Dan Lifschitz

@DanLifschitzEsq
45 Followers
87 Following
13 Posts
Entertainment litigator at Gipson Hoffman & Pancione, adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School and UCLA. Husband to Kim, Dad to Teddy, “dishonorable to the profession” per the best/worst expert witness I ever deposed.
Firm Biohttps://www.jjllplaw.com/daniel-b-lifschitz
UCLA Biohttps://www.uclaextension.edu/instructors/daniel-lifschitz
SW Law Biohttps://www.swlaw.edu/faculty/adjunct/daniel-lifschitz
@ToddInTheShadows I’m frankly shocked that it’s taking this long to build critical mass for the exodus. Are we waiting for the Mastodon apps to get 5% more streamlined? Bluesky to come out of invite-only mode? I just want to know what it’ll take to never have to care about Musk breaking yet another part of the bird app.
Ever since 2020, when Trump turbocharged the partisanization of Section 230, I now confirm with conference organizers who else will be speaking before I accept an invitation to talk about 230. Today, someone had the naivete (or temerity) to invite me to speak alongside Dennis Prager & Jason Fyk. It did not go well
@deriamis @kathryntewson @mmasnick Courts actually enforce a copyright estoppel doctrine whereby if you publicly represent something to be matter *not* covered by copyright (i.e., factual material), you can’t then turn around and sue for infringement of that same matter, as the public is entitled to rely upon your original representations. I could see an argument that characterizing something as a work of AI rather than a human author merits the same treatment. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/corbello-v-devito
Corbello v. DeVito | Loeb & Loeb LLP

@antone @heidilifeldman Much obliged! I’ve been so focused on dragging over hemmers and hawers still exclusively on Twitter that I’ve yet to investigate the existing Mastodon community, so I greatly appreciate the direction.
@doncruse @ericgoldman It really did seem like Shah was angling for an implied license, but those can’t confer standing to sue (since they’re nonexclusive). Also, not that it would ultimately matter, but as the actual photographers weren’t paid anything, the licenses wouldn’t be supported by consideration, rendering them revocable at will. So just a delightful mess all around!
this was the best thing I ever tweeted
@cathygellis @mmasnick Oh sure, I was less referring to the merits of each case as I was vexatious litigants’ eagerness to haphazardly weaponize them. Been “censored” on social media? Pruneyard town square argument! Just mad at social media generally? Lemmon defective design argument! Both equally designed to give @ericgoldman pounding migraines.
@mmasnick Lemmon v. Snap is quickly becoming to Section 230 what Pruneyard v. Robins is to the First Amendment. I can already see that section of the school district’s opposition brief in my mind’s eye.
@tiffanycli No support on Ivory yet, but I’ll cut them slack on account of the app being, like, a day old.