TOMS RIVER, N.J. — What started as a routine copyright demand against a small New Jersey news outlet evolved into a high-stakes legal fight over one of the most fundamental tools in modern journalism: the ability to use and embed online video. The end result preserved the right to embed and can serve as a case study for any media outlet facing the wrath of unscrupulous copyright trolls who share videos on YouTube, intending to sue publishers for huge and absurd sums of money if they later embed them.
The case was filed in New Jersey federal court and can now be looked at as the backbone defense for publishers who face legal challenges over their legitimate use of YouTube embedding in their news articles.
Usually, these copyright trolls are seeking a quick settlement to ‘go away’, which most victims eventually do. But when they came face to face with one, Shore News Network hired nationally renowned First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza and dug in for a fight.
In June 2026, Lynk Media LLC quietly dropped its federal copyright lawsuit against Shore Media & Marketing, the parent company of Shore News Network, shortly after First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza entered the case and presented them with a sweeping constitutional and technical defense..
At issue was not just a single image or video embed, but whether news organizations could legally report on public events using content published on platforms like YouTube. Lynk Media, also known as Freedomnews.tv, which is operated by Ukrainian-born videographer and former real estate agent Oliya Fedun, wanted Shore News Network to pay $25,000 for embedding a YouTube video in a news report and for sharing a single still image.
The report came to Shore News Network from the New York City Police Department. The department used still images from Feydun’s YouTube video in search of criminal suspects wanted for disrupting the New York City transit system during the Jordan Neely protests. During those protests, protesters stood on tracks, shutting down the city’s subway system.
Those images were already being used by the New York City Police Department and widely shared in multiple wanted postings, but that wasn’t even relevant to this case.
Shore News Network published that photo and a still shot via the YouTube official embed script.
Shortly afterward, Shore News Network received a “License Audit” from the New York City-based law firm, The Sanders Law Group. That firm is representing Feydun in multiple other similar copyright infringement cases. Most of those cases are against big media players who saw mediation and settlement as an easy and quick way out.
Shore News Network, defended by Randazza, dug in to fight.
“They wanted us to pay $25,000 for embedding a YouTube video, which, still today, is publicly shareable according to the license agreement and sub-license agreement between Feydun and YouTube,” said Phil Stilton, editor of Shore News Network, who also served as a U.S. Marine. “I decided if I am going to pay $25,000, I’d rather pay one of America’s top First Amendment lawyers, win, then bring the fight back to FreedomNews.TV and recoup our costs, and that’s what Marc was going to do.”
Stilton said he knew that with Randazza’s record on defending the First Amendment, he was in good hands.
How it started
The case stemmed from coverage of protests in New York City following the death of Jordan Neely in May 2023.
Lynk Media, which owns rights to the protest footage, alleged that Shore News “copied and displayed” a still image derived from its video, claiming the use was willful and commercially motivated.
According to the complaint, Shore Media “improperly and illegally copied, reproduced, distributed, adapted, and/or publicly displayed” copyrighted material and financially benefited from increased traffic and advertising revenue.
“It was an editorial report to help the NYPD find the criminals they were searching for,” Stilton said, defending his stance. “This was not a commercial use. It was absurd. If we have to fear being sued every time we help police find criminals, it would be a fundamental breakdown of why the media even exists. We’re all photographers and understand the importance of copyright laws and how to use them. We would never infringe on another’s copyright as this lawsuit claimed.”
Stilton also pointed out again that Freedomnews.TV was using a video-sharing platform with embedding enabled; under the YouTube license, he could share and embed the video.
“We have to live without fear that we’re going to be sued for following the law, and using the videos on YouTube in accordance with the license and sublicense content creators agree to when using that platform,” he added.
The Reality: A low-res Screenshot of a Public Event
What Lynk Media described as infringement was, in practice, a single, low-resolution frame taken from a nearly 20-minute video depicting a real-world protest — a newsworthy event already widely disseminated online.
The original video was first published on May 6, 2023, and later registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
The key legal question quickly became:
Can a news outlet report on a public event using a still image derived from a publicly available video describing the event?
The Defense: De Minimis Use
Randazza’s response dismantled the case at its core. It’s a defense used against LynkMedia in other cases, in which they found themselves on the losing end.
Randazza argued that the alleged infringement was so minor as to fail to meet the legal threshold for copyright liability.
“A court must find more than a de minimis copying,” Randazza wrote, citing federal precedent. The use of “a single, low-resolution screenshot of a video that is nearly nineteen minutes long” falls below that threshold.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that trivial or insignificant uses — especially those representing only a tiny fraction of a work — are not actionable.
This argument struck at the heart of Lynk Media’s claim: even if copying occurred, it was too minimal to matter legally.
The Defense: Fair Use and News Reporting
The second pillar of the defense was fair use — a doctrine central to journalism.
Randazza argued that Shore News used the image “for the purpose of reporting on the then-contemporaneous Jordan Neely protests,” placing it squarely within the protections of Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
Each of the four fair use factors weighed in favor of the outlet:
- Purpose and character: Transformative use for news reporting
- Nature of the work: Factual, documenting a real-world event
- Amount used: A single, non-central frame
- Market impact: No meaningful harm to the original video’s value
Randazza emphasized that restricting such use would undermine the public’s access to information about real-world events.
The Most Important Argument: YouTube’s License
But the most consequential argument — and the one with industry-wide implications — centered on YouTube itself.
Randazza pointed directly to YouTube’s Terms of Service, which grant users a broad license to:
“reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display, and perform [content]… as enabled by a feature of the Service (such as video playback or embeds).”
In other words:
When a creator uploads a video to YouTube, they agree to let others embed and display that content using the platform’s tools.
That license flows downstream to publishers, including news organizations.
The defense argued that Shore News’ use — including embedding or referencing the video — was explicitly authorized under these terms.
If Lynk Media’s theory had prevailed, it could have upended a foundational assumption of digital media: that embedding publicly available video is lawful. It could have made millions of YouTube embeds around the world suddenly become copyright infringement.
It was a battle their opponent was unwilling to fight, and the case was dismissed shortly after Randazza stepped into the arena.
A Pattern of Litigation
Randazza described Lynk Media as a company that “amasses the rights to images depicting important moments of public concern and then… initiates lawsuits” against publishers.
This characterization aligns with what legal experts call copyright trolling — filing aggressive claims over marginal uses in hopes of securing quick settlements.
Courts have increasingly pushed back on such claims.
In one recent federal case cited by the defense, a court ruled that single-frame screenshots from videos “are generally considered to constitute de minimis use,” reinforcing the argument that minimal copying does not justify litigation.
The Stakes for Journalism
Had Lynk Media succeeded, the consequences could have been sweeping:
- News outlets might face liability for embedding YouTube videos
- Routine reporting on viral or breaking events could become legally risky
- Smaller publishers could be pressured into settlements regardless of merit
In effect, it would have created a system in which reporting on publicly shared video could trigger costly legal exposure.
The Case Collapses
Instead, the case ended abruptly.
In June 2026 — shortly after Randazza’s response laid out the legal deficiencies — Lynk Media dropped the lawsuit.
No court ruling was issued, but the timing was telling. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but it is now well beyond the statute of limitations, which expired on May 23rd, according to the company’s lawsuit.
The Bigger Picture
This case underscores a growing tension in digital media:
- On one side: aggressive copyright enforcement strategies
- On the other hand, the realities of modern journalism, where information spreads instantly across platforms
For Shore Media, the fight was about survival. For the broader industry, it was about precedent. One that publishers worldwide can lean on, thanks to Randazza.
“If you’re facing a copyright troll, I would highly suggest Mr. Randazza,” Stilton added. “You can basically say he just saved the internet.”
The Bottom Line
A small New Jersey news company faced a federal copyright lawsuit over a single image. Instead of settling, it fought — and forced a legal reckoning over fair use, de minimis copying, and the legal framework underpinning YouTube itself.
The lawsuit is gone. The implications remain.
Because if embedding video had been ruled illegal, the modern internet — and modern journalism — would look very different today.
If you’re a publisher facing a similar legal scenario, you can reach Randazza at www.randazza.com or 888-887-1776