IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Twitter’s terms of service do not grant license to re-use content, (Jan 13, 2026)

By Deirdre Kennedy, J.D.

While defendants relied on the existence of an express, non-exclusive sublicense purportedly arising from Twitter’s TOS, the TOS did not expressly grant defendants a license to the material it used.

Twitter’s terms of service did not expressly grant a license to use material posted to it, the federal court for Manhattan has held. The court, in denying a motion to dismiss filed by a media company that embedded a Twitter post which linked to a video and included a still of the video in one of its news stories, also found that such use was not fair use (Iwamura v. Independent Digital News and Media, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-09557-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026)).

Yuki Iwamura is a professional videographer who created a video of supporters of President Trump blocking the Mario Cuomo bridge in New York City on November 1, 2020. Iwamura first published the video on November 1 for the purpose of public distribution by licensing it to FNTV, LLC, which operates FreedomNews.TV. FNTV posted the video on Twitter, nka X. Iwamura registered the video with the United States Copyright Office on November 6, 2020.

IDNM operates a website and published a news story on November 1 entitled “Trump MAGA vehicle parade shuts down Mario Cuomo bridge in New York.” The story embedded the Twitter post, which linked to the full video, and included a still frame taken from the video. The embedded Twitter post identified Iwamura and FreedomNews.TV as the source of the video, and the story identified FreedomNews.TV as the source of the still frame.

Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS) include the following: “By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense)…” and “this license authorizes us to make your content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.”

Iwamura filed this action on October 31, 2023, and in response to an initial motion to dismiss, filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2024. IDMN renewed its motions to dismiss the action. That motion was fully submitted on April 29, 2024. Iwamura filed notices of supplemental authority on May 9, 2024, January 6, 2025, and October 14, 2025. IDNM responded to each filing. Of most significant to this motion. Iwamura relied on a September 29, 2025 decision in (Lynk Media, LLC v. Independent Digital News and Media, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00583-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025)).

IDNM sought dismissal on two grounds: relying on Twitter’s TOS, they contended that they were licensed to publish the video and still image, and they also asserted a fair use defense.

Licensee. IDNM contended that Twitter’s TOS granted Twitter a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to display posted material, as well as the right to sublicense the material to its users. In pertinent part, the TOS provide that “[t]his license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.” IDNM contended that they received a sublicense to Iwamura’s work because Iwamura, through his licensee, posted the video on Twitter.

The court found, however, that IDMN was relying solely on the existence of an express, non-exclusive sublicense purportedly arising from Twitter’s TOS, but the TOS did not expressly grant it a license to the video. The TOS at most grant a license to Twitter—not to third-party publishers—unless and until Twitter affirmatively exercises its sublicensing authority.

Fair use. The court also held that the amended complaint did not clearly establish fair use. Looking at the purpose of the use, courts consider the extent to which the secondary work is “transformative” as well as whether it is commercial. To be transformative, the new work should add something new. Here, IDMN embedded the full video and reproduced a still image from it in a news article about the events. IDNM’s purpose for reproducing the video were the same as Iwamura’s reason for creating it—to document a newsworthy event for the objective of news reporting.

The court also noted that the nature of IDNM’s use was commercial. The other statutory factors also did not favor IDNM’s claim of fair use.

Having failed to establish either defense, IDMN’s motion to dismiss was denied.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-09557-DLC.

Judge: Cote, D.

Attorneys: James H. Freeman (Sanders Law Group) for Yuki Iwamura. Jodutt Marwan Basrawi (Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP) for Independent Digital News and Media, LLC.

Companies: Independent Digital News and Media, LLC

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews GCNNews