Judge Denied Motion to Dismiss MSNBC Copyright Lawsuit
A federal judge ruled that MSNBC failed to clearly establish fair use regarding a 1987 clip.
Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should media outlets have more freedom to use short clips of copyrighted material in news?
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York denied MSNBC Cable LLC's motion to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit. Journalists Andy Humm and Ann Northrop filed the suit over the unauthorized use of a 1987 Nancy Pelosi interview clip.
Why it matters
The ruling highlights ongoing judicial scrutiny regarding the transformative nature of copyrighted archival footage in television news segments. By rejecting the motion to dismiss, the court moved the case forward to determine if the broadcast met fair use standards.
The litigation centers on a 23-second copyrighted clip that was used in a 2022 broadcast without the creators' explicit consent. The court found that the usage was not clearly fair use at this stage of the proceedings.
The players
Andy Humm
He is a journalist who serves as a plaintiff in the copyright infringement lawsuit against MSNBC.
Ann Northrop
She is a journalist and co-plaintiff in the legal action challenging the use of the 1987 archival footage.
MSNBC Cable LLC
This is a global news and opinion television network that faces allegations regarding its use of copyrighted material.
Nancy Pelosi
She is a long-serving American politician and former Speaker of the House whose 1987 interview clip is at the center of the dispute.
The details
The court evaluated the transformative nature of the clip's usage within the MSNBC segment to determine if it qualified for protection under copyright law. The ruling allows the copyright infringement claims brought by Andy Humm and Ann Northrop to proceed toward further litigation.
Timeline
1987: Original Nancy Pelosi interview footage recorded.
2022: MSNBC aired the copyrighted clip.
September 23, 2026: Judge denied motion to dismiss lawsuit.
Political Context
Opposing arguments often contend that strict copyright enforcement threatens the ability of news organizations to provide historical context through archival footage. Critics of the lawsuit may argue that the court is imposing an overly restrictive interpretation of fair use that could chill investigative journalism.
This decision reinforces the legal obligation of media companies to secure proper licensing or demonstrate transformative use when airing third-party content. Future judgments in this case could set a precedent for how broadcasters handle archival materials, potentially impacting how often older footage is used in news segments.
The takeaway
This case underscores the complexities of balancing historical archival rights with modern media broadcasting practices. Viewers should note that the legal status of clip usage remains a significant point of contention for news networks.
Further reading
For more on the intersection of media and legal standards, visit the Law section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Bloomberglaw.
Live Poll
Should media outlets have more freedom to use short clips of copyrighted material in news?
