April 16, 2020
Authored and Edited by Samuel V. Eichner; Margaret A. Esquenet
Can embedded social media content infringe copyright? The answer may vary not only by jurisdiction, but also with the contractual terms that govern use of the embedded content.
“Embedding” refers to displaying web content indirectly by linking to another website where the content is hosted. While several courts have addressed the copyright implications of this relatively common practice, it remains unclear in the Second Circuit whether displaying embedded content can infringe a copyright owner’s exclusive right to display its protected work.
In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed this issue in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). There, the court found that Breitbart’s embedded links to a tweet of a Tom Brady photo infringed Goldman’s copyright in the photo (which Goldman had initially shared through Snapchat). Critically, the Goldman court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s “server test,” which ties infringing “display” of an image to the server that hosts it.
Earlier this week, in Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, the Southern District of New York again addressed copyright liability for embedded social media content. The court granted Ziff Davis’ (d/b/a Mashable) motion to dismiss plaintiff photographer’s copyright claims over Mashable’s embedded Instagram photo. In doing so, the court relied on Instagram’s Terms of Use, and found that it “need not reach the question, addressed in Goldman but unsettled in this Circuit, of whether embedding an image constitutes ‘display’ that is capable of infringing a copyright in the image.”
Specifically, the court found that, by creating an Instagram account, Sinclair agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use granting it “a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to the Content that you post on or through [Instagram], subject to [Instagram’s] Privacy Policy.” The Privacy Policy states that uploaded content designated as “public” can be used via Instagram’s API (which allows others to embed linked content). This language led the court to find that Instagram had lawfully sublicensed Sinclair’s photo to Mashable.
Notably, Mashable chose to use the photo after Sinclair declined its offer to license the photo for $50. Even so, the court found Mashable could “seek a sublicense from Instagram when Mashable failed to obtain a license directly from Plaintiff—just as Mashable would be within its rights to again seek a license from Plaintiff, perhaps at a higher price, if Plaintiff switched her Instagram account to ‘private’ mode.” The court also rejected Sinclair’s other objections related to Instagram’s Terms of Service.
Despite a different outcome, Goldman acknowledged similar “genuine questions about whether plaintiff Goldman had effectively released his photograph into the public domain when he posted it to his Snapchat account.” Yet unlike Mashable’s embedded Instagram photo, the photo in Goldman went “viral” before Breitbart embedded it, raising what the court characterized as complex “factual questions as to licensing and authorization.” By contrast, the apparently straightforward facts facing the Sinclair court allowed it find, at the pleading stage, that Instagram’s Terms of Service conveyed a sublicense to Mashable, warranting dismissal.
The case is Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC et al., 18-CV-790 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2020).
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 2024
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
March 1, 2024
Articles
How to Avoid Common Pitfalls and Protect IP in Today’s Life Sciences Industry Joint Ventures
February 29, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.