454 F.Supp.3d 342
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Stephanie Sinclair, a professional photographer, posted a copyrighted photograph to a public Instagram account.
- Mashable contacted Sinclair seeking a license (offering $50); Sinclair declined, but Mashable published an article that included the photograph on March 16, 2016.
- Mashable embedded the image in its article by using Instagram’s API (embed code), so the image was served from Instagram’s servers.
- Instagram’s user agreements (Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Platform Policy) grant Instagram a sublicensable, worldwide license to user-posted content and allow public posts to be shared via the API.
- Sinclair demanded takedown and sued Mashable and parent Ziff Davis for copyright infringement; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The court held Mashable’s use was authorized by a valid sublicense from Instagram and dismissed Sinclair’s claims against Ziff Davis for failure to plead Ziff Davis’s direct involvement; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mashable’s embedding infringed Sinclair’s copyright | Sinclair: Mashable used the Photograph without a license; embedding infringes display right | Mashable: Embedded image was displayed under a valid sublicense granted via Instagram’s API | Court: Mashable’s use was licensed via Instagram; no infringement claim survives against Mashable on this basis |
| Whether Instagram’s user agreements grant a sublicensable license for public posts | Sinclair: Instagram’s agreements are ambiguous, circular, and cannot confer rights to third parties | Defs: Sinclair agreed to Instagram’s Terms and Privacy Policy which authorize sublicensing of public content | Court: Terms and related policies together validly granted Instagram a sublicensable license covering public posts |
| Whether Mashable needed a direct license from Sinclair before sublicensing | Sinclair: Instagram’s sublicense cannot override Sinclair’s refusal to license Mashable directly | Defs: Instagram’s sublicense right is independent; Mashable properly sought and relied on Instagram’s sublicense | Court: License rights are independent; Mashable validly relied on Instagram’s sublicense |
| Liability of parent Ziff Davis for subsidiary Mashable’s actions | Sinclair: Ziff Davis is liable as Mashable’s parent and listed in site policies/copyright agent | Defs: Corporate ownership alone does not make parent liable absent direct involvement | Court: Sinclair failed to allege Ziff Davis’s substantial, direct involvement in the alleged infringement; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007) (copyright owner may license and permit sublicenses)
- United States Naval Inst. v. Charter Commc’ns Inc., 936 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1991) (sublicensee defense when sublicense valid)
- Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League, 903 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2018) (limitations on sublicenses when sublicensor lacked rights)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard guidance)
- Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2004) (documents integral to the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (discussion of embedding and display right)
- Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (judicial notice of online policies and related materials)