ronin705
Dennis Stamp
All Might
Posts: 4,277
|
Post by ronin705 on Oct 2, 2020 12:03:07 GMT -5
I thought the dirtiest player in the game was flair, not Vince and his legal team smfh
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,390
Member is Online
|
Post by Legion on Oct 2, 2020 12:11:35 GMT -5
From a business point of view, I can understand why WWE would do this if people are trading off of their trademarks. I would expect any entertainment company who owned a trademark to do the same thing - if Daniel Radcliffe opened a Cameo or Twitch as the character Harry Potter, when he doesnt own the trademark to Harry Potter, you would see whomever does own it make the same move.
I assume, when they sign on to WWE, many talents are asked specifically to sign their name over to WWE as a trademark. We know that some refuse, or refuse to sign over trademarks they may already own independently on names they may have used on the indies. When that happens, WWE usually gives them a stock name and that is that, or they just dont come to terms and no one signs. People need to remember that too, no one is forced to sign, you can always walk away if you dont like the terms in the contract offered.
What needs to be clarified here is if WWE is taking ALL accounts over, regardless of trademarks, if WWE owns any visual rights to for specific purposes by any talent under contacts (they might not own your name, but they may own your image for specific purposes - it would likely depend on legal language in their contracts) or if this is just a random attempt to curb talent making their own names outside of the company.
Or indeed, it could be all three.
As usual, it may be a perfectly sensible and legal move from a contractual and business sense, but equally as usual, from a moral sense it's pretty hardline stance to take and likely will annoy a lot of talents.
It is also clearly going to open that box with Andrew Yang again.
I'd really like to know what sort of rules actors have in long running soaps, and how their contracts might stand up in comparison. The actor wont be an employee, they will just be an actor under contract to play their part. They'd likely have SAG membership, which would be a big difference maker, but in terms of the amount of control a studio would have over that sort of long term roled actor vs what Vince does and how legal protections and advantages/disadvantages stack up, it would be an interesting comparison to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 12:13:57 GMT -5
Breaking news: Shady company treats their employees in a shady fashion.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 12:14:42 GMT -5
Did Fightful report anything about WWE taking over their Twitch accounts?
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,450
|
Post by Dub H on Oct 2, 2020 12:21:32 GMT -5
f***ing bullshit that WWE "owns" their Cameos.
Scumbags
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Oct 2, 2020 12:24:59 GMT -5
The Cameo thing I kinda get, it’s way different then Twitch. Twitch, you could be like Austin Creed and firmly establish yourself as a big name streamer even without the WWE platform. But is anyone really gonna pay for a birthday video from Amanda Saccomanno if she had never been on TV as Mandy Rose? I totally understand WWE wanting to control that and get a good kickback, but YouTube Channels or Twitch, where you theoretically can establish yourself without the WWE platform? 10-15% cut at most is reasonable, because they probably are getting a significant boost from being in WWE but WWE isn’t the sole reason they’re making money on that platform
|
|
Moppy
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,233
Member is Online
|
Post by Moppy on Oct 2, 2020 12:25:55 GMT -5
Wow. Bloody hell.
I wonder if they even have a leg to stand on, legally, if an 'independent contractor' is operating under their own birth name.
Which sort of limits their appeal on Cameo, I know. Which is probably something WWE has considered.
Such a dick move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 12:25:58 GMT -5
Friendly reminder.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,437
|
Post by Fade on Oct 2, 2020 12:29:20 GMT -5
It’s hella murky and you can see arguments on both sides..but if no one from within the company speaks up or takes a stand, pretty sure it’s going to be business as usual. Unless maybe Yang keeps breathing down Vinces neck.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,390
Member is Online
|
Post by Legion on Oct 2, 2020 12:31:34 GMT -5
f***ing bullshit that WWE "owns" their Cameos. Scumbags This is why I think there must be something in their contracts about WWE owning the right to their image for commercial practices. If it was just the name, they could just appear as <real name> plays <character name> on WWE TV the same as you see all the other actors mentioning their key roles when trying to sell their services. They couldnt get away with just saying 'All your accounts are belong to us' unless there is something legal in their contracts, and my bet is going to be on something saying they own the rights to the image of the performer for the the purposes of video/audio/digital marketing and promotion for as long as you are under contract. It would also explain why once people are out of contract, WWE has to pay them subsidies to use their images for shows on the Network etc. and so old stars still get royalties - though I bet the rates are utterly atrocious.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 12:59:11 GMT -5
f***ing bullshit that WWE "owns" their Cameos. Scumbags This is why I think there must be something in their contracts about WWE owning the right to their image for commercial practices. If it was just the name, they could just appear as <real name> plays <character name> on WWE TV the same as you see all the other actors mentioning their key roles when trying to sell their services. They couldnt get away with just saying 'All your accounts are belong to us' unless there is something legal in their contracts, and my bet is going to be on something saying they own the rights to the image of the performer for the the purposes of video/audio/digital marketing and promotion for as long as you are under contract. It would also explain why once people are out of contract, WWE has to pay them subsidies to use their images for shows on the Network etc. and so old stars still get royalties - though I bet the rates are utterly atrocious. I don’t think anyone gets royalties for the Network at all. For DVDs yes but not the Network.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,838
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 2, 2020 12:59:23 GMT -5
The Cameo thing I kinda get, it’s way different then Twitch. Twitch, you could be like Austin Creed and firmly establish yourself as a big name streamer even without the WWE platform. But is anyone really gonna pay for a birthday video from Amanda Saccomanno if she had never been on TV as Mandy Rose? I totally understand WWE wanting to control that and get a good kickback, but YouTube Channels or Twitch, where you theoretically can establish yourself without the WWE platform? 10-15% cut at most is reasonable, because they probably are getting a significant boost from being in WWE but WWE isn’t the sole reason they’re making money on that platform Like, I understand why he feels how he does, but it's not good for talent relations or morale, AT ALL.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,390
Member is Online
|
Post by Legion on Oct 2, 2020 13:04:57 GMT -5
This is why I think there must be something in their contracts about WWE owning the right to their image for commercial practices. If it was just the name, they could just appear as <real name> plays <character name> on WWE TV the same as you see all the other actors mentioning their key roles when trying to sell their services. They couldnt get away with just saying 'All your accounts are belong to us' unless there is something legal in their contracts, and my bet is going to be on something saying they own the rights to the image of the performer for the the purposes of video/audio/digital marketing and promotion for as long as you are under contract. It would also explain why once people are out of contract, WWE has to pay them subsidies to use their images for shows on the Network etc. and so old stars still get royalties - though I bet the rates are utterly atrocious. I don’t think anyone gets royalties for the Network at all. For DVDs yes but not the Network. That's interesting, as one would assume they would need to pay for the use of the image of the uncontracted individuals, especially from times before they could have written in a clause against it.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 2, 2020 13:07:19 GMT -5
I don’t think anyone gets royalties for the Network at all. For DVDs yes but not the Network. That's interesting, as one would assume they would need to pay for the use of the image of the uncontracted individuals, especially from times before they could have written in a clause against it. My understanding is that it’s more about not having written a clause that includes it versus a clause against it. I believe it’s been one of the topics of the class action lawsuits that some ex-wrestlers filed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 13:51:19 GMT -5
Paige again being one of the first to say something about this. She's not letting them take over her.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Oct 2, 2020 13:53:07 GMT -5
Vince a f***ing stick up boy 😂😂😂
Wrestler: hey, this new hobby is cool and actually generated a bit of in- Vince: DEM POCKETS. OPEN DEM POCKETS
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Oct 2, 2020 13:53:54 GMT -5
From Andrew Yang's Twitter:
"Hearing from talent that WWE is forcing performers to sign new contracts that include twitch. Streaming on twitch will become a work obligation and if talent doesn’t stream they will forego earnings, be suspended or face penalties. Doesn’t sound like independent contractors."
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Oct 2, 2020 13:56:33 GMT -5
Maybe everybody should just say f*** it and jump Vince. And I mean jump jump, like beat his ass
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2020 13:58:08 GMT -5
From Andrew Yang's Twitter: "Hearing from talent that WWE is forcing performers to sign new contracts that include twitch. Streaming on twitch will become a work obligation and if talent doesn’t stream they will forego earnings, be suspended or face penalties. Doesn’t sound like independent contractors." what the f*** is this holy f***ing hell
|
|
ronin705
Dennis Stamp
All Might
Posts: 4,277
|
Post by ronin705 on Oct 2, 2020 14:00:00 GMT -5
From Andrew Yang's Twitter: "Hearing from talent that WWE is forcing performers to sign new contracts that include twitch. Streaming on twitch will become a work obligation and if talent doesn’t stream they will forego earnings, be suspended or face penalties. Doesn’t sound like independent contractors." what the f*** is this holy f***ing hell That sounds a helluva lot like work for an employee 🤷🏿♂️
|
|