|
Post by mrobert21 on Jun 3, 2006 18:02:36 GMT -5
Absolutely right, thank you. I have no love for Vince McMahon or Michael Cole, but I really wish the smark community would learn a little anout law and business before going into the "OMG MCMAHON HATES RASSLIN" and "COLE SUX AND HATES FUNK" posts. I guess in the Alltel commercial where they have fakes of the other companies' spokes people, but do not mention their companies by name, they are just trying to keep those companies down and "OMG ALLTEL SUX, THEY ARE HOLDING SPRINT DOWN, BOOOO." The truth is that the NWA, Sprint, Verizon, et cetera are all registered trademarks and if you use their names without permission, you get your ass sued. Vince McMahon owns the names WCW and Jim Crockett Promotions by buying them from Time Warner. He does not own any usage right to the NWA trademarks or the trademarks of most other NWA territories. It is not worth a million dollar law suit to promote Funk as a NWA World champion (a fact that anybody who cares already knows) to make the IWC happy. Believe me, if he called Funk a WCW champion (since NWA really did become WCW no matter what anybody says), the smarks would get pissy about that too. I like Booker T calling himself a 5 time former WCW champion because it is a cute gimmick and is simple. They do not have to get bogged down into technicalities of how his WCW titles won in the WWF were never called World titles and how the WCW titles he won in WCW were only to keep Sonny Onoo from winning a discrimination lawsuit. For Funk who never has held or will hold any WWF titles (1 day reigns excluded), never held any real WCW titles (the rubber barbed wire belt dors not count), and whose overall number of titles does not support the legendary status they want him to have (Funk has wrestled longer than Flair and has about 1/4 the number of title reigns) focussing on his title reigns and their short lengths detracts from his character and persona. Not to mention that writing that Funk held a World title 30 years ago draws attention to what a geezer he is and is hurtful to trying to fool fans into thinking One Night Stand 2 will be any good. actually you're only partially right. WWE can mention nwa if it is for historical reasons like a bio. If terry funk really was an nwa champ than wwe has every right to say terry funk was an nwa champ. Where wwe could get sued is if they started saying things like the the grate khailie was an nwa champ or the boogie man is fighting for the x division championship..... Wrong, but thanks for playing. There is a reason why the NWA name is edited out of old tapes and Jim Crockett Promotions or WCW are the names used to refer to it. Just because Jim Crockett or Ted Turner paid at that time to use the trademark, does not mean McMahon can use it without paying as long as the trademark is active. Hence the day Ted Turner and To Gordon stopped paying the guys who own the word NWA, they never mentioned or showed it again. Why does TNA never say WWF or WWE, but only their hick Stamford or up north dialogue? Because if they do they get sued like McMahon would for saying NWA. They can not promote WWF trademarked accomplishments to push their talent any more than WWF can to promote Funk with NWA stuff. When Ric Flair was NWA champion and legally owned the belt in 1992, the WWF still got sued over having the belt on the air .
|
|
starwolf
Mephisto
Don't make me go Zelda on you!
Posts: 703
|
Post by starwolf on Jun 3, 2006 18:05:32 GMT -5
NOT THIS WAY, DAMMIT!
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Jun 3, 2006 18:09:24 GMT -5
actually you're only partially right. WWE can mention nwa if it is for historical reasons like a bio. If terry funk really was an nwa champ than wwe has every right to say terry funk was an nwa champ. Where wwe could get sued is if they started saying things like the the grate khailie was an nwa champ or the boogie man is fighting for the x division championship..... Wrong, but thanks for playing. There is a reason why the NWA name is edited out of old tapes and Jim Crockett Promotions or WCW are the names used to refer to it. Just because Jim Crockett or Ted Turner paid at that time to use the trademark, does not mean McMahon can use it without paying as long as the trademark is active. Hence the day Ted Turner and To Gordon stopped paying the guys who own the word NWA, they never mentioned or showed it again. Why does TNA never say WWF or WWE, but only their hick Stamford or up north dialogue? Because if they do they get sued like McMahon would for saying NWA. They can not promote WWF trademarked accomplishments to push their talent any more than WWF can to promote Funk with NWA stuff. When Ric Flair was NWA champion and legally owned the belt in 1992, the WWF still got sued over having the belt on the air . Not so. A few weeks ago Team 3D & the James Gang were discussing the WWE tag-team titles (& how the Dudleys beat NAO for their first WWE tag-team titles). Jerry Lynn's WWE Light-Heavyweight title reign in WWE (then WWF) was also mentioned on one of the early weekly TNA PPVs.
|
|
MiLB Fan
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,399
|
Post by MiLB Fan on Jun 3, 2006 18:27:31 GMT -5
Interesting to note that WWE does mention the NWA on the 24/7 site. See?
|
|
|
Post by jobcena on Jun 3, 2006 19:31:55 GMT -5
actually you're only partially right. WWE can mention nwa if it is for historical reasons like a bio. If terry funk really was an nwa champ than wwe has every right to say terry funk was an nwa champ. Where wwe could get sued is if they started saying things like the the grate khailie was an nwa champ or the boogie man is fighting for the x division championship..... Wrong, but thanks for playing. There is a reason why the NWA name is edited out of old tapes and Jim Crockett Promotions or WCW are the names used to refer to it. Just because Jim Crockett or Ted Turner paid at that time to use the trademark, does not mean McMahon can use it without paying as long as the trademark is active. Hence the day Ted Turner and To Gordon stopped paying the guys who own the word NWA, they never mentioned or showed it again. You're talking about tapes and a belt wwe/wcw is/did make money off of. So wcw couldn't release a tape that said wcw/nwa, as if they were still apart of nwa. But if they wanted to talk about "the history of wrestling" They could say that wcw was once an nwa territory. I think a lot of nwa footage should be public domain now anyway, unless people keep renewing the copyright. Copy rights are so wonky these days.
|
|
|
Post by jobcena on Jun 4, 2006 21:27:28 GMT -5
also tna always says "wwe." Unless they are trying to say something bad about wwe then they say up north..
|
|
|
Post by sweetegonage on Jun 4, 2006 22:53:05 GMT -5
that sounds like a "say anything" type of deal out west.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,370
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jun 4, 2006 23:32:50 GMT -5
I can't see much else they missed, but damn, it's a big ommission. From now on, I guess Booker will change one of his catchphrases to "I'm a five time five time five time, five time, five time champion in another company, SUCKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA". DOesn't have the same ring though. Mentioning WCW is ok, because WWE owns that name. The thing is Flair gets credit for his NWA runs, so why not the Funker?
|
|
NIXON
Unicron
Hail to the Chief Bootknocker
Posts: 3,354
|
Post by NIXON on Jun 4, 2006 23:36:13 GMT -5
Christ, there's more. Apparently, and I wasn't aware of this, Tony Mamaluke was an "integral part of the FBI". Really? Somehow I don't think the last guy added to the stable would be "integral" or anything like that. Apparently, though, the only members of FBI were Little Guido and Mamaluke. No Tracy Smothers, no Big Guido...nope, just those tow. No mention of Ol' Brown Eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!! ? I'M PISSED NOW!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jun 4, 2006 23:37:32 GMT -5
why would they go outta their way to mention another company?
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Jun 5, 2006 0:09:50 GMT -5
The arguement of legality is an interesting one, since, if mentioning the NWA title falls under copyright issues (which it doesn't, any promotion can call themselves NWA, because NWA as it was is dead), mentioning any non-WWE owned copyright material would be illegal. In this case, WWE is guilty as sin.
They mention Shane Douglas's name several times, a name which is owned by Troy Martin, along with the names Triple Threat and Pittsbugh Plunge. So, if they are shyig away from mentioning NWA to avoid copyright issues, they shoudl remove all mention of Shane Douglas from the site as well.
|
|
|
Post by mrobert21 on Jun 5, 2006 0:40:14 GMT -5
The arguement of legality is an interesting one, since, if mentioning the NWA title falls under copyright issues (which it doesn't, any promotion can call themselves NWA, because NWA as it was is dead), mentioning any non-WWE owned copyright material would be illegal. In this case, WWE is guilty as sin. They mention Shane Douglas's name several times, a name which is owned by Troy Martin, along with the names Triple Threat and Pittsbugh Plunge. So, if they are shyig away from mentioning NWA to avoid copyright issues, they shoudl remove all mention of Shane Douglas from the site as well. The name Triple Threat was intellectual property created and owned by ECW. Troy Martin leased the name Shane Douglas to them while he worked there (as all wrestlers do) and thus his name can be used. He and all ECW wrestlers receive residuals for the use of their trademarks in WWF owned ECW productions. The reason why Troy Martin was made Dean Douglas in the WWF is because WWF seeks to rechristen all employees in names they own to avoid paying such royalties ()see Jesse Ventura). Any promotion can not call themselves NWA, you are wrong. All wrestling organizations that use the name pay the owners of the copyright to use it. Ted Turner and Heyman saw that they did not need it, so they stopped paying and changed the names of thei companies. It is illegal to use copyrighted material without paying a residual or when permission has been explicitly denied, not just to plain use it. I got a Master's Degree in it so I know my copyright stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Kevwhatshisname on Jun 5, 2006 1:24:39 GMT -5
I believe Nash mentioned WWF when he pulled out the chart in that interview with Shelly.
|
|
|
Post by mrobert21 on Jun 5, 2006 1:47:10 GMT -5
I believe Nash mentioned WWF when he pulled out the chart in that interview with Shelly. The Nash stuff I saw the last time I watched Impact had him being careful to avoid saying WWF. He said top draw and up north, not WWF champion. He can get away with more than some. He has WWF political power and is friends with everyone in management there. Nash was offered a booker's job when his wrestling contract was up last time. Just 2 months ago he was giving interviews on www.wwe.com despite working for TNA.
|
|
|
Post by jobcena on Jun 5, 2006 10:25:19 GMT -5
The arguement of legality is an interesting one, since, if mentioning the NWA title falls under copyright issues (which it doesn't, any promotion can call themselves NWA, because NWA as it was is dead), mentioning any non-WWE owned copyright material would be illegal. In this case, WWE is guilty as sin. They mention Shane Douglas's name several times, a name which is owned by Troy Martin, along with the names Triple Threat and Pittsbugh Plunge. So, if they are shyig away from mentioning NWA to avoid copyright issues, they shoudl remove all mention of Shane Douglas from the site as well. they are allowed to talk about it as long as they are telling a fact.
|
|