iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law

Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke @repyvetteclarke.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

I demand that ICE agents leave our city immediately. Read my full statement following yesterday's despicable shooting of a New Yorker:

411927

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Yup. Nat substituted Gueye in right before the free throw.

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

The president of the United States is encouraging a racist pogrom. He is straight up evil.

001

Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 09/10/2026

i am genuinely shocked by the psychotic bloodthirst on display with hegseth

3127705689

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

White men are obligated to speak out against this racist agenda

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Confused? That’s why these terminations need to be handled by a copyright lawyer who knows your industry and understands how terminations work. And any litigation over termination must be done with the mindset that you’re creating law for all of us. 14/14

1110

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Under 17 U.S.C. 203(a)(4), the termination is served on the “grantee or the grantee’s successor in title,” meaning that it's served on the *current* copyright holder. But it’s the original grant, the first on where the authorr assigns rights, that’s terminated. 13/14

150

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Looking this over, it’s possible that the whole thing could have been saved if the Notice of Termination was done properly. Because it wasn’t, there’s this bad case law out there. 12/14

150

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

But “the problem for Plaintiff is the operative termination notice makes no reference to the original March 1989 agreement.” It mentions only the Dec. 1989 CBS-Formula One Agreement. The notice must identify the grant that applies, not “recast after the fact as terminating a different grant”. 11/14

150

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Here’s where it could’ve been saved. Strilio later served a separate notice on Formula One, terminating the original grant. The court says if this was a cognizable grant under 203, a subsequent termination of any rights conveyed in that original would be effective on the current holder. 10/14

170

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

The court found the Salt N Pepa decision persuasive: that the plaintiffs can only terminate a copyright transfer that they executed, not one executed by the production company. 9/14

160

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Court: Strilio’s termination notes aren’t valid because he didn’t execute the underlying grant of rights. The CBS Agreement was signed by Formula One, not Strilio, and that the grant of a copyright interest was made by Formula One. Strilio only signed the inducement letter with CBS. 8/14

160

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Court: Section 203 only permits authors to “unwind grants that an author himself ‘executed’”. An author can’t execute a grant executed by a third party. 7/14

160

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

2022 – Strilio serves termination notice with effective date of March 29, 2024. Sony Music claimed these were works for hire, and withdrew album from streaming platforms in US. Strilio responded by suing for copyright infringement. 6/14

170

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Strilio wasn’t a party to that agreement. Instead, he signed a separate “Inducement Letter” with CBS. 5/14

170

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Formula One in turn entered into an agreement with CBS (later acquired by Sony Music) in 1989 where Formula agreed to “furnish the services of Claude Strilio p/k/a Anything Box as a recording artist.” Formula One transferred all rights to the master recordings. 4/14

160

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Plaintiff Strilio was in a band called Anything Box. He entered into an agreement with Formula One Music Group (where Formula One owns all rights and “services” including the sound recording made from those services. 3/14

170

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

On second read, I think this disaster could’ve been avoided if the artist served the Notice of Termination correctly. At this stage, we should want only the most knowledgeable and dedicated legal teams fighting on behalf of artists. Unfortunately, this case was brought pro se. 2/14

190

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Another disappointing copyright decision on termination rights last week. There's a tough road ahead for recording artists and songwriters getting their rights back. That dreadful decision in the Salt-N-Pepa case can’t be reversed fast enough. 1/14 www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...

documentcloud.org

Strilio v Sony Music - termination rights opinion

1101

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

This game could've been an email. But I'll get excited soon enough.

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

I was asked for my point of view about this dispute, where a high school football team staged a photoshoot at California In-N-Out, and the corporate office made them take down the photos. My pieces begins around 2:22 www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP_8...

youtube.com

In-N-Out requests football team's restaurant-themed media day shoot to be removed from social media

YouTube video by FOX40 News

000

Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law

Devlin Hartline @devlinhartline.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

The Third Circuit's opinion in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence is now available: www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/252... #copyright #ai #fairuse

0106

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

I didn't even get it until someone explained what must have happened. Jack Smith didn't even mention Hawkeyes or Hawks. Schmitt's own team of geniuses found about who was playing and I suppose through a game of magaphone eventually used the wrong game in the place.

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

This weekend? I was watching the end of that.

110

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

I guess. I don't know what Jack Smith's post but it's more likely he would've said Hawkeyes, given that he's not an Iowa person

110

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

yeah but you think the "protect women's sports" party would know what team their anointed favorite played for

static.klipy.com

Caitlin Clark What

ALT: Caitlin Clark What

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

"The Board has long recognized that President Trump’s efforts and prestige provide the sole hope for the Center’s financial survival and structural renewal" What a petty pathetic lightweight dictator this man is. Those lawyers should be so embarassed to write this.

141

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

So if you’re listening to whale songs, the whales aren’t getting paid because they don’t own copyrights. Congress and the Copyright Office say that animals aren’t authors of their sounds, which is on-point as you can get. And the 9th Circuit held a monkey can’t enforce a copyright. 17/17

000

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

The Copyright Office says that a work of authorship must be created by a human being, and specifically excludes a “photograph taken by a monkey” or “mural painted by an elephant”. 16/17 www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap30...

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Unsurprisingly, the monkey’s complaint was dismissed. On the basis that a monkey doesn’t have standing to sue under the Copyright Act. 15/17 www.documentcloud.org/documents/23...

documentcloud.org

Monkey Selfie 9th Cir

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

One lawyer introduced the motion to dismiss with the best “Relevant Facts” ever, and I’m sad that I might never get to write anything this good: "The only pertinent fact in this case is that Plaintiff is a monkey suing for copyright infringement." 14/17 www.documentcloud.org/documents/23...

documentcloud.org

motion to dismiss monkey selfie

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

After a photographer claimed that a macaque grabbed his camera and snapped photos, PETA took it open itself to sue on the monkey’s behalf. PETA claimed the monkey was an author of the photograph copyrights, and sued media that posted the photos. 13/17 www.vice.com/en/article/p...

vice.com

PETA Sues Photographer on Behalf of Selfie-Taking Monkey

You know the one.

110

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

That brings us to the best-known, and most comical, authority on non-human animal copyrights. Yes, the monkey-selfie litigation! The one where the bizarre headlines genuine reflected what the case was about, for a change. 12/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

The musical work is the composition, not the sound recording. But elsewhere the Copyright Office reaffirmed that where a producer records bird songs, that producer is its sole author. 803.3. 11/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Years later, the Copyright Office wrote in its Compendium that “a musical work created solely by an animal would not be registrable, such as a bird song or whale song”. 802.5(C) 10/17 www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap80...

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

See that? Where it’s a recording of birdcalls, only the human doing the recording is the author. The birds – the ones doing the actual singing – aren’t even considered. It’s assumed that they’re not authors, the same way that cars aren’t authors. 9/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

On the other hand, where the producer’s contribution is too “minimal” they might not be an author. And there might be some where “only the record producer’s contribution is copyrightable” including “birdcalls, sounds of racing cars, et cetera.” 8/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

As part of the report they said that the producer who is “responsible for setting up the recording session, capturing and electronically processing the sounds, and compiling and editing them to make the final sound recording” can be an author. 7/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

US copyright law didn’t include any protection for sound recordings until 1972, under the Sound Recording Act of 1971. In the Congressional discussions leading up it, they discussed whether a producer could be an author of a sound recording. 6/17 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

govinfo.gov

110

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Spotify splits those payments between the recording artists (the authors), and the copyright holder (usually a record company the artists assigned their copyrights to). 5/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

A digital streaming service is obligated to pay the authors or copyright holders of a sound recording for digital transmissions, under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. 4/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Quick simplified recap of copyright basics. The sound recording copyright is the recorded performance of a songs. Its authors are its singers and musicians, and often the producer. 3/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Inspired by Spotify Wrapped, I said I was going to write a thread about whale songs and copyright, and I wasn’t kidding. I’ll even cite authority. 2/17

100

Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law @markjkings.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

A few years ago Spotify Wrapped made a joke about listening to whale sounds. That motivated me to write a Twitter thread on whether a recording of whale sounds would be protected by copyright. I saved the posts in Word so I'm gonna post it here, starting with: 1/17

100