Non-Exclusive Social Media License Bars User’s Copyright Claims

1. Introduction

In Sethunya v. TikTok, Inc., 10th Cir. No. 24-4045 (Apr. 18, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confronted a pro se plaintiff’s effort to recover for alleged copyright infringement and tortious harassment occurring on two major social-media platforms, TikTok and Instagram. Victoria Sethunya created a video and posted it to both services. Other users then reposted or incorporated her content without permission. Sethunya demanded removal of all unauthorized uses, but when platforms did not remove every instance she sued both companies under the Copyright Act and state tort law (racial and sexual harassment in user comments). The district court granted TikTok’s and Meta’s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, holding that by agreeing to each service’s Terms of Service (TOS), Sethunya had granted non-exclusive licenses covering the disputed uses and so lacked a statutory basis for copyright liability. It also declined supplemental jurisdiction over her state tort claims for lack of diversity. This appeal followed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in full. Key holdings include:

• Copyright Claims: By accepting TikTok’s and Instagram’s TOS, Sethunya irrevocably granted each platform (and its users) a non-exclusive license encompassing the storage, modification, distribution, and public display of her video. That license foreclosed her infringement claims as a matter of law (citing Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998)).
• Waiver of Objections: Sethunya failed to lodge specific objections in district court to the license-based dismissals. Under the “firm waiver rule,” she forfeited any challenge absent plain-error review, which she did not satisfy.
• State-Law Tort Claims: The district court correctly declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Sethunya did not plead facts to support diversity jurisdiction over her state tort claims.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The court relied principally on Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1998), which holds that a copyright owner who grants a non‐exclusive license waives the right to sue the licensee for infringement. It also applied the “firm waiver rule” from United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996), requiring timely and specific objections to magistrate-judge recommendations to preserve appellate review. And it reiterated the standards for dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and summary judgment under Rule 56 (Albers v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 771 F.3d 697 (10th Cir. 2014); Rivero v. Bd. of Regents, 950 F.3d 754 (10th Cir. 2020)).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

License–Based Dismissal: Both TikTok’s and Meta’s TOS grant non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable licenses to host, use, distribute, modify, and publicly perform or display user-uploaded content. The court treated TikTok’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) and Meta’s motion (converted to summary judgment) under Rule 56 the same way: the license language encompasses all uses Sethunya later complained of, leaving no viable copyright claim.

Waiver Rule: The magistrate judge warned that failure to object specifically to his recommendation would waive appellate review. Sethunya’s pro se objections did not challenge the license holdings on any specific ground (e.g., unconscionability, lack of capacity). Under the firm waiver rule, her appeal could proceed only under plain-error review, which she failed to demonstrate.

Supplemental Jurisdiction: Sethunya’s second amended complaint asserted state-law torts but alleged no facts to show complete diversity among the parties. The district court therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a ruling Sethunya also did not meaningfully contest on appeal.

3.3 Impact

This decision reinforces two key principles:

1. Social-media TOS licenses will generally insulate platforms and their user base from downstream infringement suits by content creators who upload material under those agreements.
2. Pro se litigants must meaningfully and specifically object to magistrate-judge recommendations or face forfeiture of appellate arguments under the firm waiver doctrine.

Going forward, content creators and their counsel should scrutinize TOS license provisions before bringing infringement claims against platforms or fellow users. Plaintiffs relying on federal jurisdiction for state-law claims must also plead diversity facts carefully or risk dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Non-Exclusive License: A permission that allows the licensee to use copyrighted material, but does not prevent the copyright owner from granting the same rights to others or from suing third parties outside the license.
• Firm Waiver Rule: A strict rule requiring parties to lodge timely and specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations. Failure to do so generally forfeits appellate review.
• Rule 12(b)(6) vs. Rule 56: A 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint states legally sufficient claims assuming all well-pleaded facts are true. A Rule 56 motion (summary judgment) asks whether any genuine dispute of fact remains for trial, considering the entire evidentiary record.
• Supplemental Jurisdiction: Federal courts may hear state-law claims related to federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but may decline to do so if federal claims are dismissed or if diversity jurisdiction is absent.

5. Conclusion

Sethunya v. TikTok cements the principle that standard social-media Terms of Service granting broad, irrevocable non-exclusive licenses to user content bar subsequent infringement suits against the platforms and their users. It also underscores pro se litigants’ obligation to make specific objections to preserve issues for appeal. Content creators should heed these rulings in drafting, uploading, and litigating around digital-platform agreements.