@esther.boateng20:

Esther Boateng

Open In TikTok:

Region: GH

Thursday 03 September 2026 09:32:51 GMT

158

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (3.45MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (3.45MB) Watermark .mp4 (10.14MB) Music .mp3

Comments

There are no more comments for this video.

To see more videos from user @esther.boateng20, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Auto War Tiket Nich🤭❤️‍🔥 #filmmunafik #munafikmelawaniblis #munafiknyaindo #bahayajadimunafik #aryasaloka #rekomendasifilm #filmbioskop #achaseptriasa #filmhoror #war #galapremiere

#labuanbajo #lebajo

DM me or email: Andrew@DraxtonLaw.com. Creators, follow me and stay tuned for more. Knowledge is power. ⚖️ Creators: AI likeness litigation is developing quickly. Pay attention to the cases being filed now, because they may shape the claims available to you later. A few cases worth watching: PUJOLS v. RAINBOW USA (New York, 2026) Model Francheska Pujols alleges that Rainbow used AI to generate new advertising images depicting her likeness—including poses and circumstances she says she never modeled or authorized. Her claims reportedly include New York privacy/likeness claims and false endorsement under the federal Lanham Act. The theory matters for creators: using someone’s recognizable identity commercially may implicate more than traditional state-law likeness rights when the use falsely suggests that person participated in, sponsored, or endorsed the advertising. SUDDETH v. META (N.D. California) Financial professionals sued Meta after scammers allegedly impersonated them across Facebook, Instagram and other Meta services to promote fraudulent investments. They asserted Lanham Act false-endorsement/false-association claims alongside state publicity and related claims. But there’s an important warning here: the court found significant §230 problems where the allegedly unlawful content was created by third-party scammers rather than Meta itself. FORREST v. META / BOUCK v. META These cases illustrate a potentially important distinction. Plaintiffs have alleged that Meta’s advertising and/or AI tools did more than passively display third-party content—they allegedly contributed to generating or modifying aspects of the challenged advertisements. Why does that matter? Because one of the major questions courts are confronting is whether a platform merely published someone else’s unlawful content or actually participated in creating or developing it. That distinction can matter enormously when a platform invokes §230. And there is another procedural issue creators should understand: arbitration. Some platform agreements expressly carve certain copyright and trademark/IP disputes out of mandatory arbitration. Courts have enforced such provisions, meaning the fact that you agreed to platform terms does not necessarily mean every dispute must be resolved privately before an arbitrator. But don’t overread that: whether a particular Lanham Act false-endorsement claim, state publicity claim, or proposed class action falls within an IP exception—or remains subject to a separate class-action waiver—depends on the particular agreement and facts. That is exactly why these cases matter. We’re watching courts work through questions involving AI-generated likenesses, copyright, false endorsement, rights of publicity, platform immunity, arbitration, and potentially class-wide claims in real time. Creators: stay tuned to ongoing and newly filed litigation so you aren’t caught by surprise as this law develops. Knowledge is power, and I’m here to empower you with as much information as I can. Have a specific question? DM me, visit DraxtonLaw.com, or email Andrew@DraxtonLaw.com. Educational information only—not legal advice. Attorney advertising. Utah attorney. #ContentCreators #UGCCreator #tiktokshopcreator #copyrightinfringement #lawyer

DM me or email: [email protected]. Creators, follow me and stay tuned for more. Knowledge is power. ⚖️ Creators: AI likeness litigation is developing quickly. Pay attention to the cases being filed now, because they may shape the claims available to you later. A few cases worth watching: PUJOLS v. RAINBOW USA (New York, 2026) Model Francheska Pujols alleges that Rainbow used AI to generate new advertising images depicting her likeness—including poses and circumstances she says she never modeled or authorized. Her claims reportedly include New York privacy/likeness claims and false endorsement under the federal Lanham Act. The theory matters for creators: using someone’s recognizable identity commercially may implicate more than traditional state-law likeness rights when the use falsely suggests that person participated in, sponsored, or endorsed the advertising. SUDDETH v. META (N.D. California) Financial professionals sued Meta after scammers allegedly impersonated them across Facebook, Instagram and other Meta services to promote fraudulent investments. They asserted Lanham Act false-endorsement/false-association claims alongside state publicity and related claims. But there’s an important warning here: the court found significant §230 problems where the allegedly unlawful content was created by third-party scammers rather than Meta itself. FORREST v. META / BOUCK v. META These cases illustrate a potentially important distinction. Plaintiffs have alleged that Meta’s advertising and/or AI tools did more than passively display third-party content—they allegedly contributed to generating or modifying aspects of the challenged advertisements. Why does that matter? Because one of the major questions courts are confronting is whether a platform merely published someone else’s unlawful content or actually participated in creating or developing it. That distinction can matter enormously when a platform invokes §230. And there is another procedural issue creators should understand: arbitration. Some platform agreements expressly carve certain copyright and trademark/IP disputes out of mandatory arbitration. Courts have enforced such provisions, meaning the fact that you agreed to platform terms does not necessarily mean every dispute must be resolved privately before an arbitrator. But don’t overread that: whether a particular Lanham Act false-endorsement claim, state publicity claim, or proposed class action falls within an IP exception—or remains subject to a separate class-action waiver—depends on the particular agreement and facts. That is exactly why these cases matter. We’re watching courts work through questions involving AI-generated likenesses, copyright, false endorsement, rights of publicity, platform immunity, arbitration, and potentially class-wide claims in real time. Creators: stay tuned to ongoing and newly filed litigation so you aren’t caught by surprise as this law develops. Knowledge is power, and I’m here to empower you with as much information as I can. Have a specific question? DM me, visit DraxtonLaw.com, or email [email protected]. Educational information only—not legal advice. Attorney advertising. Utah attorney. #ContentCreators #UGCCreator #tiktokshopcreator #copyrightinfringement #lawyer

Nghệ thuật giao tiếp đỉnh cao #diepanhbooks #sachhay #BookTok #tiktokshop #nghethuatgiaotiep

Archived looks are starting to make appearances! #metgala #redcarpet #popculture #popculturenews #themetgala #metgalalooks #metgalaredcarpet #fyp #fypシ #greenscreen

#CapCut #حب #شيلات_فخمه🤍🌷 #fypシ #ستوريات

@esther.boateng20:

Esther Boateng

Open In TikTok:

Region: GH

Thursday 03 September 2026 09:32:51 GMT

Music

Download

Comments

Other Videos

About

Legal