William V Aguiar III sues Ashida Kim and Floyd Webb, Part II

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 1:08pm

Originally Posted by KAR1234

What I want to know is was the case dissmissed against Mr. Webb?

If yes than Mr. Webb did indead win the case.

If no than Mr. Webb won nothing yet.

Am I right about this?

Ken Patricio

This statement ranks right up there with your analysis of the student teacher relationship...."If you accept your sensei's rank then you do whatever he says" yeah jump from the Brooklyn Bridge,, yes Sensei! Dude you are not the gadfly, nor the devil's advocate you want to be.... trust me on that. The sooner you abandon this persona ( persona non grata for sure) and maybe try to understand the issues in the case, one of which I outlined to the best of my ability in this thread, the better.

**kanegs** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 1:16pm

I am not a lawyer, and I don't want to derail the thread too much; however....

There are really to issues here: copyright and fair use.

If the Judge determines that Floyd is within his rights for Fair Use then it doesn't matter who owns the copyrights.

As far as the copyrights go. The laws of copyrights have changed quite a bit over the years. When Count Dante was alive the law was that you had to register your copyright in order to be able to enforce it. So if you did not register your copyright you lost it. Today you own the copyright to everything you create yourself. They have also changed the rules about transferring copyrights and you must explicitly give your copyrights to someone else.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 2:10pm

Originally Posted by Dsimon3387

Ok, lets say Floyd comes to me and wants to use one of the articles, or the photos I did for an article and I agree to sell it to him. First I don't own the materials exclusively, I have an interest in the materials as the author, but the magazine that bought the article and materials has a greater interest! They are the people that determine whether Floyd can use the materials not me! even though I wrote the article. These materials do at a certain point become public domaine. Therefore fair use applies to them.

Okay, stop. There are a lot of inaccuracies here.

One, ownership is generally speaking a matter of creation. Licensing however is not ownership. Yes, if a creator signs away all his rights to a photo or magazine (i.e., if he enjoys being ass-raped) then yes, the magazine owns the material. If not, the magazine has only licensed the material for some length of time, as dictated by the contract. Contracts expire (except for ass-raping work-for-hire contracts). That said, there are plenty of people who very foolishly sign WFH contracts. However, in those cases, they no longer have any interest in the materials.

Further, public domain and fair use are two different concepts. These days the terms of copyright are very long — life of the creator plus seventy year, for individuals. Only after that does material enter the public domain. For corporate copyrights the issue is somewhat different, but things generally don't fall into the public domain all that quickly. In the past, when registration was mandatory, renewal failures could lead to early entry into the public domain.

Fair use simply means the ability to use some portion of someone else's copyrighted work for some endeavor without the need for either permission or payment. For example, anyone here can make a copy of any TV show they like with their VCRs, without the permission of the network, production company, or any other rights holder. They cannot, however, then sell the tape. On the other hand, anyone here could also take five seconds from a TV show and as part of a larger work critiquing TV shows or discussing the history of network sitcoms or the life of an actor or life in 1969, create and sell a tape using that five seconds.

Whether or not some use of copyrighted material by non-holders and non-licencers is fair use depends on four tests (character of the use: critical, educational, etc.; nature of the work: published or unpublished, sufficiently original; how much of the work is used: small portions are generally fair, though one cannot always use the "heart" of the work; potential impact on the market for the original if the copying were widespread.) It has nothing to do with public domain. These tests are BROAD. There's no exact percentage, for example, that dictates the amount of a work that is fair to use. The marketplace factor doesn't deal with whether or not the work used comes out looking good or not, and originality can of course be very ambiguous as well.

But one thing is clear: fair use and public domain are two different concept. Public domain means anyone in the public can do anything they like with it. You can republish any Dickens novel, or write your own sequel to A CHRISTMAS CAROL or make a movie out of it, or a porno, or publish it while replacing the word "ghost" with "assfuck" etc etc.

**mschremp** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 2:22pm

All of these are points well made. Even if William has exclusive copyrights on the 1968 book fair use still comes into play. If the judge (or the jury) rules that Floyd is well within the terms of fair use then this whole thing is over. Maybe through mediation with their attorneys Floyd and William could reach an acceptable agreement to both of them. However there is a lot of water under the bridge so I dont know how likely that would be.

Mike S

**mschremp** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 3:05pm

Well,

Very interesting post by John C on his blog. I guess things are not too good between him and William. Then again, you never know what to believe. Back to the Daytona 500.

Mike S

**Rivington** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 4:02pm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Civil Action No. 07-CA-11673-MLW, though obviously written in favor of Webb, has a lot of useful and objective info, including info about how poorly the Fall River gang understands what they are trying to do.

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 5:50pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

Okay, stop. There are a lot of inaccuracies here.

One, ownership is generally speaking a matter of creation. Licensing however is not ownership. Yes, if a creator signs away all his rights to a photo or magazine (i.e., if he enjoys being ass-raped) then yes, the magazine owns the material. If not, the magazine has only licensed the material for some length of time, as dictated by the contract. Contracts expire (except for ass-raping work-for-hire contracts). That said, there are plenty of people who very foolishly sign WFH contracts. However, in those cases, they no longer have any interest in the materials.

Further, public domain and fair use are two different concepts. These days the terms of copyright are very long — life of the creator plus seventy year, for individuals. Only after that does material enter the public domain. For corporate copyrights the issue is somewhat different, but things generally don't fall into the public domain all that quickly. In the past, when registration was mandatory, renewal failures could lead to early entry into the public domain.

Fair use simply means the ability to use some portion of someone else's copyrighted work for some endeavor without the need for either permission or payment. For example, anyone here can make a copy of any TV show they like with their VCRs, without the permission of the network, production company, or any other rights holder. They cannot, however, then sell the tape. On the other hand, anyone here could also take five seconds from a TV show and as part of a larger work critiquing TV shows or discussing the history of network sitcoms or the life of an actor or life in 1969, create and sell a tape using that five seconds.

Whether or not some use of copyrighted material by non-holders and non-licencers is fair use depends on four tests (character of the use: critical, educational, etc.; nature of the work: published or unpublished, sufficiently original; how much of the work is used: small portions are generally fair, though one cannot always use the "heart" of the work; potential impact on the market for the original if the copying were widespread.) It has nothing to do with public domain. These tests are BROAD. There's no exact percentage, for example, that dictates the amount of a work that is fair to use. The marketplace factor doesn't deal with whether or not the work used comes out looking good or not, and originality can of course be very ambiguous as well.

But one thing is clear: fair use and public domain are two different concept. Public domain means anyone in the public can do anything they like with it. You can republish any Dickens novel, or write your own sequel to A CHRISTMAS CAROL or make a movie out of it, or a porno, or publish it while replacing the word "ghost" with "assfuck" etc etc.

yes they are different.

I was one of those idiots that more or less signed stuff over and I just want people to know better. It is a lot better to post and use internet forums like blogging under certain conditions. These forums were not around when I was writing.

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 5:53pm

Originally Posted by mschremp

Well,

Very interesting post by John C on his blog. I guess things are not too good between him and William. Then again, you never know what to believe. Back to the Daytona 500.

Mike S

It was inevitable Mike. It is pathetic is what it is.

**Lord Of Chaos** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 8:10pm

hahaha jawney and his retarded flights of fancy:

"see i lived in japan and see i had a fmily emergency that;s why i wasn't in court, and see, i used to have certifcates but my dog ate them and see, here's my black belt... well, just a picture of A black belt without anybody wearing it... and see, i live in my daddy's basement and wish that i had the same military experience as him... and see, i have a small penis."

keep talking shitbag. i can't wait until your mouth lands you in prison, and that same mouth causes you become someone's bitch.

**Lord Of Chaos** · Posted On: 2/17/2008 8:13pm

einstein says:

"Well Billy tried to sell my father down the tube's , thats alright. I now all the secrets about everything and I'm ready to tell. Floyd and Billy thats it I'm out Floyd's fucking me over with Barron and now Billy fucking me over with court. Ya I love it. Now what secret do you want to now."

we want to know ALL of them creeden, and we want you to post them on numerous public forms. we also want you to embellish, slander, lie and defame to your heart's content. and i bet billy does too, because lord knows he'd appreciate the money.

douche.