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.

[Bender]

It may mean he's actually serious about suing @Null.

Null? As in THE Null who's won like five court cases without even showing up in court or even sending a representative?

I don't think this mystical figure even knew he was being sued, and still won.

 

[AnOminous]

The more complicated part is contributory infringement- like when a website owner tells a copyright holder to pound sand because he believes the material in question is fair use. I'm not sure, but I wonder if Akiva could send another DMCA and then sue seeking statutory damages now that he has a registered copyright and the website owner failed to honor the DMCA after the registration was issued. Fair use is still a defense, but it would be more scary than trying to sue based on compensatory damages only.

He'd still be limited to the law on vicarious liability for copyright infringement, since Null isn't the poster of the infringing material but merely hosts it. It's unlikely statutory damages are available for vicarious and/or contributory infringement, although they would be available against the direct infringer. The other issue would be attorney fees, which would probably not be available to a pro se litigant, but if Akiva could find someone who liked the case enough, it's conceivable he could find someone to do it on contingency, and if he's extremely assblasted, he might even shell out out of pocket to hire someone as a sock puppet.

 

[Crazedking]

Hoh man, i rly wish he tries suing. Luls will be had.

 

[damian]

Day 57:

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Day 57:
View attachment 924835

Someone needs to do the Twitter equivalent of a welfare check on Cohen. Frankly, I'm concerned.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

Someone needs to do the Twitter equivalent of a welfare check on Cohen. Frankly, I'm concerned.

This is his wife, you caused a seizure emotional breakdown. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault.

 

[AJ 447]

It's unlikely statutory damages are available for vicarious and/or contributory infringement, although they would be available against the direct infringer.

I'm shaking

 

[Crazedking]

This is his wife, you caused a seizure emotional breakdown. I have your information and have called the police to report the assault.

Exwife. Pretty sure the guy is in the middle of a divorce after his wife found the wonder of lesbianism.

 

[OneHandClapping]

I'm shaking

The court hereby orders the Defendant's doggo albums be confiscated and given to the Plaintiff.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

I imagine the copyright office as a dull, gray, depressing job where minor officials happy just to have work and a paycheck to spend on electricity and turnips are handed a stamp and a set of rules and told to approve or disapprove shit.

In short, literally the premise of the game "papers, please."

Glory to Arstotzka! Sorry, couldn't resist.

It may mean he's actually serious about suing @Null.

Can he even sue Null? The pictures were openly available which means they were public domain and used before he copyrighted them, does copyright even work retroactively?
Also, doesn't Facebook state in their TOS that all rights of pictures you put on Facebook belong to them or something like that?
I don't see much of a case here, tbh.

"...the average processing time for registration applicationsis currently seven months, leaving ample time to sue after the Register’s decision, even for infringement that began before submission of an application..." (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp v. Wallstreet.com LLC)

The registration is required before initiating the lawsuit but the suit can include infringements before the registration as a copyright existed from creation of the work, not registration. So he can sue for the previous infringement and not have it thrown out on the technical grounds of not having a registration (see above case).

Now, there's some caveats, the big one being compensatory damages versus statutory damages; our new overlord Akiva is going to have a hell of a time proving that he suffered monetary damages off a kiwifarms post since I'm pretty sure he wasn't monetizing the "daughter on couch". OR WAS HE

The more complicated part is contributory infringement- like when a website owner tells a copyright holder to pound sand because he believes the material in question is fair use. I'm not sure, but I wonder if Akiva could send another DMCA and then sue seeking statutory damages now that he has a registered copyright and the website owner failed to honor the DMCA after the registration was issued. Fair use is still a defense, but it would be more scary than trying to sue based on compensatory damages only.

Wall-Street.com LLC had a license agreement with Fourth Estate, which was terminated by Wall-Street.com. The license required Wall-Street to remove content aquired from Fourth Estate under that license contract which Wall-Street declined to do. Therefore the lawsuit.
Other than " you need a copyright registration certificate before filing for a lawsuit" I don't see anything that could make that ruling work in favor for Akiva, specially because he released the Photos of his kids on Facebook.

 

[AnOminous]

Glory to Arstotzka! Sorry, couldn't resist.



Can he even sue Null?

If he issues a DMCA and Null blows it off.

Actually, he could make like Jonathan Monsarrat and issue a DMCA and then sue even though it was honored but that might be retarded even by his standards, so a DMCA is pretty much a prerequisite.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

If he issues a DMCA and Null blows it off.

Actually, he could make like Jonathan Monsarrat and issue a DMCA and then sue even though it was honored but that might be exceptional even by his standards, so a DMCA is pretty much a prerequisite.

Didn't followed it that much, did he issue a DCMA takedown notice? What's with the Fair Use Act? Doesn't that cover the release of the pictures?

Montsarat, yeah, he is on a level of exceptionalism that, IMHO, Akiva isn't even near to.

 

[AnOminous]

Didn't followed it that much, did he issue a DCMA takedown notice? What's with the Fair Use Act? Doesn't that cover the release of the pictures?

Montsarat, yeah, he is on a level of exceptionalism that, IMHO, Akiva isn't even near to.

There isn't a fair use act, it's just an affirmative defense to infringement, meaning the defendant has the burden of proving it.

Specifically, 17 U.S.C. § 107:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is actually pretty bad because the plaintiff doesn't have to prove it doesn't apply. Actually proving it more or less implies a lot of very expensive litigation which if you lose you have to pay the winning side.

 

[Wilhelm Bittrich]

There isn't a fair use act, it's just an affirmative defense to infringement, meaning the defendant has the burden of proving it.

Thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Can he even sue Null? The pictures were openly available which means they were public domain and used before he copyrighted them, does copyright even work retroactively?

Posting photos on social media, even on a public page, does not automatically put them in the public domain in terms of copyright.

 

[AnOminous]

Posting photos on social media, even on a public page, does not automatically put them in the public domain in terms of copyright.

Photos are definitely copyrightable and born copyrighted like any other work. Registration is not required except as a formality for seeking certain types of relief, like statutory damages, i.e. damages without having to prove actual damages and, often much more importantly, attorney fees for prosecuting the case.

 

[MrRavellon]

Photos are definitely copyrightable and born copyrighted like any other work. Registration is not required except as a formality for seeking certain types of relief, like statutory damages, i.e. damages without having to prove actual damages and, often much more importantly, attorney fees for prosecuting the case.

However in the ToS of every single social media site there is a provision that grants the right to use and repost any materials posted to the platform and other users of the platform, with a bunch of caveats. Those provisions are typically arranged in such a way that does not grant the right of commercial use to other users but that's pretty much it. Everything else is fair game.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Dear Akiva,

It’s Elul. Instead of courting further humiliation for yourself and your five children, spend your time doing acts of chesed and your money on tzedakah.

I’ll be blunt. This sperging is a real chillul Hashem. You’re a kohen ffs. This kind of childishness is below the kohanim. Aaron was known for his ability to foment peace and quash petty squabbles. Why are you shitting all over your heritage like this? It’s embarrassing to watch tbqh.

Get over it and move on with your life. It’s not that serious and you are violating halacha even involving yourself in a dispute that has nothing to do with you.

If you’re written in the book of life for 5780, do you really think it will be for the purpose of perpetuating online drama? Grow the fuck up.


Signed,
((((Me))))

 

[5t3n0g0ph3r]

Which stream did Nick go over Ty's response to Cohen's complaint?
I think it should be posted here.

 

[Bender]

Which stream did Nick go over Ty's response to Cohen's complaint?
I think it should be posted here.

~1:23:40 if the timestamp doesn't work.