A two-panel comic that quietly became an internet meme in 2017. In the first panel, a man chases a yellow balloon labeled "Opportunity"; in the second, a pink dumpling with the word "Shy" smiles and pulls him back, preventing him from catching the opportunity. The creator, Elmer Safran, said this piece, called "Running Balloon," came from "a very personal place," and people use it to express frustration about being held back by their own limitations—whether it's an empty wallet or other distracting thoughts.

Safran is happy to see millions sharing it as a meme, but he told the company: countless copies don't mean an AI meme generator can commercialize protected memes into advertising templates. Now he's trying to stop one of the largest meme generators from further expanding what he calls "unauthorized use."

image.png

The lawsuit filed at the beginning of this month put Memes Apps, the company behind Memes.ai and Memes AI Studio, on trial. Safran accuses the company of directly outputting copies of his comic without permission through a paid subscription ad generator. The subscription plans cost $40 or $199 per month for third-party advertisers, giving them full access to a set of template memes. The lawsuit mentions that the platform has partnered with over 40 brands, generating up to 1,000 ads per month, reaching more than 75 million social media followers; Safran claims he has suffered "substantial financial loss." He is not only seeking an injunction—but also asking the court to order the defendant to stop using his comic as a template and to thoroughly investigate the number of advertisements containing his comic, recovering all unjust profits.

Interestingly, Safran did not send a warning letter first, but sued directly, partly to force evidence disclosure and bring larger issues such as "how AI platforms use creators' works and what licensing obligations are" to the surface. Internet law expert Eric Goldman believes Safran took the right approach, telling a story that stands up in court; however, suing the generator instead of the advertisers is a risky move, which could lead to a series of other legal dilemmas.

The real bomb lies in the business model of "packaging and selling subscription templates." Goldman judges that this model could likely destroy the defendant's defense—unless it can prove that this is an industry standard. More importantly, the outputs from Memes Apps contain near-identical copies of the original work, making this case similar to the "solid evidence" in high-risk AI copyright battles; other AI companies can still argue that their outputs do not include the original, but this one cannot avoid this hit. However, Goldman does not think the impact will spread too widely, as meme generators are still a niche market.

This entire incident reveals the awkward gap between copyright law and meme culture. Goldman points out: non-commercial use of memes probably counts as fair use, but when put into advertisements, it does not—this is the tone set by the 2024 "Success Kid" meme case. Yet, memes survive precisely through unauthorized copying; if someone drew a picture and then said, "Please turn it into a meme," it would never take off. Safran has never stopped netizens from sharing, nor opposed people using AI. What he objects to is "irresponsible AI"—when a platform promotes itself as "replacing your advertising agency" and turns an unknown creator's original work into a commodity, he can no longer stand by. "There's a world of difference between internet users making memes for fun and a company monetizing my copyrighted work without permission," he says. "My goal is simple: to protect creators when their work is commercially exploited without permission—and I hope this case can spark a broader conversation about respecting artists' rights, since AI-driven platforms are increasingly embedded in internet culture."