Plaintiff, a professional videographer, sued defendant, an operator of an online hip-hop news publication, for copyright infringement. Plaintiff had recorded two videos: a short clip of Michael Jordan breaking up a fight, and an interview with rapper Melle Mel in which Melle Mel criticized rapper Eminem. Defendant republished plaintiff’s Jordan video in full by embedding a social media post that contained it, embedded the Melle Mel video from YouTube in two separate articles, and used still screenshots from both videos as prominent background images in the headline sections of all three articles.
What each side asked the courts to do
Defendant asked the lower court to dismiss the case at the pleading stage, arguing that its use of the Jordan video was protected as fair use, that its use of the screenshots was too minor to be actionable under the de minimis doctrine, and that it had a valid license to embed the Melle Mel video under YouTube’s Terms of Service. The district court agreed on all three points and entered judgment in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff sought review with the Second Circuit. On appeal, the court partially reversed and partially affirmed the district court’s decision.
The Second Circuit’s decision
The appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s claims regarding the Jordan video and the screenshots could proceed, but that defendant’s use of the Melle Mel video was protected by a valid license and could not support a copyright infringement claim.
Rationale
The court ruled this way for distinct reasons as to each piece of content.
On the Jordan video, the court found that a fair use determination was premature because defendant had republished the entire video with only minimal commentary, making it a plausible market substitute for the original and leaving key factual questions unresolved.
On the screenshots, the court rejected the de minimis defense because defendant had displayed the images prominently and intentionally as headline backgrounds, making them clearly recognizable to any viewer, which is the opposite of the incidental or unnoticeable use the doctrine is designed to excuse.
As to the Melle Mel video, however, the court found that when the video was uploaded to YouTube, YouTube’s Terms of Service granted other users a direct license to embed it, and that license unambiguously covered what defendant did. Because plaintiff had not argued that the video was uploaded without its consent or that the Terms were inaccurate, no factual dispute remained to prevent judgment in defendant’s favor on that claim.
Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc., No. 25-291-cv, 2026 WL 1097502 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2026)