral footage because they wanted to use it—not because they had transformed it into commentary or critique. Chief Judge Jerome Holmes wrote that the defendants "simply wished to use Mr. Sepi's Funeral Video to convey a new meaning or message," language that seemed to contradict itself even as it rejected their claim. The ruling also weighed Netflix's commercial success against them, treating the series' profitability as evidence of infringement.

The decision alarmed not just independent filmmakers but major industry organizations. The Motion Picture Association, the International Documentary Association, and Film Independent all petitioned the court to reconsider. Two years of additional briefing and argument followed. When the same three-judge panel issued its new ruling this week, they had changed their minds.

The reversal hinged on a closer look at what "Tiger King" actually did with Sepi's footage. The series used the 66-second clip as part of a larger narrative about the people and animals caught in Joe Exotic's world. That was, the court now concluded, "classic documentary-style borrowing"—the kind of thing filmmakers have done for decades, weaving found material into a new story. The difference between Netflix's purpose and Sepi's original purpose was significant enough to qualify as fair use. The judges also reconsidered the commerciality question. Yes, "Tiger King" had been hugely profitable. But the funeral clip represented a tiny fraction of the series. There was no evidence Netflix had profited materially from that particular 66 seconds.

The ruling matters because it brings the 10th Circuit into alignment with the 9th and 4th circuits, which had already permitted documentary makers to use copyrighted clips without permission when doing so served a broader point. The Supreme Court will not need to revisit the Warhol case to resolve the dispute. For documentarians, the decision restores some breathing room—a signal that fair use, while narrower than it once was, has not been eliminated entirely. The question now is whether other circuits will follow, or whether the landscape will remain fragmented, forcing filmmakers to navigate different legal standards depending on where their work gets distributed.