IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Use of a single image from a video uploaded to X is protected by the de minimis doctrine, (Dec 3, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

But the social media company’s terms of service could not shield the use of the full video.

A news website that reproduced from X a video of a political protest along with a screen capture of one of the frames of the video could not be liable for copyright infringement for use of the single screen capture because it constituted a de minimis use of the underlying work, the federal court for Manhattan has held. But the court, in granting in part and dismissing in part the copyright owner’s lawsuit against the media company that posted the video, joined a growing number of courts who have found—at least on the face of the agreements themselves—that X’s terms of service do not allow the free use of works that are posted on the social media platform (Lynk Media LLC v. Townsquare Media, Inc., No. 7:24-cv-04222-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2025)).

The opinion comes in one of the many actions that news photographers and videographers have filed against Townsquare Media, a digital media company that owns a wide network of radio stations and websites in small and mid-sized markets across the United States. The lawsuit was brought by Lynk Media, a digital media marketing company that offers branding, talent management, social media management, and production services to artists and creators.

At the core of the lawsuit is a video of pro-Palestinian protestors blocking the entrance to New York’s Holland Tunnel in early 2024. A news photographer named Oloya Fedun, who owns and operates the media website Freedom.tv, shot the video and published it on her X account. On the same day that Fedun posted the video, a New Jersey-focused website owned by Townsquare reproduced the video in a news article and used a screenshot from the video as the cover image for the article.

Lynk Media, which later acquired the video from Fedun, sued Townsquare for copyright infringement. Townsquare moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to this opinion.

Twitter terms of service. The court first rejected Townsquare’s argument that its use of the video was shielded by X’s terms of service. By posting the video to X, Townsquare argued, Fedun agreed to terms of service that permitted X and its “ecosystem partners” to use and reproduce the video as they wish. Moreover, Townsquare noted, X offered its media partners a so-called “developer agreement” that allows those media partners to sublicense certain content published on the X platform. Did those two agreements allow Townsquare to use Fedun’s video? The court said that it was too early to tell.

Townsquare’s use of the video could not be shielded by the agreements at the motion to dismiss stage, the court found, because the agreements were simply too ambiguous to enforce on their face. In so doing, the court joined a growing body of courts in the Southern District to reject arguments similar to Townsquare’s. For one thing, the court noted, drawing from those precedents, it was not even clear that Townsquare was a party to the developer argument. For another, it was not clear whether the license granted via X terms of service was limited to use by X’s ecosystem partners—which Townsquare did not claim to be—or whether it swept more broadly. Moreover, the court noted, it was not clear the agreements went so far as to allow users like Townsquare to use the content in their own embedded posts. Ultimately, the court found, the precise interpretation and application of the agreements would have to await fact discovery.

De minimis defense. But while the court refused to allow Townsquare off scot-free based on the X agreements, it found that Townsquare’s use of the single screen capture of the video—as opposed to the entire video itself—could be protected as a de minimus use. The court again drew on precedents from the Southern District to reach this conclusion. For example, the court noted, another court in the district had recognized that “single still-frame screenshots from videos posted on social media platforms, which make up a very small fraction of the original video, are generally considered to constitute de minimis use and fall below the substantial similarity threshold.” Other courts, the court noted—though albeit with at least one dissenter—had reached the same conclusion.

Nor did it matter that Townsquare allegedly extracted a “critical moment” of the video, namely a visual of protestors capturing the protestors standing in the street beneath the Holland Tunnel sign while holding signs in support of their protest. Importantly, the court noted, the screen-grab of this moment was not used throughout the Townsquare article, nor was it the only media used in the post—indeed, the article also embedded a video from the New York Post. Cases holding that use of the “critical moment” of the video alone, the court noted, were therefore distinguishable.

The Case is No. 7:24-cv-04222-NSR.

Judge: Román R.

Attorneys: Jaymie Brooke Sabilia-Heffert (Sanders Law Group) for Lynk Media LLC. Abigail Bain Everdell (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Townsquare Media, Inc.

Companies: Lynk Media LLC; Townsquare Media, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews GCNNews