|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 11, 2016 9:05:51 GMT -5
And that would require them to edit much the peak WCW footage and leave the NWO footage with big gaping holes in it. While he wasn't a key man in that angle he was there throughout, involved in things like the notorious NWO/Arn Anderson parody promo, Scott Steiner's antics and so on. If Buff has a clause like that, they may end up having to do it for a lot of WCW names because they bought out a whole lot of contracts around that time. Get an intern to go through each episode and put a blue dot over Buff's face, whenever he appears. He'd still be spoken to by other wrestlers, brought up the commentary team and so on. They'd be better off settling with him if erasing him is their only other option as deleting/censoring his presence would leave an important angle near unwatchable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 9:08:00 GMT -5
I guess being a male escort stopped paying off? Pimpin' ain't, pimpin' ain't easy, man. (He was basically pimping himself, so it fits.)
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Aug 11, 2016 9:44:22 GMT -5
We've seen a couple lawsuits over WWE Network royalties before, and I always kind of question the idea that WWE doesn't owe anyone anything. I mean, they had to pay royalties to use likenesses on DVD releases and while on-demand services are different, is there a precedent to draw from or is WWE just saying that they don't have to pay?
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Aug 11, 2016 9:46:27 GMT -5
Simple answer? Take Buff off the Network. No one would miss him. Remember when Vince Russo booked Stevie Richards' mom (played by the Blue Meanie) to be on a pole? Seriously, at this rate all the archived footage will become one-man recreations starring Stevie...and now him being re-hired post-brand split now makes sense. /I'd watch it...
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Aug 11, 2016 9:47:19 GMT -5
This is interesting. It sounds like he would have a real shot at this one, compared to that similar case that came up a while back where nothing was actually in their contracts regarding getting royalties. "The lawsuit also acknowledges that WWE has successfully defended itself against similar claims from the Eddie Gilbert estate, former AWA star Doug "Somers" Somerson and former Global Wrestling Federation performer Stevie Ray (not to be confused with the WCW performer who used the same name) but states that those talents had no contractual right to sue WWE. Bagwell is arguing that due to the alleged breach of contract, he has that right, noting his lawsuit, "is not preempted by the Copyright Act because WWE owns the right to WCW copyrighted works featuring Plaintiff’s intellectual property, subject to royalty payment obligations for the sale of those copyrighted works (WCW Video Products of PPVs and Non PPVs)." Pretty big difference. Those claims basically proposed that royalties SHOULD have been in their contract. Bagwell is claiming his royalties ARE in his contract, which sounds like a legitimate claim. I'm pretty sure GWF Stevie Ray = Harlem Heat Stevie Ray. There's also the UWF Abrams version "STEVE" Ray, but did he ever work for WWF?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 11, 2016 10:06:38 GMT -5
We've seen a couple lawsuits over WWE Network royalties before, and I always kind of question the idea that WWE doesn't owe anyone anything. I mean, they had to pay royalties to use likenesses on DVD releases and while on-demand services are different, is there a precedent to draw from or is WWE just saying that they don't have to pay? If I remember correctly, the WWE put a royalties system in place after the Jesse Ventura lawsuit where talent would get paid for use of their work on home video releases and PPV broadcasts. When the network came into being, they cannibalised both those things, current talents no longer get the bonuses they once received and former talents no longer get anything like the royalties they once got because they cannibalised the home video and PPV system for the network, and since online streaming services aren't listed on the contracts most talent signed, they don't have to pay them a penny even though it's effectively the same thing. The WWE are going to fight to prevent having to pay royalties as long as they can, because that's business, but many former talents are angry and will likely jump all over them should someone elsewhere win a similar case.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Aug 11, 2016 10:31:24 GMT -5
Not as much Buff bashing in here as I thought there would be. I'm proud FAN.
These kind of lawsuits I don't mind because honestly I don't think WWE thought the network through when it came to paying performers (current or otherwise). They own the footage but apparently they had DVD royalties and the like so I get wanting payment for what is essentially the replacement.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Aug 11, 2016 11:36:29 GMT -5
"“video cassettes, videodiscs, CD ROM, or other technology, including technology not yet created.
This is the line that stands out to me because wouldn't the network fall under this category?
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,286
|
Post by The Ichi on Aug 11, 2016 12:31:11 GMT -5
My rate of wanting him to win this depends on whether or not he wears one of those awesome tophats in the courtroom.
|
|
lionheart21
Patti Mayonnaise
Once did a thing...
Posts: 30,528
|
Post by lionheart21 on Aug 11, 2016 12:34:22 GMT -5
McDevitt: "Here comes a new challenger."
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Aug 11, 2016 12:37:32 GMT -5
Simple answer? Take Buff off the Network. No one would miss him. f*** that. The editing they'd have to do would ruin a ton of WCW shows. Also, I like Buff. There. I said it.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,953
|
Post by Perd on Aug 11, 2016 12:52:07 GMT -5
Buff's new tag team is Litigious & Delicious.
|
|
|
Post by evilone on Aug 11, 2016 12:58:17 GMT -5
Everyone please raise your hand if you believe WWE has intended to have WCW as separate wrestling venture and the future of that idea has depended on one match between Booker T and Buff Bagwell in Tacoma.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Aug 11, 2016 13:06:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alred1982 on Aug 11, 2016 13:17:56 GMT -5
Simple answer? Take Buff off the Network. No one would miss him. I can see this happening but now imagine stone cold the rock or hulk hogan doing this would they pull them so much history with them.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,477
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Aug 11, 2016 14:01:23 GMT -5
WWE right now:
|
|
|
Post by edgestar on Aug 11, 2016 15:16:56 GMT -5
If you erase Buff, you also erase the always fun Judy Bagwell segments. That in itself, is a crime against humanity!!
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 11, 2016 16:25:55 GMT -5
"“video cassettes, videodiscs, CD ROM, or other technology, including technology not yet created. This is the line that stands out to me because wouldn't the network fall under this category? Yep, in fact that's what sank one of the lawsuits before, because a 2004 updated contract removed the "other technologies" part. Buff, thanks to getting bounced out so fast, never signed the updated contract, so the previous case will not effect him.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 11, 2016 16:46:56 GMT -5
But why would Buff be entitled to royalties from WWE on WCW material? Remember, Vince did not buy WCW the company, he bought trademarks, the video library and things like that, the AOL-TW company that was called WCW still exists, it never died. It reads to me that Buff is trying to say that WWE bought WCW as a whole and is legally responsible for what WCW promised him despite that AOLTW contract expiring and him being signed to a WWE deal.
I can see WWE being responsible for paying based on his WWE run because of that contract but saying his entire WCW run falls under his WWE deal when the legal entity that was WCW still exists makes no sense to me.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,719
|
Post by nisidhe on Aug 11, 2016 17:51:17 GMT -5
But why would Buff be entitled to royalties from WWE on WCW material? Remember, Vince did not buy WCW the company, he bought trademarks, the video library and things like that, the AOL-TW company that was called WCW still exists, it never died. It reads to me that Buff is trying to say that WWE bought WCW as a whole and is legally responsible for what WCW promised him despite that AOLTW contract expiring and him being signed to a WWE deal. I can see WWE being responsible for paying based on his WWE run because of that contract but saying his entire WCW run falls under his WWE deal when the legal entity that was WCW still exists makes no sense to me. Because a) Buff had a contract with WWF in June 2001, before the clause was removed from standard talent contracts, promising royalties for the use of likenesses on future technologies not yet created; and b) while WCW may still exist as a non-operating legal entity under TimeWarner, the video library (and thus, the license for its use) was sold to WWE along with the trademarks. For WWE to win this battle, they'll need to show any subsequent document, with Buff's signature on it, in which he agreed to the new terms and waived his right to royalties under those conditions. In the absence of any such thing, WWE would need to pay. If Buff is in it for Great Justice, he wouldn't settle because a settlement offer would almost certainly include an NDA.
|
|