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
He should've been finished long ago, a hundred of racisms ago. There's obviously no redeeming this man, and very little hope that the lackeys surrounding him are capable of any good at all.
Their legacy will be "how could we let this happen" for decades to come.
Their legacy will be "how could we let this happen" for decades to come.
here's Trump's full racist rant about MN's Somali community: "Somalians ripped off that state for billions. And they contribute nothing... Ilhan Omar is garbage. She's garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren't people that work... They come from hell & do nothing but bitch. We don't want them"
December 3, 2025 at 4:25 AM
He should've been finished long ago, a hundred of racisms ago. There's obviously no redeeming this man, and very little hope that the lackeys surrounding him are capable of any good at all.
Their legacy will be "how could we let this happen" for decades to come.
Their legacy will be "how could we let this happen" for decades to come.
1. This whole thing is funny if you picture Joe Pesci as the lawyer.
2. There's no way a lawyer interpreted the question like that. Absolutely no way.
2. There's no way a lawyer interpreted the question like that. Absolutely no way.
#LegalEthics Tidbit: Can I interpret the judge’s question as asking something different than what I know he is really asking?
A NY attorney with a home in VA (but who was not licensed in VA) accompanied a friend to VA traffic court and sat up at ... (cont.)
lnkd.in/eZczBY3J
#lawsky #law
A NY attorney with a home in VA (but who was not licensed in VA) accompanied a friend to VA traffic court and sat up at ... (cont.)
lnkd.in/eZczBY3J
#lawsky #law
![The respondent admitted that when Judge Shah asked him if he was a licensed attorney in Virginia
and if he had an office in Virginia, he answered yes to both questions. The respondent explained,
“[Judge Shah] did not ask me if I was admitted to practice in
Virginia. He asked me, specifically, whether I was a licensed
attorney in Virginia. So it was . . . I knew what he was asking me. I
just interpreted it a little differently than he had . . . . I just thought
there was like some ambiguity in his question.”
The respondent explained that he owned a home in Virginia and was working at home, and therefore,
he believed that he had a home office in Virginia.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qlqfq3wnq4yl4xfr2nsol3v2/bafkreibxjcdlflc6ihsxgsorlho3sqd5rg3j3zxeom6nkddlyaresqzbau@jpeg)
December 2, 2025 at 4:52 PM
1. This whole thing is funny if you picture Joe Pesci as the lawyer.
2. There's no way a lawyer interpreted the question like that. Absolutely no way.
2. There's no way a lawyer interpreted the question like that. Absolutely no way.
A few years ago, Cher sued Mary Bono in a complicated dispute, involving the intersection between copyright termination rights, marriage settlements, and royalties.
It's finally resolved.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
It's finally resolved.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Cher v Bono - Judgment
www.documentcloud.org
December 2, 2025 at 4:33 PM
A few years ago, Cher sued Mary Bono in a complicated dispute, involving the intersection between copyright termination rights, marriage settlements, and royalties.
It's finally resolved.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
It's finally resolved.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Incompetence will save us from full blown autocracy… probably
November 30, 2025 at 3:16 AM
Incompetence will save us from full blown autocracy… probably
Go Tish!
And now, the case against Letitia James is dismissed too, same rationale but minus the statute of limitations complication.
November 24, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Go Tish!
CALL YOUR MOTHER, a bagel shop in DC, is suing CALL YOUR BUBBI, a bagel shop in New Jersey, for trademark infringement.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Call Your Mother v Call Your Bubbi - bagel trademark complaint
www.documentcloud.org
November 24, 2025 at 5:23 PM
CALL YOUR MOTHER, a bagel shop in DC, is suing CALL YOUR BUBBI, a bagel shop in New Jersey, for trademark infringement.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
"Sui generis" is a legal term. In everyday speech, there will rarely be a scenario where it's better to use than "unique".
completely outside of politics, this is so charming
November 21, 2025 at 5:54 PM
"Sui generis" is a legal term. In everyday speech, there will rarely be a scenario where it's better to use than "unique".
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
I am certain this will be treated by the right exactly the way Jussie Smollet was
Statement given to me by Rep. Van Drew's office about the charges filed by the US Attorney's Office against former staffer Natalie Greene:
November 19, 2025 at 11:26 PM
I am certain this will be treated by the right exactly the way Jussie Smollet was
This is amazing. I'm not the envying type but I envy Comey's lawyers getting a gift like this.
NEWS: During a hearing in federal court in VA, prosecutors confirmed that the operative indictment in the case against James Comey was never shown to or voted on by the entire grand jury before it was presented in open court.
Defense counsel argued that’s a complete bar to further prosecution
Defense counsel argued that’s a complete bar to further prosecution
November 20, 2025 at 1:22 AM
This is amazing. I'm not the envying type but I envy Comey's lawyers getting a gift like this.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Once again, Trump is threatening to have his FCC attack dog collectively punish an entire network because one of its reporters asked him a tough question.
The Epstein Coverup clearly matters far more to him than the 1st Amendment ever could.
And it's not hard to figure out why.
The Epstein Coverup clearly matters far more to him than the 1st Amendment ever could.
And it's not hard to figure out why.
Reporter: Mr. President, why wait for congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just do it now?
Trump: It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude… I think the license should be taken away from ABC. We have a great commissioner, a chairman who should look at that.
Trump: It's not the question that I mind. It's your attitude… I think the license should be taken away from ABC. We have a great commissioner, a chairman who should look at that.
November 18, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Once again, Trump is threatening to have his FCC attack dog collectively punish an entire network because one of its reporters asked him a tough question.
The Epstein Coverup clearly matters far more to him than the 1st Amendment ever could.
And it's not hard to figure out why.
The Epstein Coverup clearly matters far more to him than the 1st Amendment ever could.
And it's not hard to figure out why.
Sorry everyone, antitrust law only applies to meanie songwriters, not scrappy entrepreneurs like Meta
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/t...
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/t...
Meta Did Not Violate Antitrust Law, Judge Rules
www.nytimes.com
November 18, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Sorry everyone, antitrust law only applies to meanie songwriters, not scrappy entrepreneurs like Meta
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/t...
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/t...
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Indictment_v5_final_do-not-use_FINAL.docx
November 17, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Indictment_v5_final_do-not-use_FINAL.docx
Something about how a fact was something that Comey would have to explain at trial, I suppose. But:
1. Why redact this? We already have an idea of what they said.
2. We have to confront how much prosecutors get away with in front of grand juries
1. Why redact this? We already have an idea of what they said.
2. We have to confront how much prosecutors get away with in front of grand juries
Okay lawyers let's have some fun
What did she say
What did she say
November 17, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Something about how a fact was something that Comey would have to explain at trial, I suppose. But:
1. Why redact this? We already have an idea of what they said.
2. We have to confront how much prosecutors get away with in front of grand juries
1. Why redact this? We already have an idea of what they said.
2. We have to confront how much prosecutors get away with in front of grand juries
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.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
At last: every American is getting to discover the joys of doing doc review.
(Can the Oversight committee load the trove up in a Relativity instance or something?)
(Can the Oversight committee load the trove up in a Relativity instance or something?)
November 13, 2025 at 12:49 AM
At last: every American is getting to discover the joys of doing doc review.
(Can the Oversight committee load the trove up in a Relativity instance or something?)
(Can the Oversight committee load the trove up in a Relativity instance or something?)
Cameo, the app where you can pay celebrities for personalized greetings, is suing OpenAI for trademark infringement.
It alleges OpenAI is offering a similar service but with AI generated versions of celebrities, and OpenAI is calling it Cameo.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
It alleges OpenAI is offering a similar service but with AI generated versions of celebrities, and OpenAI is calling it Cameo.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Baron App dba Cameo v OpenAI - trademark complaint
www.documentcloud.org
November 12, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Cameo, the app where you can pay celebrities for personalized greetings, is suing OpenAI for trademark infringement.
It alleges OpenAI is offering a similar service but with AI generated versions of celebrities, and OpenAI is calling it Cameo.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
It alleges OpenAI is offering a similar service but with AI generated versions of celebrities, and OpenAI is calling it Cameo.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Evidence Lawyer people (and please don't answer if you're not a lawyer or law professor): would any of these Epstein emails be admissible against Trump in court?
November 12, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Evidence Lawyer people (and please don't answer if you're not a lawyer or law professor): would any of these Epstein emails be admissible against Trump in court?
This case would've been a lousy case to revisit Obergefell. Regrettably, I think the Supreme Court has enough votes to overturn marriage equality when it's properly before it. But it wasn't going to be the Kim Davis petition.
New: The Supreme Court DENIES Kim Davis' request to overturn Obergefell, the marriage equality decision. No noted dissents. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
November 10, 2025 at 4:19 PM
This case would've been a lousy case to revisit Obergefell. Regrettably, I think the Supreme Court has enough votes to overturn marriage equality when it's properly before it. But it wasn't going to be the Kim Davis petition.
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.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Meanwhile, in trademarks: Shelby Campbell (that political candidate in Michigan) has filed:
- a brief in opposition to Campbell Soup's motion for a preliminary injunction www.scribd.com/document/946...
- AND a motion to dismiss: www.scribd.com/document/946...
- a brief in opposition to Campbell Soup's motion for a preliminary injunction www.scribd.com/document/946...
- AND a motion to dismiss: www.scribd.com/document/946...
Campbell Brief in opposition to PI | PDF
Campbell Brief in opposition to PI
www.scribd.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Meanwhile, in trademarks: Shelby Campbell (that political candidate in Michigan) has filed:
- a brief in opposition to Campbell Soup's motion for a preliminary injunction www.scribd.com/document/946...
- AND a motion to dismiss: www.scribd.com/document/946...
- a brief in opposition to Campbell Soup's motion for a preliminary injunction www.scribd.com/document/946...
- AND a motion to dismiss: www.scribd.com/document/946...
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Also, Sabrina Shroff--who represented Sandwich Guy--is a phenomenal attorney. I worked on a matter with Sabrina when I was in practice and have no doubt the defense case was expertly litigated.
'Sandwich Guy' jury note and verdict form: www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...
November 7, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Also, Sabrina Shroff--who represented Sandwich Guy--is a phenomenal attorney. I worked on a matter with Sabrina when I was in practice and have no doubt the defense case was expertly litigated.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Husband, also a trial lawyer, just sat on a jury last month and said the same. He was careful not to impose his views and was impressed with the way the jury worked together. Faith in the system reinforced!
November 7, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Husband, also a trial lawyer, just sat on a jury last month and said the same. He was careful not to impose his views and was impressed with the way the jury worked together. Faith in the system reinforced!
Being the rare* lawyer who has done trials and also sat on a jury, I believe that jurors review their instructions carefully and do their best to follow them.
Look at these questions, which reflect that.
Lawyers aren't magic. We have more experience with the law, but our brains aren't different.
Look at these questions, which reflect that.
Lawyers aren't magic. We have more experience with the law, but our brains aren't different.
'Sandwich Guy' jury note and verdict form: www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...
November 7, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Being the rare* lawyer who has done trials and also sat on a jury, I believe that jurors review their instructions carefully and do their best to follow them.
Look at these questions, which reflect that.
Lawyers aren't magic. We have more experience with the law, but our brains aren't different.
Look at these questions, which reflect that.
Lawyers aren't magic. We have more experience with the law, but our brains aren't different.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
Hey, one more thing re: this discussion we were having earlier.
Stop reposting from big accounts that merely curate reporting from others. Take 10 seconds and find the smaller account that actually broke the news.
I'm trying to be better about this, too.
Stop reposting from big accounts that merely curate reporting from others. Take 10 seconds and find the smaller account that actually broke the news.
I'm trying to be better about this, too.
Look, I’ve unsubscribed and resubscribe to the NYT a dozen times in the last few years.
I, too, have been a target of the “ if you had any ethics you would quit” ire when I worked at Deadspin. But journalism jobs are few and far between these days, and there are very few “good” media owners.
I, too, have been a target of the “ if you had any ethics you would quit” ire when I worked at Deadspin. But journalism jobs are few and far between these days, and there are very few “good” media owners.
You're not very principled if you're working for the NYT at this point. Or at least, it's the wrong damn principles.
November 7, 2025 at 1:19 AM
Hey, one more thing re: this discussion we were having earlier.
Stop reposting from big accounts that merely curate reporting from others. Take 10 seconds and find the smaller account that actually broke the news.
I'm trying to be better about this, too.
Stop reposting from big accounts that merely curate reporting from others. Take 10 seconds and find the smaller account that actually broke the news.
I'm trying to be better about this, too.
Reposted by Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law
The note is pretty good evidence that the sandwich guy jurors carefully evaluated the legal merits of the DOJ’s case and weren’t collectively engaged in a nullification exercise.
'Sandwich Guy' jury note and verdict form: www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...
November 7, 2025 at 3:50 PM
The note is pretty good evidence that the sandwich guy jurors carefully evaluated the legal merits of the DOJ’s case and weren’t collectively engaged in a nullification exercise.