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

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 5/28/2010 3:28pm

End of this thread will be fine. :) I'll post the floyd document as well.

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 5/28/2010 5:25pm

Originally Posted by Samuel Browning

End of this thread will be fine. :) I'll post the floyd document as well.

ok

I will start on it tonight at work, help!!! my wife is rearranging the house! :icon_sad:

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 5/28/2010 10:43pm

Attached is a copy of the settlement agreement provided by Floyd. He sent me his copy prior to Billy signing it. If Billy wants to argue that the agreement he signed was substantially altered, he can post his copy here, with both signatures on it, since he still has a functional account here. (I never banned him)

The short version of this agreement is, as follows. Both parties agree to drop various claims and counter claims against each other, and not sue each other, except that Floyd agrees not to use images from the World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets which is still under copyright. (See pages 2 and 6) (The language of the agreement says such use in not covered under Billy's covenent not to sue.

In exchange Billy gets to keep the $2,500 he would otherwise have to pay in court costs and legal fees to Floyd.

In my personal opinion, this judgement was a victory for Floyd because it established a very small pool of images that Billy has a claim to, and can still protect.

**johnpatricio** · Posted On: 5/29/2010 12:48am

except that Floyd agrees not to use images from the World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets which is still under copyright.

Sam, just to clarify, the settlement does say that Floyd can't use images from the books, but it doesn't actually, definitively mean that Aguiar legally owns those copyrights correct?

I just want to verify that although it is a condition of the settlement, the settlement does not prove or validate ownership.

As I see it, I could settle a lawsuit with someone with the condition that they can no longer drink Coca Cola. That doesn't mean I own Coke... it's merely a stipulation of the settlement.

**PDA** · Posted On: 5/29/2010 3:00am

What an epic waste of time and money that was.

**mumbles** · Posted On: 5/29/2010 6:14am

well you know know now teh fail river inbreds will try and parlay this into a personal success, instead of an obvious swamp of retardedness.

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 5/29/2010 2:37pm

Originally Posted by johnpatricio

Sam, just to clarify, the settlement does say that Floyd can't use images from the books, but it doesn't actually, definitively mean that Aguiar legally owns those copyrights correct?

I just want to verify that although it is a condition of the settlement, the settlement does not prove or validate ownership.

As I see it, I could settle a lawsuit with someone with the condition that they can no longer drink Coca Cola. That doesn't mean I own Coke... it's merely a stipulation of the settlement.

You are correct, Floyd does not acknowledge who owns the copyright to "the book" only that he will not use images from the book. This is probably worded in this manner, because the transfer of copyright from Dante to the Aguiars can be still contested and both parties decided to settle without further litigating that issue at their expense. So in short if Floyd were to violate the agreement on these images Billy could file suit again, and we would start over again. But once again its a small number of images and Floyd knows what Billy has any claim to. Before this suit started, Floyd asked Billy for a catlogue of images he claimed copyright to, now he's finally got it.

**Dsimon3387** · Posted On: 5/29/2010 10:31pm

Originally Posted by Samuel Browning

You are correct, Floyd does not acknowledge who owns the copyright to "the book" only that he will not use images from the book. This is probably worded in this manner, because the transfer of copyright from Dante to the Aguiars can be still contested and both parties decided to settle without further litigating that issue at their expense. So in short if Floyd were to violate the agreement on these images Billy could file suit again, and we would start over again. But once again its a small number of images and Floyd knows what Billy has any claim to. Before this suit started, Floyd asked Billy for a catlogue of images he claimed copyright to, now he's finally got it.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity if i did this summary real fast... faster than the speed of light it would move backwards. :dontknow:

**floydwebb** · Posted On: 5/30/2010 4:07am

Originally Posted by Samuel Browning

You are correct, Floyd does not acknowledge who owns the copyright to "the book" only that he will not use images from the book. This is probably worded in this manner, because the transfer of copyright from Dante to the Aguiars can be still contested and both parties decided to settle without further litigating that issue at their expense. So in short if Floyd were to violate the agreement on these images Billy could file suit again, and we would start over again. But once again its a small number of images and Floyd knows what Billy has any claim to. Before this suit started, Floyd asked Billy for a catalogue of images he claimed copyright to, now he's finally got it.

Let's be clear. I cannot use images from the book on T-shirts or other items. I can use whatever I want in the film and cannot be sued for it. I do not acknowledge his claim to copyright, I got what I wanted and I have far better images for t-shirts then what is in the book anyway.

**floydwebb** · Posted On: 5/30/2010 4:19am

Originally Posted by Samuel Browning

Attached is a copy of the settlement agreement provided by Floyd. He sent me his copy prior to Billy signing it. If Billy wants to argue that the agreement he signed was substantially altered, he can post his copy here, with both signatures on it, since he still has a functional account here. (I never banned him)

The short version of this agreement is, as follows. Both parties agree to drop various claims and counter claims against each other, and not sue each other, except that Floyd agrees not to use images from the World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets which is still under copyright. (See pages 2 and 6) (The language of the agreement says such use in not covered under Billy's covenant not to sue.

In exchange Billy gets to keep the $2,500 he would otherwise have to pay in court costs and legal fees to Floyd.

In my personal opinion, this judgement was a victory for Floyd because it established a very small pool of images that Billy has a claim to, and can still protect.

Pay close attention to Page 6: 9a: i,ii and iii

This is not rocket science, but we all know it will be spun however some people want to spin it. After 6,728 entries in this thread we know who's fullashyte by now and they really don't matter. I do wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors, though.

I have not lost any fair use. The issue is fair use has to be determined in trial and Aguiar asked to end it. The Judge stated in open court as a warning to Aguiar that I would be "likely to prevail" in my claims to fair use, per page 61-62 recorded transcript
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, No. 1:07-cv-11673-MLW

There seems to be a
13 meaningful issue as to whether the plaintiff owns the
14 copyright and the photographs at issue. For present
15 purposes, I assume he does. It appears that Mr. Creeden
16 owns the copyright to the video, however.
17 More importantly, on this necessarily incomplete
18 record, it appears that Mr. Webb is likely to prevail in
19 showing fair use. As has been noted, there are four
20 primary, but not exclusive elements of fair use under 17
21 United States Code, Section 107. The fair use inquiry
22 is primarily framed by four nonexclusive statutory
23 factors: (1) The purpose and character of the use,
24 including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
25 is for nonprofit educational purposes. (2) The nature

1 of the copyrighted work. (3) The amount and
2 substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
3 copyrighted work as a whole. And (4) The effect of the
4 use upon the potential market for a value of the
5 copyrighted work.
6 The courts give significant weight in the fair use
7 analysis to whether the use of the copyrighted
8 materials, here the video -- as to which Mr. Aguiar may
9 not own the copyright, but I've analyzed it as if he
10 does, and the photographs is transformative. This
11 concept was described by the Supreme Court in Campbell,
12 510 U.S. 569 at 579, and elaborated upon by the First
13 Circuit in Nunez, 235 F. 3rd 18 at 21 to 22. I find
14 that within those definitions, these trailers, prepared
15 by Mr. Webb, that incorporate the video and some
16 photographs from the copyrighted book is
17 transformative.62

Who the hell wants to spend time in court, anyway. Being reasonable and working things out is always so much easier than court, but it does take patience. I am finishing the film. This is one less distraction. I am happy with the ending, happy and grateful with my pro bono legal team. And it cost me more time than money. More time has meant more research and more discoveries. It has also meant the loss of voices I needed in the film. This is a story that begins in the 1950s and a lot of the really interesting people from those days have passed away. Still, there are many out here who have come forward with stories and anedotes, and I have someone to vet them all now based on what we already know, we can tell the fakers a mile off now.

Good things are happening. I will have one final announcement before the thread closes. News but no details. :-)