Flo’s lawsuit against Willie and Rokfin
- Thread starter Chickenman Testa
- Start date
Flo paid for the video rights. They hope to recoup legal fees with pay-per-view courtroom drama from now on. Their lawyer will come to court in a burgundy tuxedo next episode just to provoke the judge.
I did hear that, figured it would be like first thing in the morning today not like 8PM yesterday. ah well, there's more anyway right?
That's a shame, I was going to try and watch the rest today, I only caught about a half hour, between the 15-45 minute mark. Oh well. I forget which poster often saves YT videos but now would be a great time for that person to magically appear.
Sorry--wasn't aware of the timed nature of this one, or I would have. I'll grab the next one, for sure.
They also said specifically not to record it, so not sure if FloKaren may come after you if you do
The problem there would be that Flo has no copyright claim to a public court proceeding, regardless of whether they're a party to it. And gov't ownership of copyrights is permitted in only a very limited number of instances, all of the sort not present here. I'll happily host on YT and even more happily deal with the repercussions if Flo or the court attempts to remove it.
Good thing you'd be acting pro se (I assume), because Flo doesn't have an issue with paying to chase after claims of dubious merit.
Yeah, I'd be handling that myself. If Flo attempts to take it down via copyright there's a mechanism in the DMCA to restore to the video and indemnify YT. It would then be on Flo to sue me, which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't when they realize they're not the copyright holder of a court hearing. If the court attempted to take it down, I think the court would be smart enough to know that copyright isn't the proper mechanism. A court has the right and power to decide at the outset that a hearing is non-public (and thus order YT to remove it on that basis) but that's not the case here, because it was evidently otherwise open to the public. And while that fact doesn't enable just anyone off the street to start taping proceedings--the court maintains full control of the courtroom--the cat is very much out of the bag when the court itself livestreams it.Good thing you'd be acting pro se (I assume), because Flo doesn't have an issue with paying to chase after claims of dubious merit.
There's been a lot of proposed legislation about cameras in court, and the law is presently somewhat fuzzy with respect to federal courts. Most don't allow it at all, some do. Now that everything is being conducted on Zoom, I doubt the existing regulations regarding courtroom cameras apply, and every judge is simply deciding on an ad-hoc basis whether the teleconference gets projected or not. But I have trouble buying that courts retain the ability to declare something private, post-hoc, that they'd already made available to the public, and I'd gladly invite that challenge, given the item in question's newsworthiness.
My comments referred to a scenario whereby I would repost something that the court then ordered taken down. No question the court can remove its videos from its own account.
Well well, an angel appeared (it was not Willie) and provided me with the video, which I'll have back up on Youtube tomorrow sometime.
Make sure you send a copy to @FloLegalKaren
Thanks for posting.
Literal LOL at about 2:59:50 where she asks if he set up the FloLegal1 account and he says "you should take a look at twitter right now and see what's happening"
After all this chaos and trial boils over, I think I want a group Recap/Reunion episode. Everybody in one real room. Flo's group, Willie, Nomad, Mineo, Floreani... Therapy style in a circle of chairs.
And I need it to end with Green Day's "Good Riddance".
And I need it to end with Green Day's "Good Riddance".
Yikes, I have experienced some petty ass S&#@ from time to time, but this? The 20 minutes I scanned gave me indigestion. Another 20 would have resulted in explosive diarrhea. I hate boycotts and causes, but I might just have to cancel my subscription, to save up for the book.
That's generally not how it works here, but the winning party can request attorney fees. They're sometimes awarded, though it's difficult to generalize and say that they're usually awarded when x occurs. But where the law isn't so obviously settled (and there are valid--a term I use loosely--arguments going in both direction here), it's more unusual to see attorney fees requests awarded.
I"d like to see a re-trial, with Penn and Teller as the judges.
WInner gets a trophy.
Not sure if I'd say Willie's lawyer should have prepared him better, simply because Mrs. Burgess was so far out of line, I think a certain Mr. Mouse would have done a better job.
Willie's side was arguing that the plaintiff's attorney ambushed them with documents with which they did not have time to adequately examine. So, how could Willie have been properly prepared?
I actually thought Willie did a decent job in the deposition. The only area where Willie's lawyer could have prepared him is with respect to Willie elaborating on his responses. Willie, needed to answer the questions yes or no. He was definitely annoying the judge.
Although, the plaintiff's attorney did a good job of asking some questions that needed context. Plus one for the plaintiff's attorney.
On the negative side, I can't believe Willie:
- Still used his ...Flo moniker... "The greatest mind in wrestling"
- Commented on Twitter about an outdated article about a... FLO employee
- Talking about a book he is writing about... the FLO organization
Last edited:
The three things you point out are things that seem well outside the most reasonable interpretation of the injunction. Just because Flo is whining about it doesn't mean Willie can't do it. A judge isn't going to prohibit him from editorializing about Flo because Flo doesn't like being criticized. And it's not like Flo trademarked "greatest mind in wrestling."
In Willie's one tweet he didn't provide a verb to indicate it was his "previous" moniker. FLO asserts that it was his moniker. Willie could reasonably assume anyone aware of the suit and following or finding his tweet via search would already understand that, so he left out an extraneous word in further consideration that brevity is essential to Twitter use.
Also, the brain 🧠 is an organ, and a mind is something else altogether (physical vs metaphysical). When one types in "mind" the brain emoji doesn't necessarily appear as a recommended substitute.
At most Willie may have walked a fine line, but does that warrant contempt and extending the non-compete period? I don't think it does. After watching the entire first part of emergency contempt motion's hearing (some parts more than once), I tend to agree with Willie's lawyer (relief requested is not commensurate with damages, if any).
As much of the argument centers around the intent of the judge's injunction regarding "future events" and one paragraph of the non-compete agreement simply for the purpose of finding contempt and extending the non-compete period, I don't understand why the judge couldn't simply clarify the injunction given the contempt argument is based on the plaintiff's interpretation being correct. Then again, unlike some on this board, I am not a lawyer.
Well, I wasn't sure whether you were a lawyer or not, reading through your response. Your instincts are good.
What I was referring to is perhaps best illustrated by when David Letterman switched networks from NBC to CBS and attempted to put on effectively the same show as viewers were already familiar. NBC claimed ownership of segments like "Viewer Mail" and "Top Ten List." I think some were even litigated, though I don't believe a court ever weighed in. Letterman changed the name of some segments, and I think dug his heels in on others, like Top Ten List.
The Top Ten List had become synonymous with Letterman, so it seemed petty and vindictive of NBC to lay claim to something that David Letterman, a human person, had created; NBC viewed it as something David Letterman, NBC employee had created on company time. Trademark law doesn't just exist to grant monopolies for businesses, its core purpose is to prevent consumer confusion (which in turn causes harm to businesses).
Flo is basically NBC here, attempting to assert ownership over everything that came out of Willie's mouth while at Flo. Trademark law takes a dim view of this approach because it's not as if Flo can crown some other employee "the greatest mind in wrestling" without everyone laughing at it. The public came to view it as part of Willie's schtick, not some interchangeable Flo employee's schtick.
I'd say Flo does a pretty adequate job of self-owning--no trolls needed (no matter their disposition).
Since all the actual (in-person) wrestling has disappeared, it seems the interest has shifted to virtual and legal grappling. Maybe Saylor should challenge FLO to a match (or even duel as opposed to dual a la reactionary crazy man Zell Miller's challenge to Chris Mathews years ago).
Who should Saylor be matched up against at FLO for a take all the marbles 6 or 7 minute bout?
Who should Saylor be matched up against at FLO for a take all the marbles 6 or 7 minute bout?
