|
Post by The Shareholder is nude on Dec 24, 2014 15:59:25 GMT -5
It would not survive a lawsuit. The WWE would lose big time over this if they enforce it against a fan who is a lawyer or is willing to take the time to fight them over it. No, they wouldn't. Their show, their rules. Same way the Arena holds the right to eject you for any reason. Wrong. It would not survive a serious lawsuit challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 24, 2014 16:09:46 GMT -5
No, they wouldn't. Their show, their rules. Same way the Arena holds the right to eject you for any reason. Wrong. It would not survive a serious lawsuit challenge. Yes it would. They are a private entity that has the right to refuse for any reason they want. This has been going on for decades, from WWE to NFL to Disney. It is perfectly legal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 16:16:42 GMT -5
They absolutely can. Same way 5-star restaurants and trendy nightclubs can keep people out who aren't wearing the "appropriate attire". It's their shows, and their shows are pretty much commercials for the rest of their product (and vice versa). It's entirely their right to pick and choose the dress codes of the events they host, and what is considered unacceptable behavior by the attendees. Are they taking it to a petty level? Possibly. But that's their right. I know all of that. But it's not feasible, or remotely reasonable. 5 star restaurants and trendy nightclubs hold 200 people, max, making them a reasonable place to enforce certain dress rules. WWE in 10000 seat arenas, banning a wrestling shirt? It's a silly goal that would take way too much work to actually achieve, all it can really do is sap any goodwill WWE has with their fans. If enough people wear Punk shirts, this will become a non issue because they're not going to piss off that many fans before realizing what a dumb idea it is. They might try and make the rule, but it's not going to achieve the goal of a CM Punk-less arena everywhere they go. Sap goodwill? WWE can do anything and people will still watch and buy stuff. Whether that's casual fans who don't use the internet, casual fans who do use the internet or people who post on here.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 24, 2014 17:23:59 GMT -5
No, they wouldn't. Their show, their rules. Same way the Arena holds the right to eject you for any reason. Wrong. It would not survive a serious lawsuit challenge. I'd be curious about that, since fans get kicked out of stadiums all the time for very arbitrary reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Dec 24, 2014 17:38:04 GMT -5
Wrong. It would not survive a serious lawsuit challenge. Yes it would. They are a private entity that has the right to refuse for any reason they want. This has been going on for decades, from WWE to NFL to Disney. It is perfectly legal. Only way a lawsuit could work is if they kicked people out for wearing Punk shirts, didn't offer a chance to look for a warning beforehand, and didn't offer a replacement shirt of some sort. Then I could see a case being made for the WWE basically treating its customers unfairly--i.e, that "can kick out at any time" still would require disruptive behaviour and wearing a Punk shirt wouldn't be seen as such. That said, yeah. I'd be REALLY surprised if the WWE didn't prepare itself for stuff like that. Well that and I'm still not convinced they are doing this, it seems too...childish, even for them.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 24, 2014 17:41:08 GMT -5
Wearing a Punk shirt would absolutely be argued as being disruptive behavior. No matter how many times Meltzer wants to give Vince's thoughts on it, UFC is a competitor and promoting the UFC or its roster at a WWE show would be considered disruptive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 17:47:10 GMT -5
I know all of that. But it's not feasible, or remotely reasonable. 5 star restaurants and trendy nightclubs hold 200 people, max, making them a reasonable place to enforce certain dress rules. WWE in 10000 seat arenas, banning a wrestling shirt? It's a silly goal that would take way too much work to actually achieve, all it can really do is sap any goodwill WWE has with their fans. If enough people wear Punk shirts, this will become a non issue because they're not going to piss off that many fans before realizing what a dumb idea it is. They might try and make the rule, but it's not going to achieve the goal of a CM Punk-less arena everywhere they go. Sap goodwill? WWE can do anything and people will still watch and buy stuff. Whether that's casual fans who don't use the internet, casual fans who do use the internet or people who post on here. Sad but true. The fact that they get nearly 4 million people a week to watch a repetitive 3 hour variety show still baffles me. They can kick hundreds of CM Punk fans out of buildings and it won't do anything to their business/profits, rightly or wrongly.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,465
|
Post by r. on Dec 24, 2014 17:51:25 GMT -5
I'll just bring my CM Punk shirt, Sign and such to taped events then.
I need to get enough money to buy the entire camera side seating and have every one hold up a punk pepsi sign just to see what happens.
Grow the f*** up WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Dec 24, 2014 18:00:12 GMT -5
Wearing a Punk shirt would absolutely be argued as being disruptive behavior. No matter how many times Meltzer wants to give Vince's thoughts on it, UFC is a competitor and promoting the UFC or its roster at a WWE show would be considered disruptive. They would absolutely try that, but I'm honestly not sure how much a court would see it as such. It would depend on the state and the judge, honestly. Wearing a competitor's shirt seems tame enough that I would be frankly surprised to see a judge ruling in their favour in that case. I imagine the situation itself would be very important for that ruling. Mostly as a matter of money. If they took someone's money, didn't refund the ticket and kicked them out for being "disruptive" while only wearing a shirt that they didn't publicly state to find undesirable in their show, I would be seriously shocked if a judge sided with them--that would be closer to scamming its customers, and there's some strong laws in the customer's side there(at least in Canada, no idea about the US, though I imagine it's the same). Any number of factors could make their case stronger though, like just citing just about anywhere that they don't want those shirts, giving customers a replacement shirt, or simply refunding them of their ticket after kicking them out. At that point I'd be more surprised if a judge ruled against them. Though I'd be most surprised if anyone ever tried to take them to court over something like this, it just doesn't seem worth it unless they kick out enough people for a class action lawsuit. That and it would depend on what the hell this hypothetical lawsuit would be for. If it was just some kind of lawsuit for a refund and the fan in question acted politely all the way throughout the show except for the shirt before being kicked out, I would be more than shocked if the WWE won that. If it was a lawsuit against the right to deny service, then yeah the WWE would have won that before they started.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 19:16:49 GMT -5
"On second thought, put the CM Punk shirt back on!" Buff having a T-Shirt shouldn't be as funny as it is Even funnier is someone owning one. Like they had currency. Currency that could be spent on goods and services. They had some. Then they decided "Instead of this currency, I would rather have a Bagwell shirt. I would like to trade buying power for that shirt. Here, take this currency. I would rather have that shirt than this currency."
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 24, 2014 19:45:35 GMT -5
Looking back at what I said earlier, I get the feeling that it's that every time "CM Punk" is said, or his name appears on a sign in the crowd, WWE has to pay him royalties. Which they obviously don't want to do. Now that he's gone, WWE no longer has license to use or say the name "CM Punk". That's not how royalties work. Not trying to be smart or anything. But how exactly do royalties work? I've seen Punk mention them and Dave Mustaine(Megadeth) talk about royalty checks. Basically anytime someone buys Punk merchandise WWE has to cut him a check of the profits?
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Dec 24, 2014 19:55:36 GMT -5
This can't miss.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 24, 2014 19:58:45 GMT -5
Buff having a T-Shirt shouldn't be as funny as it is Even funnier is someone owning one. Like they had currency. Currency that could be spent on goods and services. They had some. Then they decided "Instead of this currency, I would rather have a Bagwell shirt. I would like to trade buying power for that shirt. Here, take this currency. I would rather have that shirt than this currency." Buff was cool and popular in his day.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 24, 2014 20:12:19 GMT -5
That's not how royalties work. Not trying to be smart or anything. But how exactly do royalties work? I've seen Punk mention them and Dave Mustaine(Megadeth) talk about royalty checks. Basically anytime someone buys Punk merchandise WWE has to cut him a check of the profits? There are different kinds and they aren't automatic, usually they're built into contracts in order to give the recipient a percentage of money made from their work. In this discussion, wrestlers can be seen much like actors in that regard. If there is a royalties clause in their contract, then the wrestler gets a (very small) percentage of the profit of each shirt bearing their likeness/character identification. They also get (and this is fairly new, as Jesse Ventura went to court with them over it between the time he left and returned) a (again, very small percentage) every time footage of them is used in a commercial way (DVD release, shown on Raw, etc). If a Nicole Bass/Val Venis segment is, for instance, put up on WWE's official Youtube channel, then every so often (usually in quarter years or annually), the bean-counters look at how much that video made from ads on the page, and do the math to figure out how much to send Venis and Bass. It won't be any grand amount unless the video just went bonkers viral (a friend of mine who used to act in television commercials in the 1970s still gets royalty checks here and there, but they usually amount to anywhere between 50 cents to 15 dollars, as apparently some of those old ads are still dragged out from time to time on the air). When a Cena/Punk match gets put on DVD, the accountants send them a percentage of what that DVD made in the time-frame (usually a much larger amount, at least that first time). With wrestling, at least, it's mostly in the contracts. In comic books, royalties are something of a new thing, with the majority of it having only started in the last decade/two decades. Before that, DC could reprint the hell out of old Neal Adams issues and he'd never see a dime. Now, they send him a royalty check every time they do. And it's still not across the board - for instance, I don't have royalties in my contract with Marvel, so whenever they do a new printing of a Handbook I co-wrote, or use my work from it elsewhere, I don't see a dime (not complaining, just saying that's how it is). Most of the "real" comic writers have it now, though. Just saying someone's name on the air or recognizing they exist publicly wouldn't mean they get royalties as was suggested. Otherwise, every news broadcast and sports event would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Now, utilizing their "image" to propagate your own income can get you in some hot water legally if done in a libelous/slanderous manner, but that doesn't have anything to do with royalties. The only way the two would even intertwine is by cause and effect; like for instance, if Punk was mentioned on the air and it reminded some fan to jump on WWE.com and buy a piece of his merch still available, then he'd get royalties from that item, but not from the mention itself. To be honest, royalties are a bit more complicated than all that, as there are some different kinds and such (I won't even get into the cesspool that is music royalties), but in terms of this thread, subject and situation, that's what we're looking at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2014 20:31:03 GMT -5
Even funnier is someone owning one. Like they had currency. Currency that could be spent on goods and services. They had some. Then they decided "Instead of this currency, I would rather have a Bagwell shirt. I would like to trade buying power for that shirt. Here, take this currency. I would rather have that shirt than this currency." Buff was cool and popular in his day. No. No he wasn't. I watched him "back in the day". He was as dorky looking then as he is now. Crowds cheered him because they cheered faces in the early 90s pre NWO WCW. I remember Marcus Bagwell and thinking "Good lord what an asshole" and this was when I was like 14. He was NEVER cool. He was popular yes (mostly just because he was recognizable), but never in any situation was he even close to cool.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 24, 2014 20:32:59 GMT -5
Buff was cool and popular in his day. No. No he wasn't. I watched him "back in the day". He was as dorky looking then as he is now. Crowds cheered him because they cheered faces in the early 90s pre NWO WCW. I remember Marcus Bagwell and thinking "Good lord what an asshole" and this was when I was like 14. He was NEVER cool. He was popular yes (mostly just because he was recognizable), but never in any situation was he even close to cool. I dunno I mean he had those hats. lol
|
|
|
Post by mizzziggler on Dec 25, 2014 7:25:05 GMT -5
..... Isn't this America? They can't tell us what to wear.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 25, 2014 7:32:19 GMT -5
..... Isn't this America? They can't tell us what to wear. As a private business, they can. They put up a code of conduct to follow, and a dress code. Stadiums, restaurants, stores, hotels, and countless other places all can tell you can't wear a certain type of shirt. If you're referring to free speech, that means the government can not prosecute you for it. It doesn't mean that a business can't ask you to replace the shirt, or leave. Free speech doesn't protect you from the public consequences. You won't be thrown in jail for wearing a Punk shirt.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,605
|
Post by trollrogue on Dec 25, 2014 8:24:53 GMT -5
..... Isn't this America? They can't tell us what to wear. I would quote the DX entrance theme lyrics whenever they ask me to change out of my BITW CM Punk shirt. Let's see the WWE ask me to leave the venue after that kind of historical irony!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 8:29:03 GMT -5
It's not illegal, it's just really petty and stupid. I do wonder if they'd do the same thing if you wore, I dunno, a shirt for (insert some minor MMA guy, I can't name any because I don't like that crap). Probably not. Know they pretty prominently showed off a kid wearing a Christian Cage shirt in one of the Axxess SmackDowns one year. If this is true it's probably just trying to get people to stop thinking of Punk so they'll stop chanting for him and stop talking about the stuff he said, which is one of those things that never, ever works yet companies keep doing.
|
|