Sometimes arguments in lawsuits tend to get petty and the case brought by O’Shea Jackson, also known as Ice Cube, against online trading app Robinhood is now producing a lot of such talk.

Ice Cube’s claims are based on a single event—the publication of a Snacks newsletter entitled “Why are tech stock falling?” on March 8, 2021. To introduce the topic in a light and humorous way, the Article leads with a photograph and the tagline, “correct yourself, before you wreck yourself.”

The plaintiff alleges the photograph depicts his “image and likeness.” Ice Cube also claims the tagline is a misquote of “the most well-known lyric” from one of his songs. The advertisement creates the false impression that Ice Cube supports and endorses Robinhood’s products and services.

Ice Cube, however, “absolutely does not, and never would, support Robinhood’s products and services”.

Now, in an attempt to dismiss Ice Cube’s complaint, Robinhood is resorting to semantics, trying to differentiate between the meaning of words “image” and “photograph”.

Earlier this week, Robinhood filed a response to Ice Cube’s claims. The document, submitted at the California Northern District Court and seen by FX News Group, appears to be more of a philosophy essay rather than a typical legal document.

First off, Robinhood tries to prove that the article in question is a newsletter rather an ad.

According to Robinhood, its March 8, 2021 Snacks article is entitled to full First Amendment protection, because Ice Cube’s claims are preempted by federal copyright law and/or are barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the CDA), and ultimately, he has no rights in the materials upon which his claims are based.

The defendant insists that the article is fundamentally noncommercial in nature—it is not an advertisement—and therefore, it cannot be the basis of Ice Cube’s commercial claims.

Further, Robinhood resorts to trifling about what an “image” means. According to Robinhood. Ice Cube “continues to ignore the fact that the image at issue is not a photograph of Plaintiff but actually is a still frame of the 2007 movie “Are We Done Yet?”

According to Robinhood, the image captures Ice Cube’s dramatic performance, as opposed to being a photograph of him in public, all right in and related to the image is subsumed by the federal copyright in the film.

The company says that Ice Cube “can call the image whatever he wants; it does not change the fact that it came from a copyrighted motion picture”. Consequently, Robinhood concludes, plaintiff’s state-law claims are preempted.

The Court will get to decide on how valuable such arguments could be. In the meantime, the lawsuit continues at the California Northern District Court.