|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 1, 2015 11:26:26 GMT -5
WWE thinks they can just throw whatever they want into a contract and as long as it's in the contract, there's nothing anyone can do about it. "If we fire you, we get to come over to your house and kick your kids in the face." What's sad is, you know most wrestlers will look at that bullshit and still sign the contract because "it's their dream."
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 1, 2015 11:28:59 GMT -5
Oddly enough, after Ryback gets fired for disciplinary reasons, a masked character called Da Big Guy immediately debuts for TNA.
Hmmmm...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 11:29:10 GMT -5
WWE thinks they can just throw whatever they want into a contract and as long as it's in the contract, there's nothing anyone can do about it. "If we fire you, we get to come over to your house and kick your kids in the face." What's sad is, you know most wrestlers will look at that bullshit and still sign the contract because "it's their dream." WWE thinks they can just throw whatever they want into a contract and as long as it's in the contract, there's nothing anyone can do about it. "If we fire you, we get to come over to your house and kick your kids in the face." Sadly, judging by what wrestlers put up with, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them happily agreed to these terms. www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9EBcNEKkcY#t=17s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 11:39:17 GMT -5
How can WWE add this to existing contracts without talent needing to sign new ones or at least amendments? They could just add we reserve right to never pay if you turn up to work with a nose on your face. I would refuse that deal. "Sign this or we'll release you". Worked for UFC when it came to guys signing away their likeness for video games with no compensation.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,719
|
Post by nisidhe on Jan 1, 2015 11:47:51 GMT -5
The new contract's separation terms won't hold up any more than the old ones did. WWE must be gambling on the idea that it's less expensive to settle the individual lawsuits than to change how the contracts are negotiated. If Cena faced this situation, I would hope that he sued for punitive damages such that it forced WWE to defend themselves in court.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2015 11:50:48 GMT -5
Just because something is in the contract doesn't make it legally enforcible. Too many people think contracts are a legally binding document. They're merely an agreement between to parties which if dispute occurs each clause would required to comply with the law (state/federal etc) and different jurisdictions in order to be upheld. The fact both parties agreed to them isn't at all relevant if the clauses themselves are deemed unlawful.
If WWE wanted to it could obligate all wrestlers to work unpaid at a time of their choosing and regardless as to whether all wrestlers agree to it this clause would never be upheld if challenged in the courts.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 11:53:45 GMT -5
Since no one will will say it, who the f*** is Wrestling-News.net and why is this taken as fact? To quote Jay Z: I don't believe you. You need more people.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2015 11:57:41 GMT -5
It's like that sign in cloak rooms of restaurants
"Items left here are at your own risk"
It's the management attempting to insinuate that they're not legal responsible for your belongings. But they are. If they provide, offer and advertise a service where they take and store your coats and they lose them - they ARE legally responsible. Sign or no sign. The sign is as meaningless as a plumber having a badge saying "If I kick your eldest son in the testicles, I'm not responsible for my actions" - or a valet at a hotel being not responsible if he rams your car into the lamppost when trying to park it for you.
Yet people believe the signs, have their coats stolen or damaged and believe they have no course of recompense because "there's a sign"
It's a HUGE bugbear of mine, companies giving false legal information to intimidate people into thinking that they're beyond the legal process.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,355
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2015 12:27:57 GMT -5
So let me get this straight: A company who has had their contracts come under legal scrutiny in the past is willing to try to put even more illegal practices in writing, hoping that no one is willing to risk having their career end over the practice? These contracts would never hold up in court.
- You cannot retroactively unearn what you have earned in the past. It just does not work that way, ever. The best that you could do is attempt to demonstrate that the person never actually earned the money by not doing the work for which you paid them, but all the guy has to do is show himself on your TV show to debunk that. - You cannot deny a person the right to earn a living, especially since you cannot demonstrate that the person is going to be able to give a competitor any trade secrets to grant them an unfair advantage by learning your techniques without paying for the research to develop them. Sometimes, even if you can prove that the courts will not hold up such a clause.
- If there are significant merchandise being sold using that employee's likeness, name, and any other intellectual property they might own, the WWE cannot legally sell any of the merchandise without compensating the individual. If you refuse to pay for the merchandise, you effectively revoke your own right to sell your back catalog of that person's merchandise. If you keep selling the merchandise and do not pay for it, that is not only grounds for the guy to sue you over lost revenue. It is grounds for him to sue you for significant damages because if you have no contractual merchandise rights, then the only person allowed to profit off of his image is the prospective plaintiff. He could sue for all merchandise revenue, the cost of his lawyers to get that revenue, and potential damages.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jan 1, 2015 13:02:14 GMT -5
Since no one will will say it, who the f*** is Wrestling-News.net and why is this taken as fact? To quote Jay Z: I don't believe you. You need more people. Yeah, had this been someone like Meltzer, I'd be more inclined to believe it. But this is some random site, not Meltzer, Alvarez, Keller, or Mike Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by tigermaskxxxvii on Jan 1, 2015 18:43:18 GMT -5
keep living those disillusions Vince If true...good luck with that. Knowing them, they'd probably fire Heyman first, and he'd eviscerate them in court. Paul Heyman: We'll get my dad to sue you! Brock Lesnar: Yeah, and he's Jewish!
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 18:45:00 GMT -5
Oddly enough, after Ryback gets fired for disciplinary reasons, a masked character called Da Big Guy immediately debuts for TNA. Hmmmm... GIVE ME FOOD!!! GIVE ME FOOD!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jan 1, 2015 18:48:06 GMT -5
There has to be some self-responsibility for wrestlers agreeing to anything like this, though. I know it's their "dream" and all but no dream is worth self-respect or even just making damn stupid decisions like signing a contract with this in it.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 18:51:32 GMT -5
There has to be some self-responsibility for wrestlers agreeing to anything like this, though. I know it's their "dream" abs all but no dream is worth self-respect or even just making damn stupid decisions like signing a contract with this in it. I wish they could have their dream AND their self-respect.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Jan 1, 2015 18:57:52 GMT -5
There has to be some self-responsibility for wrestlers agreeing to anything like this, though. I know it's their "dream" abs all but no dream is worth self-respect or even just making damn stupid decisions like signing a contract with this in it. I wish they could have their dream AND their self-respect. Ideally. But if they do sign for something like this, they can't whine about it after
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Jan 1, 2015 19:06:27 GMT -5
Well then make sure you quit before they fire you.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 1, 2015 19:47:04 GMT -5
- If there are significant merchandise being sold using that employee's likeness, name, and any other intellectual property they might own, the WWE cannot legally sell any of the merchandise without compensating the individual. If you refuse to pay for the merchandise, you effectively revoke your own right to sell your back catalog of that person's merchandise. If you keep selling the merchandise and do not pay for it, that is not only grounds for the guy to sue you over lost revenue. It is grounds for him to sue you for significant damages because if you have no contractual merchandise rights, then the only person allowed to profit off of his image is the prospective plaintiff. He could sue for all merchandise revenue, the cost of his lawyers to get that revenue, and potential damages. Being fair, this is also something that is covered by WWE already, and CM Punk is pretty much the last time we're going to really see someone be able to fight WWE on that argument since he was the last guy WWE licensed the name of. By contrast, for most of WWE's merchandise, it wouldn't fall under the option. Since most WWE superstars don't use their real name or a name they themselves licensed, WWE owns their names (so that's out.) As far as likeness, the only way that works is if there's a picture of the wrestler on their merchandise (and it's not a copyrightable-by-WWE show of the wrestler wearing facepaint [so Goldust/Stardust could be out) or a mask (so Sin Cara, and likely Kalisto, are out.) For intellectual property, the only way it could work is if there's proof the wrestler, themselves, were the one who designed the logo on the merchandise- and even then, a company like WWE would be smart enough to buy all rights to any graphic a wrestler made for merchandise beforehand.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Jan 1, 2015 20:17:11 GMT -5
Exactly. They can put this in a contract but, it will never hold up. Secondly, this is pretty NEWZY cause this is already in their contracts and was the reason for the lawsuits mentioned above. WWE's insistence of treating their workers as independent contractors will bite them in the ass every time.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,578
|
Post by cjh on Jan 1, 2015 20:36:26 GMT -5
Exactly. They can put this in a contract but, it will never hold up. Secondly, this is pretty NEWZY cause this is already in their contracts and was the reason for the lawsuits mentioned above. WWE's insistence of treating their workers as independent contractors will bite them in the ass every time.I wouldn't think this would be enforceable on an employee, either.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2015 21:33:05 GMT -5
I see once again that the wrestling company that denies it is a wrestling company forbids its former wrestlers from working for MMA companies that they apparently don't compete with.
|
|