Plaintiff owns several registered trademarks for the CALL YOUR MOTHER trademark and logo. And yes, both places are Jewish-owned, which is discussed in the complaint:

Given the popularity of pulpy sci-fi books in the 50s, I would guess not

I would always put a towel over it at night, and over anything else that showed the time. I don't have one now, but I get the appeal of having these things so our phone isn't in our bedroom when we sleep.

You don't want us to "spread hate" on an account that reposts the president dropping literally shit on US citizens?

the decision:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

I genuinely, not metaphorically, nearly spit out my coffee with this. If I had the sound on, it would be everywhere

you forgot to attach it

and the OP is right, everything in that trailer looks look CGI

she probably quoted a Trump tweet verbatim

they almost went with this one

We really should've come up with another word by now. Every time I have to explain it I also have to say that I'm not making it up.

Drake had a rare legal win when a court held that a sample in "Pound Cake" is fair use (Estate of James Oscar Smith v. Cash Money Records). He might want to hit up his legal team in that case instead of the one he hired for that defamation lawsuit vs his record label.

Then there's the issue of fair use, or even non-infringement. Even it's shown that Drake deliberately invoked the photograph, it might be permissible. Drake's won a key fair use case before.

And since access could be an issue, there's the question of whether the images can similar enough for a jury to believe that Drake copied the photo.

That leads to a key point I've made over the years: similarity to prove access/copying isn't the same as similarity to prove infringement.

A couple of issues I expect to play out in this lawsuit. First, whether there's enough evidence that Drake copied plaintiff's photo. Maybe his legal team will come back with photos of similar arrangements that predate plaintiff's.