Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 21
`
`18-CV-790 (DAB)
`
`X ::::::::::: X
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT NEW YORK
`
`STEPHANIE SINCLAIR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZIFF DAVIS, LLC, and MASHABLE, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`James Rosenfeld
`1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: 212-489-8230
`jamesrosenfeld@dwt.com
`
`ZIFF DAVIS, LLC
`George Wukoson
`114 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10011
`Tel: 646-397-0874
`george_wukoson@ziffdavis.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Ziff Davis, LLC,
`and Mashable, Inc.
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Parties .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`Embedding .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`Instagram................................................................................................................. 5
`
`The Photo and the Article ....................................................................................... 8
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`STANDARDS OF REVIEW ................................................................................ 10
`
`MASHABLE HOLDS A SUB-LICENSE TO THE INSTAGRAM POST,
`A “COMPLETE DEFENSE” TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ................................ 12
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST
`ZIFF DAVIS ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)......................................................................................13
`
`Ariel (UK) Ltd. v. Reuters Grp. PLC,
`No. 05 CIV. 9646 (JFK), 2006 WL 3161467 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2006), aff’d,
`277 F. App’x 43 (2d Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Boarding School Review, LLC v. Delta Career Educ. Corp.,
`No. 11 Civ. 8921, 2013 WL 6670584 (Mar. 29, 2013) ...........................................................11
`
`BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Gossip Cop Media, LLC,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)........................................................................................10
`
`BWP Media USA Inc. v. Hollywood Fan Sites, LLC,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)........................................................................................11
`
`Dauman v. Hallmark Card, Inc.,
`No. 96 CIV. 3608 (JFK), 1998 WL 54633 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 1998) .................................14, 15
`
`Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter,
`689 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................1
`
`Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)......................................................................................13
`
`Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC,
`No. 17-CV-3144 (KBF), 2018 WL 911340 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2018) .....................................2
`
`Grady v. Iacullo,
`No. 13-CV-00624-RM-KMT, 2016 WL 1559134 (D. Colo. Apr. 18, 2016) ............................1
`
`Graham v. James,
`144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................12
`
`Heston v. Farmers Ins. Grp.,
`160 Cal. App. 3d 402, 206 Cal. Rptr. 585 (Ct. App. 1984) .....................................................13
`
`Lasica v. America Online, Inc.,
`No. CV 15-4230, GW (FFMx), 2015 WL 12791495 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015) .....................12
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 4 of 21
`
`Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC,
`No. 13 C 4664, 2014 WL 3368893 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2014) ......................................................2
`
`Live Face on Web, LLC v. Biblio Holdings LLC,
`No. 15 Civ. 4848 (NRB), 2016 WL 4766344 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016)
`(Buchwald, J.) ............................................................................................................................1
`
`Mayimba Music, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`No. 12 Civ. 1094 AKH, 2014 WL 5334698 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014), order
`suspended, No. 12 Civ. 1094 AKH, 2015 WL 6917260 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30,
`2015) ........................................................................................................................................14
`
`Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co.,
`No. 15-CV- 03456-JSC, 2016 WL 7178559 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2016) ...................................11
`
`MyPlayCity, Inc. v. Conduit Ltd.,
`No. 10 Civ. 1615(CM), 2012 WL 1107648 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012),
`adhered to on recons., 2012 WL 2929392 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012) .......................................2
`
`Patsy’s Italian Restaurant, Inc. v. Banas,
`575 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), aff’d, 658 F. 3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011) ............................11
`
`Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Ishayev,
`963 F. Supp. 2d 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)........................................................................................2
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Person v. Google Inc.,
`456 F. Supp. 2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)......................................................................................13
`
`Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp.,
`602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................10
`
`Republic Bank v. Marine Nat’l Bank,
`45 Cal. App. 4th 919, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90 (1996) ....................................................................13
`
`Schwartz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.,
`160 F. Supp. 3d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................11
`
`Sira v. Morton,
`380 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................11
`
`Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League,
`96 F. Supp. 3d 81 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .........................................................................................12
`
`Veronica Foods Co. v. Ecklin,
`No. 16-CV- 07223-JCS, 2017 WL 2806706 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) .................................11
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 5 of 21
`
`Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,
`676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012).......................................................................................................16
`
`Wang v. Pataki,
`396 F. Supp. 2d 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)......................................................................................11
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(5) .......................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ...................................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................1
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 6 of 21
`
`Defendants Ziff Davis, LLC (“Ziff Davis”) and Mashable, Inc. (“Mashable”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their
`
`motion to dismiss Plaintiff Stephanie Sinclair’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint [Doc.
`
`No. 15] (“Second Amended Complaint” or “2d Am. Compl.”) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`When a user, like Plaintiff, joins the photograph- and video-sharing social media platform
`
`Instagram, the user enters into a contract with Instagram, memorialized in Instagram’s Terms of
`
`Use and other integrated agreements. Under these agreements, the user licenses to Instagram any
`
`photographs she shares on Instagram while her Instagram account is set to “public.” She further
`
`agrees that those images may be sublicensed by Instagram to third-party users of Instagram’s
`
`services, including via its function allowing third parties, like Defendants, to “embed” Instagram
`
`content—i.e., publish Instagram content from Instagram’s servers in an Instagram frame—on the
`
`third-party users’ websites. This ability to share and re-share content is essential to the “social”
`
`nature of social media, and indeed to the interconnected nature of the World Wide Web.
`
`Here, Plaintiff uploaded the photograph at issue on to her own Instagram account. She
`
`does not claim that Mashable posted a copy of that photograph directly on its own website.
`
`Instead—as Plaintiff has amended the Complaint to make clear—Mashable posted “embed code”
`
`on its site which “embedded” the image in a Mashable article. Plaintiff could have avoided this
`
`so-called “display”1 of the image simply by posting the image privately on Instagram or posting
`
`1 Whether “embedding” an image is a “display” within the meaning of Section 106 of the
`Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106(5), is a legal issue on which courts have disagreed. The Ninth
`Circuit, the Seventh Circuit and numerous lower courts have held that embedding and the similar
`concepts of “framing” and “in-line linking” are not exercises of the public display right, applying
`what is sometimes called the “server test” for copyright infringement liability. Perfect 10, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1159–61 (9th Cir. 2007); Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, 689
`F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2012); Live Face on Web, LLC v. Biblio Holdings LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4848
`(NRB), 2016 WL 4766344, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016) (Buchwald, J.); Grady v. Iacullo,
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 7 of 21
`
`the image on another platform (such as her own website at StephanieSinclair.com) rather than
`
`Instagram. Instead, she posted the image publicly on Instagram, authorizing the embedding in
`
`which Mashable engaged. Mashable did not infringe Plaintiff’s copyright by posting an article
`
`embedding the image as authorized.
`
`Independently, Ziff Davis is not properly a party in this action, and Plaintiff has failed to
`
`make any allegations that justify imposition of liability on it.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`According to the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is a professional photojournalist.
`
`No. 13-CV-00624-RM-KMT, 2016 WL 1559134, at *5 (D. Colo. Apr. 18, 2016); Leveyfilm, Inc.
`v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC, No. 13 C 4664, 2014 WL 3368893, at *5 (N.D. Ill. July 8,
`2014); MyPlayCity, Inc. v. Conduit Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 1615(CM), 2012 WL 1107648, at *12
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012), adhered to on recons., 2012 WL 2929392 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2012).
`This Court recently rejected the server test, in a decision that has been certified to the Second
`Circuit for interlocutory review. See Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, No. 17-CV-
`3144 (KBF), 2018 WL 911340, at *9–10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2018); Memorandum Decision &
`Order, dated Mar. 19, 2018 [Doc. No. 181], Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, No. 17-
`CV-3144 (KBF). However, that issue is not dispositive of this case, where the defense is not that
`the embedding of an image is not a display and therefore not an infringement, but that Plaintiff
`authorized Instagram to sublicense her non-private images to third-party websites such as
`Mashable. See Goldman, 2018 WL 911340, at *10 (noting “a number as of yet unresolved strong
`defenses to liability separate from this issue,” including “whether plaintiff effectively released
`his image into the public domain when he posted it to his Snapchat account” and “questions as to
`licensing and authorization”). Nevertheless, because the Second Circuit may reverse in the
`Goldman case and rule that embedding is not a display, Defendants reserve the right to argue that
`no infringement took place because (1) they did not display the image, and (2) Plaintiff has not
`adequately pled a violation of the reproduction right, the distribution right, or any other
`cognizable right under the Copyright Act. See Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Ishayev, 963 F. Supp. 2d
`239, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Because hyperlinks do not themselves contain the copyrighted or
`protected derivative works, forwarding them does not infringe on any of a copyright owner’s five
`exclusive rights under § 106.); MyPlayCity, 2012 WL 1107648, at *12 (“In the internet context,
`[distribution] means a transfer of a file from one computer to another. Because the actual
`transfer of a file between computers must occur, merely providing a ‘link’ to a site containing
`copyrighted material does not constitute direct infringement of a holder’s distribution right.”
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Perfect 10, Inc., 508 F.3d at 1162 (embedding an
`image does not constitute “distribution” of the image because a party that embeds an image does
`not actually disseminate a copy of the image).
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 8 of 21
`
`(2d Am. Compl. ¶ 9.) She owns the copyright in a photograph titled “Child, Bride, Mother/Child
`
`Marriage in Guatemala,” registered with the United States Copyright Office under Registration
`
`Number VA 1-9860957, and published on February 6, 2015 (the “Photo”). (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 32,
`
`Ex. C.)
`
`Mashable is a corporation that owns, operates and publishes the website located at the
`
`domain name Mashable.com, which domain name it owns. (See Mashable, “About,”
`
`https://mashable.com/about/ (“Mashable is a global, multi-platform media and entertainment
`
`company. Powered by its own proprietary technology, Mashable is the go-to source for tech,
`
`digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the
`
`globe. ©2005-2018 Mashable, Inc.”); DomainTools, “Whois Record for Mashable.com,”
`
`http://whois.domaintools.com/mashable.com (showing Mashable owns the domain
`
`Mashable.com); 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 17 (alleging Mashable operates the Mashable.com
`
`website).) Mashable, an independent legal entity, is a subsidiary of Ziff Davis. (2d Am. Compl.
`
`¶¶ 17–18.)
`
`B.
`
`Embedding
`
`A person who creates web content may “embed” content stored on a third party’s
`
`computer systems by adding specific and unique “embed code” to the HTML instructions on its
`
`own site. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36–38.) Embed code works like a hyperlink. (Id. ¶ 39.) When a
`
`viewer visits that particular web page, the code refers the viewer’s browser to the servers of a
`
`third party, causing content that resides and remains on that third party’s servers to appear on the
`
`screen as if it were posted on that web page. (Id.)
`
`Many internet platforms that host user-created content, including social media sites like
`
`YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and Instagram, provide their users with embed code, with
`
`which those other users may embed their content either on the social media platform or on other
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 9 of 21
`
`sites. (See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 37–39 (describing the practice of embedding); YouTube, “Embed
`
`videos & playlists,” https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en (“You can add a
`
`YouTube video or playlist to a website or blog by embedding it;” with instructions); Twitter,
`
`“How to embed a Tweet on your website or blog,” https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/how-
`
`to-embed-a-tweet (“An embedded Tweet can display photos and videos uploaded to Twitter as
`
`well as content described by a link.”); Tumbr, “Embedding Tumblr Posts,”
`
`https://unwrapping.tumblr.com/post/108134213757/embed-codes-tumblr-posts (“Tumblr
`
`offers embed codes to place a published post on any website that allows an HTML embed.”);
`
`Facebook, “Embedded Video & Live Video Player,”
`
`https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/embedded-video-player (“With the embedded
`
`video player you can easily add Facebook videos and Facebook live videos to your website. You
`
`can use any public video post by a Page or a person as video or Live video source.”).) Both
`
`professional creators of web content and ordinary end-users can embed content by simply cutting
`
`and pasting this embed code into their own social media pages or elsewhere. For example, via
`
`the Tumblr web page creation social media platform, users may paste embed code into the web
`
`content they create to show content on another platform, such as a YouTube video or an
`
`Instagram photograph or video. (See Tumblr Help Center, “Video posts,”
`
`https://tumblr.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/231455628-Video-posts (“If it’s on Vimeo,
`
`YouTube, or some similar site you can just open a new video post, click the globe icon, and
`
`paste its embed code or video link into the post form.”).)
`
`Internet platforms that make their users’ content available for embedding also often give
`
`their users controls to restrict or prevent embedding of their content by others, by designating
`
`some or all of their content as private. (See, e.g., YouTube, “Change video privacy setting,”
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 10 of 21
`
`https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/157177?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en
`
`(“Public videos and playlists can be seen by and shared with anyone. Private videos and
`
`playlists can only be seen by you and the users you choose.”); Twitter, “How to embed a Tweet
`
`on your website or blog,” https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/how-to-embed-a-tweet
`
`(“Embed code is not available for Tweets from people who choose to protect their Tweets.”).) As
`
`discussed below, Instagram gives its users such controls.
`
`C.
`
`Instagram
`
`Instagram is a photograph- and video-sharing and social networking mobile application
`
`(or “app”) and website that has more than 800 million users.2 It allows users to upload
`
`photographs and videos to Instagram’s servers using Instagram’s mobile app or website and
`
`thereby share them, either privately (with the user’s approved followers) or publicly (with all
`
`other Instagram users, who may post the content on Instagram or on third-party websites).3
`
`Instagram also makes an “application programming interface” (or “API”) available to
`
`users, to allow them to access and use content posted by other Instagram users. (2d Am. Compl.
`
`¶ 33.) By using Instagram’s API, Instagram users may embed content that either they
`
`themselves posted or that other users posted publicly. Instagram describes this functionality as
`
`follows:
`
`Embedding Instagram posts is an easy way to add Instagram photos and videos to the
`stories you want to tell on articles or websites. You can embed your own content as well
`as photos and videos from public profiles. As always, people own their Instagram
`content, and embedded posts give the proper attribution by showing the username and
`linking back to the original content on Instagram.
`
`2 Instagram, “About Us,” https://www.instagram.com/about/us/.
`3 See Instagram, “How do I post a photo?,”
`https://help.instagram.com/442418472487929?helpref=uf_permalink (explaining how to upload
`photo); Instagram, “How do I set my photos and videos to private so that only approved
`followers can see them?,” https://help.instagram.com/448523408565555?helpref=uf_permalink
`(explaining Instagram’s public and private settings).
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 11 of 21
`
`(Instagram, “Embedding,” https://www.instagram.com/developer/embedding/.) Instagram also
`
`describes the intended uses of the API—including allowing other websites to share Instagram
`
`content—quite clearly:
`
`We provide the Instagram APIs to support several types of apps and services.
`First, we provide them to help members of our community share their own
`content with apps or services. We also support apps and services that help brands
`and advertisers understand and manage their audience, develop their content
`strategy, and obtain digital rights. Finally, we provide the Instagram APIs to
`help broadcasters and publishers discover content, get digital rights to media,
`and share media using web embeds.
`
`(2d Am. Compl. Ex. E (“Platform Policy”)(emphasis added)).
`
`Instagram governs this arrangement through an integrated set of agreements4 with the
`
`various parties who post and use Instagram content. All Instagram users agree to abide by
`
`Instagram’s Terms of Use (“TOU”) and Privacy Policy (“Privacy Policy”).5 Users of
`
`Instagram’s API additionally agree to Instagram’s Platform Policy (“Platform Policy,” and,
`
`collectively with the TOU and Privacy Policy, Instagram’s “Policies”).6
`
`All of Instagram’s Policies are available online to all Instagram users.7 Instagram notifies
`
`all users signing up for Instagram accounts that each user agrees to the TOU and Privacy Policy
`
`4 Instagram’s Policies operate as an integrated set of user agreements and incorporate one
`another by reference. (See TOU, Basic Terms § 10 (reference and link to Platform Policy,
`identified as “API Terms”), Rights §§ 1 (license granted to Instagram is subject to the Privacy
`policy) & 9 (reference and link to Privacy Policy); Privacy Policy § 2 (“The use of the Instagram
`API is subject to the API Terms of Use which incorporates the terms of this Privacy Policy.”).)
`5 See TOU (“By accessing or using the Instagram website, the Instagram service, or any
`applications (including mobile applications) made available by Instagram . . . you agree to be
`bound by these terms of use . . . If you do not agree to be bound by all of these Terms of Use,
`do not access or use the Service.”); Privacy Policy (“Our Policy applies to all visitors, users,
`and others who access the Service”).)
`6 See Platform Policy (“By using the Instagram APIs, you agree to this policy.”).
`.7 The TOU, last updated January 19, 2013, is available at
`https://help.instagram.com/478745558852511. The Privacy Policy, last updated January 19,
`2013, is available at https://help.instagram.com/155833707900388. The Platform Policy is
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 12 of 21
`
`when they sign up for the service, and it provides those users hyperlinks to the TOU and Privacy
`
`Policy. For example, users signing up on Instagram are plainly informed that by signing up they
`
`agree to the TOU and Privacy Policy and are shown prominent links to these Policies:
`
`(Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/, follow “Sign up” hyperlink.)
`
`By operation of Instagram’s Policies, users—including but not limited to website
`
`publishers—can embed photographs and videos posted by Instagram users on web pages. The
`
`user maintains her copyright ownership in her photos and videos; Instagram obtains a non-
`
`Exhibit E to the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 13 of 21
`
`exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable license from the users to use her content; and Instagram
`
`conveys a sublicense to third parties who share public content (as controlled by the user’s
`
`privacy settings), using tools provided by Instagram, including embed code.8
`
`D.
`
`The Photo and the Article
`
`Plaintiff owns and operates a website located at the domain name StephanieSinclair.com.
`
`(2d Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) She makes the Photo available on her website. (See
`
`https://stephaniesinclair.com/too-young-to-wed/.) Plaintiff also has an Instagram user account
`
`under the Instagram user name “stephsinclairpix,” where she posts photographs. (2d Am.
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 31 & 34, Ex. D.)
`
`On September 22, 2015, through her Instagram user account, Plaintiff posted a cropped
`
`version of the Photo—that is, a version of the Photo reduced in size by removing a portion of the
`
`original—on Instagram (Plaintiff’s “Instagram Post”). (2d Am. Compl. Ex. D.) Plaintiff
`
`provided a textual description of her Instagram post, but that textual description did not contain
`
`any reservation of rights or copyright notice. (Id.)
`
`Mashable published the Article, titled “10 female photojournalists with their lenses on
`
`8 See TOU, Rights § 1 (“Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or
`through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and
`royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on
`or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy, available here
`http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 (‘Sharing of Your
`Information’), 4 (‘How We Store Your Information’), and 5 (‘Your Choices About Your
`Information’). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos,
`as described in the Privacy Policy.”); Privacy Policy § 3 (“Any information or content that you
`voluntarily disclose for posting to the Service, such as User Content, becomes available to the
`public, as controlled by any applicable privacy settings that you set. . . . Once you have shared
`User Content or made it public, that User Content may be re-shared by others. Subject to your
`profile and privacy settings, any User Content that you make public is searchable by other Users
`and subject to use under our Instagram API.”); Platform Policy (Instagram provides its API to
`allow website publisher users and others to “discover content, get digital rights to media, and
`share media using web embeds” subject to compliance with users’ privacy settings and other
`restrictions imposed by Instagram users on their content in their Instagram posts.).
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 14 of 21
`
`social justice,” on March 19, 2016. (See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 24 (incorrectly stating March 16,
`
`2016; Exs. B & C (URL and dateline reflecting publication date).) The Article contained ten
`
`photographs. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges eight of those ten photographs were
`
`hosted directly on Mashable’s servers, but she admits the Article embedded Plaintiff’s Instagram
`
`post. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 37–39 & 49.) In other words, the embed code in the applicable
`
`HTML instructions used Instagram’s API to cause Instagram’s servers to show the Instagram
`
`Post to viewers of the Article. (Id.)
`
`Plaintiff’s Instagram Post was and is public, and therefore viewable by users who are not
`
`signed in to Instagram. (See Ex. D (printout of Plaintiff’s Instagram Post from Instagram.com
`
`reading, “Log in to like or comment,” “Log in to Instagram,” and “Log in to see photos and
`
`videos from friends and discover other accounts you’ll love.”).) It was therefore subject to terms
`
`of Instagram’s Policies that apply to content posted publicly. Mashable was accordingly able
`
`and authorized to embed Plaintiff’s Instagram Post.
`
`Because, as discussed above, embedding using Instagram’s API links back to live content
`
`hosted by Instagram, any change to the content changes what the embed code causes to appear
`
`on a third-party web page. Thus, Plaintiff could have, at any time, caused the embed code in the
`
`Article to cease linking to, referencing and showing Plaintiff’s Instagram Post by revoking her
`
`election to make that post public or deleting the Instagram Post. In other words, to the extent
`
`Plaintiff objected to Mashable embedding her Instagram Post in the Article, Plaintiff had the
`
`unique power to remove the Instagram Post from the Article in two different ways, both with the
`
`click of a button.
`
`In the Article, the embedded frame of Plaintiff’s Instagram post was surrounded by a
`
`large-print subtitle bearing Plaintiff’s name and text discussing Plaintiff and her work. (See 2d
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 15 of 21
`
`Am. Compl. Exs. B & C.) The text read:
`
`Stephanie Sinclair is a photojournalist for National Geographic and the founder of
`the nonprofit Too Young To Wed, which aims to protect girls’ rights and end
`child marriage.’
`
`She documents sensitive human rights topics internationally, with a focus on
`gender issues.
`
`Some of Sinclair’s most frequent subjects are child marriage and self-immolation.
`Her photos have been successful in bringing more attention and, more importantly
`action, to the issues women face in more underdeveloped countries with
`problematic traditions.
`
`The Article also featured a large-print pull-quote stating, “Sinclair’s photos have brought more
`
`attention, and action, to the issues women face.”
`
`Instagram’s TOU and Privacy Policy were last updated before Plaintiff created her
`
`Instagram Post and before Mashable posted the Article. (TOU; Privacy Policy.) Thus, at the
`
`time Plaintiff created the Instagram Post and at the time Plaintiff alleges Mashable published the
`
`Article, the relevant portions of Instagram’s Policies quoted above were all publicly posted and
`
`in effect.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`STANDARDS OF REVIEW
`
`“[T]he Second Circuit has endorsed the resolution of . . . copyright questions at the
`
`pleadings stage by analyzing the complaint and incorporating by reference the documents
`
`referred to therein.” BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Gossip Cop Media, LLC, 87 F. Supp. 3d 499, 505
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57,
`
`63-65 (2d Cir. 2010)). To survive a motion to dismiss, the “complaint must contain sufficient
`
`factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although courts
`
`take the factual allegations in the complaint as true, the Court is “not bound to accept as true a
`
`4830-9090-8515v.5 0098504-000011
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00790-KMW Document 19 Filed 05/02/18 Page 16 of 21
`
`legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`Id. (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
`
`inapplicable to legal conclusions.”).
`
`This Court may consider the allegations and exhibits in the Complaint and materials
`
`incorporated by reference into or otherwise integral to the Complaint on a motion to dismiss.
`
`BWP Media USA Inc. v. Hollywood Fan Sites, LLC, 69 F. Supp. 3d 342, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
`
`(citing Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004)); Boarding School Review, LLC v. Delta
`
`Career Educ. Corp., No. 11 Civ. 8921, 2013 WL 6670584, at *3 (Mar. 29, 2013).9 At this
`
`motion to dismiss stage, the Court may take judicial notice of internet materials, including
`
`websites and social media posts. See Wang v. Pataki, 396 F. Supp. 2d 446, 458 n.2 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2005) (“The Court may take judicial notice of such internet material.” (citing Hotel Employees &
`
`Rest. Employees Union, Local 100 v. New York Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534, 549
`
`(2d Cir. 2002)); Veronica Foods Co. v. Ecklin, No. 16-CV- 07223-JCS, 2017 WL 2806706, at *4
`
`(N.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) (taking judicial notice of the contents of a party’s social media posts);
`
`Moss v. Infinity Ins. Co., No. 15-CV- 03456-JSC, 2016 WL 7178559, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9,
`
`2016) (same); cf. Patsy’