Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
@markjkings.bsky.social
Lawyer representing creatives in California and New York
Copyright. Trademarks. Helping artists get their copyrights back.
Asterisks everywhere.
https://5bridgeslaw.com/
More links:
https://linktr.ee/markj5bridgeslaw
Copyright. Trademarks. Helping artists get their copyrights back.
Asterisks everywhere.
https://5bridgeslaw.com/
More links:
https://linktr.ee/markj5bridgeslaw
I really wonder if this should've been included? It doesn't seem essentially to the complaint. It just reminds be of a controversy I hadn't really thought about, and I wouldn't have associated the photographer with it. It's Streisanding something that isn't even material to the lawsuit.
November 13, 2025 at 9:26 PM
I really wonder if this should've been included? It doesn't seem essentially to the complaint. It just reminds be of a controversy I hadn't really thought about, and I wouldn't have associated the photographer with it. It's Streisanding something that isn't even material to the lawsuit.
Something is the same: do you remember the Ameriguns series, where people posed with their carefully arranged enormous gun collections? The photographer is suing Drake for copyright infringement, over alleged similarities in Drake's "What Did I Miss" music video.
November 13, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Something is the same: do you remember the Ameriguns series, where people posed with their carefully arranged enormous gun collections? The photographer is suing Drake for copyright infringement, over alleged similarities in Drake's "What Did I Miss" music video.
Years from now, people are gonna be confused reading the Supreme Court's opinion in Warhol v. Goldsmith. A lawsuit over a photo of Prince, who's not a party, citing Cariou v. Prince who's a different Prince. And the Court uses a Campbell's soup can an example, citing its Campbell decision.
![Moreover, a further justification for Warhol’s use of
Campbell’s logo is apparent. His Soup Cans series targets
the logo. That is, the original copyrighted work is, at least
in part, the object of Warhol’s commentary. It is the very
nature of Campbell’s copyrighted logo—well known to the
public, designed to be reproduced, and a symbol of an everyday item for mass consumption—that enables the commentary. Hence, the use of the copyrighted work not only serves
a completely different purpose, to comment on consumerism rather than to advertise soup, it also “conjures up” the
original work to “she[d] light” on the work itself, not just
the subject of the work. Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579, 588.16
Here, by contrast, AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph
does not target the photograph, nor has AWF offered another compelling justification for the use. See infra, at 34–
35, and nn. 20–21.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:64ruyhhfjvjkoix3uoe7uhfi/bafkreihyuwmsg43yrl25uev3t2pdp7n5i3u3uuni46u2ceybhfrorkdfpu@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 4:03 PM
Years from now, people are gonna be confused reading the Supreme Court's opinion in Warhol v. Goldsmith. A lawsuit over a photo of Prince, who's not a party, citing Cariou v. Prince who's a different Prince. And the Court uses a Campbell's soup can an example, citing its Campbell decision.
I don't know if it's still there but this is what the United States Department of Commerce said about tariffs when I screencapped this in January
www.trade.gov/import-tarif...
www.trade.gov/import-tarif...
November 5, 2025 at 4:25 PM
I don't know if it's still there but this is what the United States Department of Commerce said about tariffs when I screencapped this in January
www.trade.gov/import-tarif...
www.trade.gov/import-tarif...
Second, look at this proposed class. The Nationwide Class could be every single artist and rights holder with music on Spotify - except for Drake.
That would make him really not like us.
5/9
That would make him really not like us.
5/9
November 5, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Second, look at this proposed class. The Nationwide Class could be every single artist and rights holder with music on Spotify - except for Drake.
That would make him really not like us.
5/9
That would make him really not like us.
5/9
Ingrassia's opening paragraph really seems like a self-own, doesn't it?
October 29, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Ingrassia's opening paragraph really seems like a self-own, doesn't it?
5. At the Supreme Court, Supreme Court is Considering
Sometimes the headlines means someone filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case (writ of certiorari), but it hasn't granted certiorari yet. SCOTUS rejects most of the petitions, usually without explaining why.
Sometimes the headlines means someone filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case (writ of certiorari), but it hasn't granted certiorari yet. SCOTUS rejects most of the petitions, usually without explaining why.
October 24, 2025 at 7:16 PM
5. At the Supreme Court, Supreme Court is Considering
Sometimes the headlines means someone filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case (writ of certiorari), but it hasn't granted certiorari yet. SCOTUS rejects most of the petitions, usually without explaining why.
Sometimes the headlines means someone filed a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case (writ of certiorari), but it hasn't granted certiorari yet. SCOTUS rejects most of the petitions, usually without explaining why.
4. Man/Woman Sues for [Trivial Grievance]
Any time you see one of these, it's usually a class action lawsuit. There really is a person suing because the lawsuit requires a representative, but they're suing on behalf of potentially hundreds of thousands of people who were nickel and dimed.
Any time you see one of these, it's usually a class action lawsuit. There really is a person suing because the lawsuit requires a representative, but they're suing on behalf of potentially hundreds of thousands of people who were nickel and dimed.
October 24, 2025 at 7:16 PM
4. Man/Woman Sues for [Trivial Grievance]
Any time you see one of these, it's usually a class action lawsuit. There really is a person suing because the lawsuit requires a representative, but they're suing on behalf of potentially hundreds of thousands of people who were nickel and dimed.
Any time you see one of these, it's usually a class action lawsuit. There really is a person suing because the lawsuit requires a representative, but they're suing on behalf of potentially hundreds of thousands of people who were nickel and dimed.
3. The $$$ Million Lawsuit
A plaintiff can put whatever number they want on a complaint. It doesn't mean it's a realistic assessment of damages they can win. It doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit more serious or threatening. Lawyers know when they file that the big number will get headlines.
A plaintiff can put whatever number they want on a complaint. It doesn't mean it's a realistic assessment of damages they can win. It doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit more serious or threatening. Lawyers know when they file that the big number will get headlines.
October 24, 2025 at 7:16 PM
3. The $$$ Million Lawsuit
A plaintiff can put whatever number they want on a complaint. It doesn't mean it's a realistic assessment of damages they can win. It doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit more serious or threatening. Lawyers know when they file that the big number will get headlines.
A plaintiff can put whatever number they want on a complaint. It doesn't mean it's a realistic assessment of damages they can win. It doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit more serious or threatening. Lawyers know when they file that the big number will get headlines.
2. Faces __ Years in Prison
This means the maximum sentence they could face if found guilty on every charge. It is often not a realistic estimate of what their sentence would be, even if found guilty. Lawyers familiar with the particular court would know better what's realistic.
This means the maximum sentence they could face if found guilty on every charge. It is often not a realistic estimate of what their sentence would be, even if found guilty. Lawyers familiar with the particular court would know better what's realistic.
October 24, 2025 at 7:16 PM
2. Faces __ Years in Prison
This means the maximum sentence they could face if found guilty on every charge. It is often not a realistic estimate of what their sentence would be, even if found guilty. Lawyers familiar with the particular court would know better what's realistic.
This means the maximum sentence they could face if found guilty on every charge. It is often not a realistic estimate of what their sentence would be, even if found guilty. Lawyers familiar with the particular court would know better what's realistic.
1. Pleads Not Guilty.
Every criminal defendant always pleads not guilty at initial arraignment. It doesn't mean they're going to trial. It doesn't mean they've prepared a defense. It doesn't mean that they won't later plead guilty, or that they're not working with prosecutors on a plea.
Every criminal defendant always pleads not guilty at initial arraignment. It doesn't mean they're going to trial. It doesn't mean they've prepared a defense. It doesn't mean that they won't later plead guilty, or that they're not working with prosecutors on a plea.
October 24, 2025 at 7:16 PM
1. Pleads Not Guilty.
Every criminal defendant always pleads not guilty at initial arraignment. It doesn't mean they're going to trial. It doesn't mean they've prepared a defense. It doesn't mean that they won't later plead guilty, or that they're not working with prosecutors on a plea.
Every criminal defendant always pleads not guilty at initial arraignment. It doesn't mean they're going to trial. It doesn't mean they've prepared a defense. It doesn't mean that they won't later plead guilty, or that they're not working with prosecutors on a plea.
I suppose you can't say it's deceptive but I can't over that it's a verified artist
October 20, 2025 at 4:46 PM
I suppose you can't say it's deceptive but I can't over that it's a verified artist
Copyright law people will know the real reason I took this photo
October 19, 2025 at 2:39 AM
Copyright law people will know the real reason I took this photo
I took this shot yesterday at Trader Joe's. This is what their products look. Each of these is a Trader Joe's branded product and that's how I expect consumers understand them.
* we didn't get the sandwiches but I did note they're vegan
* we didn't get the sandwiches but I did note they're vegan
October 16, 2025 at 5:27 PM
I took this shot yesterday at Trader Joe's. This is what their products look. Each of these is a Trader Joe's branded product and that's how I expect consumers understand them.
* we didn't get the sandwiches but I did note they're vegan
* we didn't get the sandwiches but I did note they're vegan
This section of the Constitution is making the social media rounds again, so it's worth explaining the misunderstanding.
1/3
constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
1/3
constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
October 14, 2025 at 3:18 PM
This section of the Constitution is making the social media rounds again, so it's worth explaining the misunderstanding.
1/3
constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
1/3
constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
"Hyperbolic Vituperations" sounds like a collab between Kendrick and Aesop Rock
7/9
7/9
October 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
"Hyperbolic Vituperations" sounds like a collab between Kendrick and Aesop Rock
7/9
7/9
Court notes both Drake and Kendrick were taking shots at each other
6/9
6/9
October 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Court notes both Drake and Kendrick were taking shots at each other
6/9
6/9
Interesting to me: I didn't recall any previous lawsuits alleging defamation over a diss track. The closes I could recall was Lindsay Lohan's lawsuit vs. Pitbull over the "locked up" lyric.
I either didn't know or didn't remember Michael Rapaport's lawsuit vs Barstool Sports.
4/9
I either didn't know or didn't remember Michael Rapaport's lawsuit vs Barstool Sports.
4/9
![In Rapaport v. Barstool Sports, Inc., the district court found that an audience
would not reasonably conclude that statements suggesting that the plaintiff had
herpes and had abused his ex-girlfriend constituted assertions of facts when
published in a six-minute diss track music video. No. 18-CV-8783 (NRB), 2021 WL
1178240, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021), aff’d, No. 22-2080-CV, 2024 WL 88636 (2d
Cir. Jan. 9, 2024). The district court observed that the statements were “delivered
in the midst of a public and very acrimonious dispute between [the parties] that
would have been obvious to even the most casual observer.” Id. The video in
question reviewed the “recent history of the acrimonious dispute that resulted in
Rapaport’s termination just days before the video’s publication,” and also included a
photoshopped photo of the defendant in a derogatory manner. Id. That clear
background “contextualize[d] for the audience that the statements in the video are](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:64ruyhhfjvjkoix3uoe7uhfi/bafkreihetcnwg7jsvtdimpuzsqaj5mh2fw3b6r5hvjukxqtxasrqagag44@jpeg)
October 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Interesting to me: I didn't recall any previous lawsuits alleging defamation over a diss track. The closes I could recall was Lindsay Lohan's lawsuit vs. Pitbull over the "locked up" lyric.
I either didn't know or didn't remember Michael Rapaport's lawsuit vs Barstool Sports.
4/9
I either didn't know or didn't remember Michael Rapaport's lawsuit vs Barstool Sports.
4/9
Court: "The average listener is not under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-checked verifiable content."
3/9
3/9
![The forum here is a music recording, in particular a rap “diss track,” with
accompanying video and album art. Diss tracks are much more akin to forums like
YouTube and X, which “encourag[e] a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style,”
than journalistic reporting. Sandals Resorts, 86 A.D.3d at 43 (quotation marks
omitted). The average listener is not under the impression that a diss track is the
product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-
checked verifiable content.
2. Surrounding Circumstances
Next, the Court considers the “full context of the communication in which the
statement appears,” including the “setting surrounding the communication.”
Steinhilber v. Alphone, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 294 (1986). The fact that the Recording was
made in the midst of a rap battle is essential to assessing its impact on a reasonable
listener. “Even apparent statements of fact may assume the character of
statements of opinion . . . when made in public debate, heated labor dispute, or](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:64ruyhhfjvjkoix3uoe7uhfi/bafkreihq6wvnn6r537cqhyj6kdf2y4z3ibipg7pc4jesuaqekrfkvyiimu@jpeg)
October 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Court: "The average listener is not under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-checked verifiable content."
3/9
3/9
This being a defamation claim, the key question is whether lyrics in Not Like Us accusing Drake of pedophilia can be understood as facts or opinion. If opinion, there's no defamation claim. Of these 3 factors, the 3rd is most important: the broader social context and surrounding circumstances
2/9
2/9
October 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
This being a defamation claim, the key question is whether lyrics in Not Like Us accusing Drake of pedophilia can be understood as facts or opinion. If opinion, there's no defamation claim. Of these 3 factors, the 3rd is most important: the broader social context and surrounding circumstances
2/9
2/9
From the Letitia James indictment. Note the parenthetical (3) without the word "three" that would make it necessary.
Obviously this doesn't make or break the indictment, but it indicates how sloppy they went about this indictment, not even having qualified people proofread it. Careless fascists.
Obviously this doesn't make or break the indictment, but it indicates how sloppy they went about this indictment, not even having qualified people proofread it. Careless fascists.
October 10, 2025 at 4:24 PM
From the Letitia James indictment. Note the parenthetical (3) without the word "three" that would make it necessary.
Obviously this doesn't make or break the indictment, but it indicates how sloppy they went about this indictment, not even having qualified people proofread it. Careless fascists.
Obviously this doesn't make or break the indictment, but it indicates how sloppy they went about this indictment, not even having qualified people proofread it. Careless fascists.
It's the only trademark that Golden State Valkyries has applied to register so far.
The team name and logo, like the other teams, is owned by the WNBA.
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
The team name and logo, like the other teams, is owned by the WNBA.
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
September 28, 2025 at 2:52 PM
It's the only trademark that Golden State Valkyries has applied to register so far.
The team name and logo, like the other teams, is owned by the WNBA.
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
The team name and logo, like the other teams, is owned by the WNBA.
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
Helping make the case that Ballhalla isn't confined to one place:
It's the Golden State Valkyries that applied to register the BALLHALLA trademark, not Chase Center. *
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
It's the Golden State Valkyries that applied to register the BALLHALLA trademark, not Chase Center. *
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
September 28, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Helping make the case that Ballhalla isn't confined to one place:
It's the Golden State Valkyries that applied to register the BALLHALLA trademark, not Chase Center. *
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
It's the Golden State Valkyries that applied to register the BALLHALLA trademark, not Chase Center. *
tsdr.uspto.gov#caseNumber=9...
I realized there is a clip of that guy on my feed so to balance it out here are photos of my dogs at the beach
September 19, 2025 at 11:08 PM
I realized there is a clip of that guy on my feed so to balance it out here are photos of my dogs at the beach
Seen outside SAP Center during the Valkyries block party: a Mister Softee truck!
I represented Mister Softee a few times in New York, in trademark enforcement and litigation. I think this is the first time I've seen them in California.
I represented Mister Softee a few times in New York, in trademark enforcement and litigation. I think this is the first time I've seen them in California.
September 18, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Seen outside SAP Center during the Valkyries block party: a Mister Softee truck!
I represented Mister Softee a few times in New York, in trademark enforcement and litigation. I think this is the first time I've seen them in California.
I represented Mister Softee a few times in New York, in trademark enforcement and litigation. I think this is the first time I've seen them in California.