Akiva Meir Cohen / AkivaMCohen / Akiva ben Yisroel HaKohen - Filing photos of his own children with the copyright office so he can sue the KF for that sweet, sweet brand ownership.

  • Thread starter Thread starter AJ 447
  • Start date Start date
AnOminous said:
If you live in Long Island you don't even get to call yourself a New Yorker. And should probably actually just kill yourself or move to Florida to die like all the other Long Island Jews.
Click to expand...

The Jews go to Florida. The other white people go to Georgia or South Carolina.
 
RodgerDodger said:
Oh gods no. Long Island is in no way part of NYC, it’s it’s own cultural (bad) thing. On Long Island there are no black people north of the Long Island Expressway. And south of it they are mostly getting run out by MS-13. North Shore LI is all uppity white people. With a well established population of mobsters, bankers lawyers and other members of the criminal class. (No seriously if you want a crime free safe neighborhood, live where the mob lives.)

And for the record Cohen looks to be the Long Island Jewish equivalent of the Christian fundies. The regular Jews roll their eyes at him the same way normal not insane Christians do at the fundies. Really the only difference is prosyletazing. The Fundies will annoying try and convert you. While the “practicing” Orthodox Jews make it perfectly clear that you will never ever be one of them. Of the two the Ortho Jews are slightly less annoying so long as you don’t share a property line with them.
Click to expand...
AnOminous said:
If you live in Long Island you don't even get to call yourself a New Yorker. And should probably actually just kill yourself or move to Florida to die like all the other Long Island Jews.
Click to expand...

Honestly, when it comes to Long Island, the only things I know are the New York Islanders, the Hamptons, and the Long Island Sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tommy Wiseau Kin, Uncanny Valley, REGENDarySumanai and 1 other person
The Depo's great. I covered some of his body language in the deposition over in the legal thread.


But to swing back to Cohren:

:

3. The permissions you give us
We need certain permissions from you to provide our services:
  1. Permission to use content that you create and share:You own the content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Products you use, and nothing in these Terms takes away the rights that you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. To provide our services, however, we need you to give us some legal permissions to use this content.

    Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (e.g. photos or videos) on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and applicationsettings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products that you use.

    You can end this licence at any time by deleting your content or account. You should know that, for technical reasons, any content that you delete may persist for a limited period of time in backup copies (though it will not be visible to other users). In addition, content that you delete may continue to appear if you have shared it with others and they have not deleted it.
==============================

The fact the Farms got all these pictures, registered copyright or not, means it was obviously not behind much in the way of privacy settings.

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

Same with Cohren again, not sending his twitter private means that even Twitter basically says they can do jack shit about it.

That and posting his fucking home address public ally like a fucking sped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adamska, YayLasagna, Cryptozoology and 3 others
For some reason no one posted this, where he says it's actually $300,000 and he registered his own family photos with the USCO.

1562856042832.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Adamska, Carpenter Trout, Mexican_Wizard_711 and 35 others
Null said:
For some reason no one posted this, where he says it's actually $300,000 and he registered his own family photos with the USCO.

View attachment 836478
Click to expand...

Not sure how Copyright law works, but from what I have heard you can't really put pictures into the public domain then retroactively rescind them. The only place of publication for the pictures was facebook and twitter, which are open forum and specifically state in the TOS all images posted to the site are free to use by the company and other users of the platform.
 
mindlessobserver said:
Not sure how Copyright law works, but from what I have heard you can't really put pictures into the public domain then retroactively rescind them.
Click to expand...
nah you can absolutely post things on Twitter/Facebook and retain copyright. That's a misconception. The problem is, if you do that, you don't really get to cry if people repost them to make fun of them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Kosher Salt, CDWLTY, Adamska and 38 others
Null said:
nah you can absolutely post things on Twitter/Facebook and retain copyright. That's a misconception. The problem is, if you do that, you don't really get to cry if people repost them to make fun of them.
Click to expand...

In the US comedy is generally one of the most protected forms of speech. The only question is if images posted on a forum with running commentary is transformative enough to qualify for that protection.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Adamska, Marvin, Cryptozoology and 10 others
Null said:
nah you can absolutely post things on Twitter/Facebook and retain copyright. That's a misconception. The problem is, if you do that, you don't really get to cry if people repost them to make fun of them.
Click to expand...

When can we expect an episode of "Mad at the Internet" based on this Super Lawyer?
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Adamska, Marchesa of the Vast, Barrister and 12 others
Null said:
For some reason no one posted this, where he says it's actually $300,000 and he registered his own family photos with the USCO.

View attachment 836478
Click to expand...
Oh well. Time to pack it up. Looks like it's all over guys. I'll make sure to become your paypig purchase your low-quality clothing product line so that I can help crowdfund this epic lolsuit.
 
  • Feels
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: The Ultimate Ramotith, Questioning_Huggers and Evil Bunny
Null said:
nah you can absolutely post things on Twitter/Facebook and retain copyright. That's a misconception. The problem is, if you do that, you don't really get to cry if people repost them to make fun of them.
Click to expand...
he say "application in process". So it's probably not yet copyrighted right ?
 
Null said:
nah you can absolutely post things on Twitter/Facebook and retain copyright. That's a misconception. The problem is, if you do that, you don't really get to cry if people repost them to make fun of them.
Click to expand...

This case seemed to indicate otherwise, though I can't seem to find how it all ultimately ended. Also there's the fact that the images themselves are hosted here, I guess.

Embedding a tweet could be copyright infringement, says new court ruling

archive.li

Embedding a tweet could be copyright infringement - The Verge

archived 20 Feb 2018 08:05:37 UTC
archive.li archive.li
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Cryptozoology, The Ultimate Ramotith and Splendid
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back