|
Post by goodomens on Feb 20, 2008 11:13:58 GMT -5
How did White Wolf gain ownership of Gangrel's name anyway? OK, here's the situation: White Wolf is a company which makes role playing games (primarily pen-and-paper, kind of like Dungeons and Dragons), as well as novels and other related stuff.. One of the games was Vampire: The Masquerade, which originally was released in 1991. An updated version, Vampire: The Requiem, was lreleased in 2004. One the clans of vampires in that game is the Gangrel. White Wolf held (and, presumably, still holds) trademarks on that name, along with the names of the other vampire clans they created for the game. Gangrel the wrestler started in the WWF in 98, so White Wolf's use of the trademark was well-established by that point. A few strange things about the whole situation: 1. [geek]The character Gangrel never really acted or looked much like a Gangrel vampire from the game. He seemed more like a Ventrue or Toreador. [/geek] 2. The word "gangrel" is an old term for a vagabond or wanderer. I suppose the WWE might try to claim that the character is really just a wandering bum...who happens to have fangs and drinks blood.
|
|
Mitch 4:20
Don Corleone
The Cherry One
Posts: 2,062
|
Post by Mitch 4:20 on Feb 20, 2008 11:22:03 GMT -5
What the hell is White Wolf and what is the Gangrel name/character/gimmick/whatever to them?
|
|
Matt Rogers
King Koopa
member is currently offline <stalking Emma Watson>
Omae wa mo shindeiru.
Posts: 11,869
|
Post by Matt Rogers on Feb 20, 2008 11:23:02 GMT -5
What the hell is White Wolf and what is the Gangrel name/character/gimmick/whatever to them? One post up kind of explains it
|
|
Mitch 4:20
Don Corleone
The Cherry One
Posts: 2,062
|
Post by Mitch 4:20 on Feb 20, 2008 11:29:54 GMT -5
What the hell is White Wolf and what is the Gangrel name/character/gimmick/whatever to them? One post up kind of explains it thanks, I posted as I was reading through the thread and hadnt made it that far. It's how I do my posting, sorry.
|
|
Matt Rogers
King Koopa
member is currently offline <stalking Emma Watson>
Omae wa mo shindeiru.
Posts: 11,869
|
Post by Matt Rogers on Feb 20, 2008 11:31:31 GMT -5
One post up kind of explains it thanks, I posted as I was reading through the thread and hadnt made it that far. It's how I do my posting, sorry. Don't sweat it, I do the same. Basically this stuff is pretty petty, but if WWE made a deal with them they better stick it out after how petty they've been.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Feb 20, 2008 11:48:57 GMT -5
I'm suprised they went and gave him a trademarked name in the first place. Whats the big draw over giving a midcarder a trademarked name? Whats so amazing about Gangrel? Why not Johnny Bloodsucker or something? I agree.... they could have used the exact same vampire but given him a made up name, and I seriously doubt anyone would have cared. Honestly, how many of WWF's fans back then even knew what Gangrel was a reference to? It's not like the character would have seemed any less authentic if he had another name, except perhaps to that small percentage that knew all about White Wolf's characters. I think a good trademarkable name would have been Vampy Dykstra. Or Marcus Cor Vamp!
|
|
nealo
Unicron
BRING IT BACK!!
Posts: 3,166
|
Post by nealo on Feb 20, 2008 11:50:44 GMT -5
when was gangrel on? the battle Royal?
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Feb 20, 2008 11:57:11 GMT -5
After the Team 3D debacle I don't have a lot of sympathy for WWE with this sort of thing. Well, had Heyman drew up a signed contract before declaring bankruptcy, we wouldn't have to pretend their names Ray, Devon and Runt, the Brothers Deadly.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 20, 2008 12:00:09 GMT -5
when was gangrel on? the battle Royal? Yeah, if I remember right, he wasn't on for long. Really, White Wolf would probably win, but I can't imagine the damages they could claim would be enough to make a big settlement. It's not like he was on screen for more than a few minutes, so i wouldn't think it would be a lot of money.
|
|
Matt Rogers
King Koopa
member is currently offline <stalking Emma Watson>
Omae wa mo shindeiru.
Posts: 11,869
|
Post by Matt Rogers on Feb 20, 2008 12:12:05 GMT -5
After the Team 3D debacle I don't have a lot of sympathy for WWE with this sort of thing. Well, had Heyman drew up a signed contract before declaring bankruptcy, we wouldn't have to pretend their names Ray, Devon and Runt, the Brothers Deadly. But at the end of the day, WWE gained nothing from not letting them have the name, they haven't given it to anyone else. I dunno, it's their right though, same as it's White Wolf's right if they want to get a penny out of them.
|
|
|
Post by laotioncommotion on Feb 20, 2008 12:31:55 GMT -5
I don't really understand having WWE's side on this unless you're some kind of ultra-fanboy who can't handle WWE being damaged, even if it's just a small out of court settlement, which is what this will probably amount to. They used something that wasn't theirs to use, it's pretty much that simple. It's a money issue and a copyright issue, not some emotional thing to get all worked up about.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 20, 2008 12:33:48 GMT -5
But at the end of the day, WWE gained nothing from not letting them have the name, they haven't given it to anyone else. I dunno, it's their right though, same as it's White Wolf's right if they want to get a penny out of them. Might DVD releases have something to do with it? Or is that a separate deal? If it is, then I'd imagine that the purpose of it would be to prevent someone who gained publicity under a name with WWE from using it elsewhere to profit an outside entity. It's not likely that they ever really think of passing these gimmicks around, since they never use them again aside from DVD releases. I can't say I know the exact reason, but those two are the only logical reasons I can think of for them to own the rights of a stage name.
|
|
|
Post by Sparvid on Feb 20, 2008 12:57:18 GMT -5
Didn't Gangrel show up on Smackdown in 2004? Why didn't they sue then?
|
|
La Plus Heureuse
Trap-Jaw
Everyone's just laughing at me. I hate it. Big breasts, big ass, big deal; can't I be anything else?
Posts: 252
|
Post by La Plus Heureuse on Feb 20, 2008 15:58:02 GMT -5
I hope White Wolf wins. A- Vince gets on my nerves these days, B- I am all about some White Wolf Gaming.
|
|
|
Post by 'Smart' Mark Poindexter on Feb 20, 2008 16:21:47 GMT -5
Am I totally wrong in thinking that when the WWE made the Gangrel character name they did not know White Wolf even existed? I always thought that to be the case, and the Gangrel character in the series is a vampire but other then that he is nothing like Gangrel. Seriously Marvel makes less of a deal for Hulk Hogan being Hogan. They used to pay for that name, you never saw a Marvel notice on anything though. So they can pop all there nerd zits, but I will never buy into the crap that they sell. Worst part is you know they will make money in an out of court settlement. My understanding wa she proposed the character and name and WWE agreed not knowing until shortly before his debut that the name was copyrighted and that the white wolf settlement wa sjust an afterthought.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Feb 20, 2008 16:24:39 GMT -5
Suing over a single appearance by a has-been jobber seems really petty.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Crud on Feb 20, 2008 16:29:39 GMT -5
It's always great to see WWE get a dose of their own medicine.
|
|
gamblor
AC Slater
Now with Neon Claws!
Posts: 131
|
Post by gamblor on Feb 20, 2008 17:00:16 GMT -5
Its already been said, Vince and co are jerks when it comes to copyright so this is just the universe coming back into balance.
Maybe White Wolf will stuff things up as they signed the deal with the WWF not WWE. Take that you stupid Panda!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Feb 20, 2008 17:07:20 GMT -5
But at the end of the day, WWE gained nothing from not letting them have the name, they haven't given it to anyone else. I dunno, it's their right though, same as it's White Wolf's right if they want to get a penny out of them. Might DVD releases have something to do with it? Or is that a separate deal? If it is, then I'd imagine that the purpose of it would be to prevent someone who gained publicity under a name with WWE from using it elsewhere to profit an outside entity. It's not likely that they ever really think of passing these gimmicks around, since they never use them again aside from DVD releases. I can't say I know the exact reason, but those two are the only logical reasons I can think of for them to own the rights of a stage name. If they release it on DVD they'll probably just have a huge blur over Gangrel the entire time. I wouldn't put it past them.
|
|
|
Post by "St. Louis Viper" Buck Summers on Feb 20, 2008 19:51:36 GMT -5
I'm with white wolf on this one, and not just becuase I have more White Wolf merch than WWE merch (tho probably not by much, both are within the thousands by now, i bet). WW owns the name Gangrel, and have since 1991. WWE used the name without permission, and should thusly be sued.
|
|