Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Adjourned Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy (2026) CV 07

Good afternoon, if the witness Seige Stormbringer can answer the following questions, we would be greatly appreciative:

1. Can you confirm that, although doing so through the powers bestowed upon them by you as the Minister of Events & Culture to be Deputy Minister. That the Defendant proceeded, executed and authorised all within the project themselves?

2. Did The Defendant ask for your approval for the project before it was executed?

3. Was this done through official documented channels? i.e Within a documented or documentable (text) discord channel within the Ministry of Events & Culture or within The Official Channel of communication between the Ministry Of Urban Development and the Ministry of Events and Culture.

4. Had you been given prior warning by the defendant that the building used within this project was neither constructed nor designed by the Defendant?

5. If you had been told as such, had you at any point prior to the pasting of the aforementioned church, asked the Defendant who was supervising the pasting of the aforementioned structure, if they had gained permission from the Plaintiff to do so?

7. Had at any point prior to this, if the previous question was affirmative, The Defendant reassured you that the Plaintiff had been explicitly contacted and had given approval?

8. Had the Defendant during the course of the project implied or otherwise stated that they intended to keep this project as a permanent structure not just a temporary structure, as presented before the “pasteor” (being the admin supervising the pasting) of the build?

9. Prior to this build being pasted, had the Defendant, to your knowledge as minister, notified the Ministry of Urban Development of this project being pasted and/or requested that, as per The Azalean Sourcing Act, for blocks to be sourced for the project to your knowledge?

10. If so, was it done so via the proper documented channel? I.e Within the Ministry of Events & Culture and the Ministry Of Urban Development discord text communication channel.

11. As the Minister of Events & Culture, would you say that the Defendant acted in such a way as to avoid documentation on the project?

12. To your knowledge, did this project contain any written or otherwise solid (i.e something/s that would be possible to bring forward as court evidence or be provided via a freedom of information request) documentation as to its authorisation or that of the approval for the Builds usage by the Plaintiff?

13. Considering the actions of the Defendant prior to and after the pasting of the Build, would you say that the Defendant either lied, had specifically avoided telling you crucial information regarding the project or otherwise misled you in order to get your approval?

14. Was to your knowledge anyone other than yourself within the Ministry of Events & Culture of the Ministry of Urban Development informed of this build pasting prior to the completion of said paste?

15. If so, were they made aware of what the build was, whom was the original designer and if it was authorised to be built by the Plaintiff?

Thankyou for your time, and I once again apologise for the delays
 
The witness, Siege Stormbringer, is asked to answer the questions provided by the Plaintiff. @W4RP4TH
 
1. I think I’d been at work (irl) when I was approached with the idea- not paying the closest attention. I give my deputies some freedoms when it comes to making decisions like this- just tell me the plan, more or less. I was of the understanding that the semantics had been taken care of.

2. Yes, and as aforementioned, I assumed details had been ironed out, was told that we had permission for what was going in, and arranged for it to happen with that information I had available to me.

3. I think it was a mix between those, dms, and vc? I don’t remember exactly- it’s been over a month so it feels like years ago.

4. Yeah- that build is famous. I don’t know Tonga very well but I can say with absolute certainty that his build is one of the most beautiful structures I’ve ever seen in a video game.

5. If I remember correctly, I had been told that Tonga had given MEC permission to use the build. I found out later that this was discussed at some point between him and my MEC predecessor Musica? I’m not sure when that was, though.

7(?). I just remember being told that it was all good and permission had been given for it. It was in the time after that there was talk of whether or not the builder had actually given permission.

8. No, definitely not. It’s been told to me by staff and MUD that MEC is able to paste things temporarily for Ministry business like events and such, but nothing is permanent.

9. To my understanding, temporary builds (specifically event-related) do not need blocks to be provided? Since they aren’t remaining in the world permanently, there was no point. Several previous MUD Ministers have told me this. I think the last several events such as the election live-count and the escape room event were pasted without block sourcing, since they were temporary.

10. Not applicable?

11. I don’t think intentionally?

12. Not as far as I am aware. I acknowledge that this was partially my failing as Minister for not being more thorough. I apologized personally to the Plaintiff as soon as I found out that this situation was a thing and I do feel remorse as my lack of knowledge more or less contributed somehow.

13. I’m not sure. In the beginning I was told it was okay to use the build so I approved it, but as mentioned in my answer to question 5 that the previous Minister was given permission to use it, so maybe the Defendant was acting with that in mind?

14. I’m not sure what you mean by Ministry of Events & Culture of the Ministry of Urban Development, but I don’t know? By then I think a bunch of us were in vc so there wasn’t much documentation. I know I asked MUD if we could temporarily paste in a build and was referred to staff so I did that and they did it for us.

15. I’m not sure. Concerns started being raised after the fact, though.
 
Motion for Extension

I believe that due to the current state of shall we say "over-utilisation" of the court system, provided the Defendant or Defendants' Council and the court agree I believe that it would be prudent for all involved that this case be delayed for a week (7 days) or two weeks (14 days) depending on the courts preference, until hopefully things have settled down for all involved in this case so that proceedings can continue with the due involvement and investment of time required to properly represent both sides of this disagreement. Should the court or the defence council disagree, we will be happy to continue. I simply wish to put forward the motion as a point of good faith during troubled times.
 
Response to Motion

Your honor, the Plaintiff has had ample leeway with this case already with a generous LOA spurred extension and then the 48 after counsel switch. They had ample time due to review the evidence. We have already given the Plaintiffs grace as well not harping on technicalities of original LOA being only to the 26th while the motion to substitute counsel was made on the 27th.

And while I admit that the courts are busy, this case deserves as much attention as any other case and should not be paused in order to make space for other cases. If anything should be done, pausing redundant cases against the MOJ would serve this purpose much better than arbitrarily pausing this legally unique case.

My client has been greatly affected by this case, also taking a personal LOA from government jobs and the server mostly due to emotions from this case. He deserves to have this case done and over with. On the defendant's side, everything is "settled down" and we require no extra time. The courts have no deadlines for response and can reply at their leisure. At this point, this motions reads almost as a thinly veiled attempt to give the Plaintiff more time without asking to write out closing statements.

We are disagreeing with this motion and request to continue the case with no further delays or extensions.
 
Additionally, the Defendant has no questions for the witness.
 
Motion for Extension Withdraw

As the Defendant has stated they do not wish the case to be extended further, I officially withdraw my motion for extension.
 
At this time, we will proceed to the cross-examination of the witness. The Defendant has 48 hours to question the Plaintiff's witness, Siege Stormbringer, if they wish to do so.
 
RandomIntruder said:
Additionally, the Defendant has no questions for the witness.
Click to expand...
Seeing as there is no questions for the witness in cross-examination, we will move forward to the next stage of the trial.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their closing statements to the Court. @Luke201556 @Tonga1
 
Closing Statement

Good Evening Your Honour,

The facts are clear, the Defendant “Bloggy Woggy” did in fact use the Plaintiffs work without their consent, a clear violation of the Plaintiffs copyright. Not only this but they have, as shown by the statements from the witness, done so knowing that the Minister had entrusted them with managing this project and that they had been explicitly asked whether they had been allowed permission to use the aforementioned build, they lied to the minister, despite the plaintiff not even being contacted until much later after the build was pasted. The Defences council has not even reasonably attempted to refute the fact the Defendant used this build without the Plaintiffs Consent. The evidence is clear the actions of the Plaintiff proven and the only defence given for their actions being that had the build demolished less than 24 hours before the case was filed, which is not considered a factor into Copyright Protection Act and The Criminal Code Foundation Act states clearly that the “The Statute of Limitations for all actions shall be 2 months.” a period within which this case resides. Although we are unfortunately outside the period upon which we can submit additional evidence despite the statement made before the court we have evidence stating that blog and the witness had in fact been in discussions to make the structure permanent. A point that may unfortunately need to be raised in a future lawsuit, we were requested to withhold this evidence due to its implications upon the MEC and upon the member of the public who shared this evidence with us.

Furthermore, the defence's council has attempted to claim that the Defendant withdrew from government positions due to this case, to which we have been informed that the Defendant withdrew in order to avoid repercussions from within the ministries and has proven that their statement was simply false as they are noted as running as of last Friday, before the defences statement was made in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

So I believe the point has been made beyond a reasonable doubt, and our requests for the plaintiff stand in a hopeful effort to fund the construction of the project, legally and permanently (the request for relief for the plaintiff copyright being violated being made at the MUD obtained valuation of the blocks within the build, including relevant import tariffs).

Without further ado I thank your honour for your time and deeply apologise for my linguistic standards.
 
Motion to Strike
Your honor, I motion for the following parts of the Plaintiff's closing statement to be stricken:
"Although we are unfortunately outside the period upon which we can submit additional evidence despite the statement made before the court we have evidence stating that blog and the witness had in fact been in discussions to make the structure permanent. A point that may unfortunately need to be raised in a future lawsuit, we were requested to withhold this evidence due to its implications upon the MEC and upon the member of the public who shared this evidence with us."
Click to expand...

This is a roundabout way to try to influence the court with evidence they cannot present, especially improper as it's the closing statements.
I would additionally motion to strike:
Furthermore, the defence's council has attempted to claim that the Defendant withdrew from government positions due to this case, to which we have been informed that the Defendant withdrew in order to avoid repercussions from within the ministries and has proven that their statement was simply false as they are noted as running as of last Friday, before the defences statement was made in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Click to expand...
This is much outside of the scope of the trial and the Plaintiff is speculating about the reasons why my client made personal decisions while making an argument with evidence not presented in the court (who informed them about my Defendant's reasons? Not shown in the witness statements) as well as referencing a meme campaign that my client has rescinded from.

To argue that "I, BlogWorldExpo, declare that I will be seeking election to District #6-7 seat in Parliament as a AFP party member. I sign this declaration from b081trailer-01." is in anyways a serious campaign or indicative of government activity is simply preposterous, especially in the closing statements"
 
Both motions to strike are respectfully rejected. The Plaintiff is entitled to make arguments in their closing statements and they appear to be relevant to the case at hand. That being said, the exclusion of evidence will be considered in the final verdict of the Court. It is agreed that the Plaintiff cannot fail to introduce evidence, and then make arguments on said evidence as a theoretical.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide a closing statement before the Court issues a decision. @RandomIntruder
 
Closing Statement

Your honor, the plaintiff has time and time again twisted the facts of the case. They claim that my client lied to the MEC minister, which is still unfounded as the witness statements clearly state that there’s claims of previous agreements with the old MEC minister. It is, unfortunately true, that many of these agreements are not documented, having been done in VC, done verbally. The witness mentioned this problem as well, showing that this is commonplace for MEC.

Furthermore, we would like to, once again, harp on the fact that the build did not previously exist in the Isles before Mr. Wogy had it pasted in temporarily. There is no copyright to be claimed before that point. It simply did not exist within the confines of our Isles, which is a clear requirement for copyright.

Finally, this is not a criminal case. The plaintiff seems to forget that they are, indeed, not prosecutors with statements such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” for the evidence. The Plaintiff cannot simply demand money from my client without proof of damages.

The Tonga Church was not a household name before this case. It may be one of the “most beautiful structures” that MP Stormbringer has ever seen, but that does not mean that it is famous. There are plenty of famous ugly things (critics of the Barbie Tower would be the first to tell you this) and there are plenty of little known pretty things. One does not equate the other.

No revenue was lost, no fame was lost, no incorrect claims of design were made, there’s no damages proven. The building wasn’t even recorded in! If anything, bringing into the MEC event space only increased the fame of the building. The Plaintiff has failed time and time again to actually provide proof of damages.

Which brings me to the final point of the Plaintiff’s closing statement, the request for the Defendant to bring the church in permanently. This is an improper request for relief, done at the end of the closing statement. It’s really throwing anything at a wall and hoping at least something sticks.

Your honor, I implore you to take a look at all the facts of the case and find that the Defendant did not violate the Plaintiff’s copyright law due to the fact that the building didn’t exist in the Isles before the pasting done by my client and the lack of damages. Please do not be swayed by their underhanded tactics to misuse a closing statement to introduce indirect evidence and prayers of relief. Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you both for your closing statements.

The Court will now be in recess pending a verdict.
 
​
Court Verdict
Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)
​
Case No. CV-26-07
Tomasi Latutupou (Tonga1) v. Blogy Wogy (BlogWorldExpo)

Position of the Plaintiff
1. The Plaintiff, Tomasi Latutupou, alleges that the Defendant used their intellectual property, the "Tonga Church," without authorization, thus breaching copyright protections under the Establish Copyright Protections Act.
2. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant misled officials from the Ministry of Events & Culture into believing that permission had been granted for the use and pasting of the build when, in reality, no such authorization was given.
3. The Plaintiff argues that copyright protection applies automatically to the build regardless of formal registration, and that buildings are explicitly protected works under the relevant statute.
4. The Plaintiff requests $5000 for alleged violation of their constitutional rights, and $50,000 for unauthorized pasting of their intellectual property, along with other applicable court fees compensated.

Position of the Defendant
1. The Defendant, Blogy Wogy (BlogWorldExpo), argues that the build was not "fixed" inside Azalea Isles before its temporary pasting, and therefore there is on legitimate copyright in place at the time of the alleged infringement.
2. The Defendant contends that they acted under the belief that permission had been granted, including possible prior authorization involving previous MEC officials such as Musica, and did not knowingly misrepresent facts.
3. The Defendant claims that there were no measurable damages to the Plaintiff because the build was only temporarily pasted, never made any money, never made public, and was eventually removed.
4. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has not proven that the alleged infringement caused any significant, financial, or reputational loss.

Court Opinion
Before proceeding into specifics, I would like to make it clear that this is a civil case between two individuals, and not a criminal matter where guilt is to be determined. In a civil case, the two key areas of dispute are liability and damages. As such, the questions asked are: is the defendant liable for this action? Did the defendant's action impose damages on the plaintiff? Arguments based on guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the statute of limitations listed in now-repealed Criminal Code Foundation Act are subject to criminal matters, not civil.

In order to succeed in this case, the Plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that (1) a valid copyright existed under the Establish Copyright Protections Act, (2) the Defendant used that protected work without authorization, and (3) the Plaintiff suffered damages or is otherwise entitled to relief under §6 of the Act.

After much consideration, the Court hereby publishes the following key points in its opinion:

1. The Court recognizes that under §3(a) of the Establish Copyright Protections Act, copyright exists automatically for all intellectual property. However, such protection is contingent upon the requirements set out in §2(a), including that the work must be both "fixed" and "created and originate from within Azalea."
2. The Court finds that the build world, as part of the broader ecosystem of Azalea Isles, falls within the definition of "the confines of Azalea or the discord of Azalea" as outlined in §1(a). As such, works created within the build world are considered "fixed" within Azalea and capable of receiving copyright protection. Given that the Act refers to "the discord of Azalea," it is obvious that the purpose of this statute extends beyond city limits. Rather, the Act applies to places like the build world, where constructors and government-employed architects develop structures. The Court finds that it would be both problematic and a serious misunderstanding of the Act to exempt the construction designs made in the build world from intellectual property rights.
3. Based on the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that the "Tonga Church" constitutes an original architectural work under §1(b) of the Act. However, the Plaintiff has not shown that they engaged the Ministry of Economic Affairs about ownership or authorization disputes, nor have they shown that they pursued the dispute resolution procedure described in §5(a) before filing this claim.
4. Most importantly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not proven damages. Reparations must be based on proven harm, monetary benefit, or the seriousness of the violation, according to §6(b). The evidence shows that:
  • The build was temporarily pasted;
  • It was not monetized or used in any commercial production;
  • It was not publicly distributed in any meaningful capacity;
  • It was removed shortly after its placement.
5. The Court finds no evidence of the Defendant's financial gain or the Plaintiff's quantifiable loss. Copyright infringement is evaluated based on actual usage and impact, not hypothetical or unrealized intent, even when there may have been conversation for future permanent use of the build. If the Defendant decided to permanently use the building, that would be a different case altogether and likely a stronger one. In this case, that is not the matter at hand. Adding to this, the Court has also not been provided any evidence of the build being used in a video or event.
6. The Court acknowledges the testimony indicating that the Defendant represented that permission had been obtained. Nonetheless, informal communication habits, ambiguity, and potential reliance on past understandings are all reflected here. For instance, the witness called by the Plaintiff does admit that the previous Minister may have obtained authorization. According to §6(b)(iii), this does not qualify as an egregious or intentional violation that calls for damages. It seems that the Defendant realized that the build shouldn't have been pasted and promptly tried to resolve the conflict by taking the build out of the city.
7. It is important to emphasize that this case reflects a failure of proper documentation and communication between parties. Even while these shortcomings are alarming, they do not in this case, warrant legal action because there is no proof of injury. Furthermore, accusations that the Defendant acted in bad faith or "violated constitutional rights" have been alleged with no evidentiary basis. It is also unclear what constitutional right the Defendant would have had intruded upon.

Decision
The Azalea Isles District Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant.

While the Court acknowledges that the Plaintiff's work is capable of copyright protection under the Establish Copyright Protections Act, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient damages or harm resulting from the Defendant's actions to warrant relief. This is a necessary condition for civil disputes and according to the Act.

I want to thank both parties for their patience, as this verdict required significant research into copyright law, past precedent, and the affairs of this case.
​
Court Fees
The Plaintiff, Tomasi Latutupou, is required to pay Siege Stormbringer (W4RP4TH) a total sum of $250 ($100 to summon the witness; then $10 per question, for 15 questions) in accordance with the Court Reformation Act.
​
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top