Eliahu v. Mediaite, LLC

Background

Elaad Eliahu brought a copyright-infringement action against Mediaite, LLC under 17 U.S.C. § 501. Eliahu alleged that he created a 15-second video of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez commenting on Jordan Neely’s death after attending Neely’s funeral. He licensed the video to TimCast News for public display and distribution and later registered it with the United States Copyright Office.

Mediaite published an article about Ocasio-Cortez’s comments that included an alleged screenshot of one frame from Eliahu’s video. Eliahu alleged that he never licensed Mediaite to use the video. Mediaite moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim.

De Minimis Use

The court explained that a copyright-infringement claim requires a valid copyright, actual copying, and enough similarity between the original and the accused work to support infringement. The parties did not dispute that Eliahu owned a valid copyright or that Mediaite copied the screenshot from the video.

Mediaite argued that its use was de minimis—so trivial that it was not legally actionable—because it copied only one frame from a short video. The court rejected that argument. It found that the screenshot appeared prominently below the article’s headline, was the article’s only image, and remained visible to readers while the article was displayed. The screenshot also captured the video’s distinctive and important moment. Although the copied portion was small, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged that an ordinary observer would recognize the screenshot as having been taken from Eliahu’s video.

Fair Use

Mediaite also argued that its use was protected by fair use, a copyright-law doctrine that can permit certain unauthorized uses. The court considered the four statutory factors at the pleading stage and concluded that the amended complaint did not establish fair use clearly enough to justify dismissal.

1. Purpose and character of the use. The court found that Eliahu’s video and Mediaite’s screenshot served substantially similar journalistic purposes: documenting and illustrating political commentary about Neely’s death. Adding background and context in the article did not make the use transformative because Mediaite was not commenting on or criticizing Eliahu’s reporting; it was using a still image to illustrate its own article. The court also considered the alleged commercial nature of Mediaite’s use, particularly because Eliahu had licensed the video to another news organization for a fee and Mediaite allegedly used it without paying. This factor weighed strongly against fair use.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work. The court found that the video was a published, factual work. Because the video recorded newsworthy words and actions that Eliahu did not control, this factor weighed in favor of fair use.

3. Amount and substantiality of the use. Mediaite used only one frame and no audio, making the amount copied quantitatively small. But the frame captured the key moment of the short video and therefore had substantial importance. The court concluded that this factor weighed neither for nor against fair use.

4. Effect on the potential market. The court found it plausible that widespread reproduction of the screenshot could harm Eliahu’s market for selling or licensing the video. Readers who saw the screenshot might have less reason to seek out the video. This factor weighed against fair use.

Considering the factors together, the court concluded that the purposes of copyright law would not be better served by allowing Mediaite’s use than by preventing it. The court therefore rejected Mediaite’s fair-use argument as a basis for dismissal. The court also declined to dismiss Eliahu’s allegation of willful infringement, explaining that whether the alleged infringement was willful presented a factual dispute requiring a fuller record.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero denied Mediaite’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court ordered Mediaite to answer the amended complaint within 21 days and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 31. The ruling was made on a motion to dismiss and did not finally decide whether Mediaite is liable for infringement.