## Facts

- MAI Photo News Agency, Inc. and its principal, Greg Mathieson (collectively, Mathieson), owned video footage depicting U.S. military operations in Iraq.
- American Broadcasting Company, Inc. (ABC) sought to use portions of that footage in an ABC news program titled *Peter Jennings Reporting*.
- Mathieson and ABC entered into a written license agreement authorizing ABC to use Mathieson’s recordings in the program “as distributed two times worldwide in all media now known and hereafter conceived or created.”
- The agreement set compensation at $40 per second of Mathieson footage used in the program.
- Mathieson sent ABC two VHS tapes containing footage in which ABC had expressed interest.
- For production purposes, ABC made working copies by transferring the footage from VHS to Beta format for editing and other internal production needs.
- ABC ultimately used 85 seconds of Mathieson’s footage in the program and paid Mathieson $3,400 (85 seconds × $40).
- ABC aired the program in June 1997 and announced at the end of the broadcast that viewers could purchase a copy of the program for $29.95.
- ABC sold 248 copies of the program to viewers as home video.
- ABC later rebroadcast the program in December 1997, but omitted Mathieson’s footage after Mathieson threatened legal action.
- Mathieson sued, alleging (among other theories) that ABC exceeded the license and infringed Mathieson’s copyrights by (i) making working copies and (ii) distributing the program containing the footage on home video.
- ABC moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a license authorizing use of footage in a program “as distributed two times worldwide in all media now known and hereafter conceived or created” permitted ABC to distribute the program containing the footage via home-video sales.
2. Whether ABC’s internal creation of “working copies” (VHS-to-Beta transfers) for editing and production exceeded the scope of the license and infringed Mathieson’s copyrights.
3. Whether copyright infringement and related claims can proceed when the challenged uses fall within the scope of a written license agreement.

## Decision

- The court granted ABC’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court concluded that ABC’s distribution of the program on home video fell within the scope of the license’s broad grant tied to the authorized distributions of the program.
- The court concluded that ABC’s internal working copies made in the ordinary course of producing the licensed program did not exceed the license and were not independently actionable as copyright infringement.
- Because the complained-of uses were authorized by the license, Mathieson’s infringement-based and related theories premised on acting outside the license did not survive summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright license is interpreted using ordinary contract principles; when license language is broad and format-agnostic (such as “all media now known and hereafter conceived or created”), it can permit distribution in multiple formats unless the agreement limits particular channels or formats.
- Authorization to incorporate licensed footage into an audiovisual program generally carries with it permission to make reasonable internal copies required to edit and produce that program, absent a contrary restriction in the agreement.
- Conduct within the scope of a valid license is not an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106; disputes over the deal’s terms may sound in contract, but a claim framed as infringement fails when the use is licensed.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for ABC because the written license’s broad “all media” grant authorized ABC’s complained-of uses—selling a limited number of home-video copies of the broadcast and making internal working copies for production—so Mathieson could not treat those licensed acts as copyright infringement.


MAI Photo News Agency v. American Broadcasting Co., 2001 WL 180020 (2001)