Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC
- Kimba Wood
- 1:18-cv-00790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, Judge Wood granted reconsideration, kept Ziff Davis dismissed, and allowed Sinclair’s copyright claim against Mashable to proceed.
Stephanie Sinclair’s copyright claim against Mashable may proceed, while the motion to dismiss was granted as to Ziff Davis. The case was reopened.
What happened
In Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, Stephanie Sinclair asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing her copyright claims against Ziff Davis and Mashable. The dispute involved Mashable’s use of Sinclair’s Photograph through Instagram’s embedding tools.
The court kept its earlier conclusion that Sinclair’s agreement with Instagram allowed Instagram to grant API users a sublicense to embed her public content. But it revised its conclusion that Instagram actually granted Mashable that sublicense, finding the Platform Policy unclear and the pleadings insufficient to dismiss Sinclair’s claim against Mashable at this stage. The court also kept its conclusion that Sinclair had not adequately stated a copyright claim against Ziff Davis.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Sinclair’s motion for reconsideration. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Mashable, granted it as to Ziff Davis, and directed the clerk to reopen the case.
The detailed version
- Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-00790
- Kimba Wood
- June 24, 2020
Background
Stephanie Sinclair moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order dismissing her Second Amended Complaint against Ziff Davis, LLC and Mashable, Inc. The complaint concerned Mashable’s alleged use of Sinclair’s Photograph through Instagram’s application programming interface, or API, which supports embedding content on websites.
Court’s analysis
The court adhered to its earlier holding that, by agreeing to Instagram’s Terms of Use, Sinclair authorized Instagram to grant API users such as Mashable a sublicense to embed her public Instagram content under Instagram’s Platform Policy.
The court nevertheless revised its earlier conclusion that Instagram had granted Mashable a sublicense to embed the Photograph. The Platform Policy stated that Instagram provided its APIs to help broadcasters and publishers discover content, obtain digital rights to media, and share media through web embeds. The court found that this language could be read to grant API users the right to embed other users’ public content, but it could also be interpreted differently. Because the policy did not clearly show Instagram’s explicit consent to Mashable’s use of the copyrighted work, the court held that Sinclair’s copyright claim against Mashable could not be dismissed on the basis of Mashable’s sublicense defense on the existing record.
The court also adhered to its earlier holding that Sinclair failed to state a copyright-infringement claim against Ziff Davis. Alleging that Ziff Davis controlled Mashable was not enough; Sinclair would have needed to allege substantial continuing involvement by Ziff Davis in Mashable’s alleged infringement, which she did not do.
Disposition
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Sinclair’s motion for reconsideration. The court’s conclusion on the sublicense issue changed, but its other holdings remained in place. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was denied as to Mashable and granted as to Ziff Davis. The clerk was directed to reopen the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.