WWE Wrestlers rules for Twitch, New Update pg41

[Final Countdown Jones]

Oct 30, 2020 11:24:52 GMT -5 Legion said:

Oct 30, 2020 11:11:04 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

This isn't about name usage rights; WWE is insisting that streaming is now a public appearance and they will be taking the money for it, regardless of name. This does not and has never operated within a realm of names that could be owned; the labour itself is something WWE is staking its claim over. I think he's keeping on with this to play with fire because he figures he's bulletproof and is calling their bluff.

Wouldn't it be both, or linked - if they are 'appearing' as their trademarked name than yes, it's going to count. They dont own those characters, even if the character is just themselves. If they are appearing under another name, or if their own name isn't signed over as a TM, then it wouldn't be countable?

Going shopping at your local food shop wouldnt count, as you are there as you - but if you went in costume and tried to do a deal with said shop to get something for yourself using the signed over or given name - yes, that would be you 'appearing' and WWE would be right to want a slice of said action. They even did that to The Undertaker when he wanted to do some Starcast events and was being advertised as The Undertaker - a character he doesnt own the rights to. You use your gimmick name, or sign over your real name, and there will be legal ramifications to what and how you can use that name.

I am interested to see if Cole has found the loophole around the new rules, and indeed if anything happens to him for finding it (if indeed he has) or if he has a new media inclusive contract which perhaps others dont have yet - or yeah, he could be trying to stand up to them - or might be too dumb to realise what the new rules are.

Isn't the big talent meeting about it today?

Going forward, as well as fully expecting to see a WWE version or area within the platform, I think we'll see much more breaking of kayfabe and people being clearer that 'this is my character and this is me' and a lot less people signing over their own names as a TM

Nobody is appearing as their pro wrestling character on twitch. It does not matter. WWE is claiming it and demanding they hand over their accounts to them, where WWE will pay out the twitch revenue against their downside. Everybody who had any name tied to their WWE character has already changed it, it was weeks after that was already done that WWE made this move. It is very much its own thing and that's the crux of the problem here entirely. Everybody is already streaming out of kayfabe, there is no WWE claim. That's the entire problem

[gl83]

You can add Jessamyn Duke to the list of people who will still be streaming


www.youtube.com/post/UgyGpa6pLXkXpE6x7UZ4AaABCQ

[Legion]

Oct 30, 2020 11:46:06 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Oct 30, 2020 11:24:52 GMT -5 Legion said:

Wouldn't it be both, or linked - if they are 'appearing' as their trademarked name than yes, it's going to count. They dont own those characters, even if the character is just themselves. If they are appearing under another name, or if their own name isn't signed over as a TM, then it wouldn't be countable?

Going shopping at your local food shop wouldnt count, as you are there as you - but if you went in costume and tried to do a deal with said shop to get something for yourself using the signed over or given name - yes, that would be you 'appearing' and WWE would be right to want a slice of said action. They even did that to The Undertaker when he wanted to do some Starcast events and was being advertised as The Undertaker - a character he doesnt own the rights to. You use your gimmick name, or sign over your real name, and there will be legal ramifications to what and how you can use that name.

I am interested to see if Cole has found the loophole around the new rules, and indeed if anything happens to him for finding it (if indeed he has) or if he has a new media inclusive contract which perhaps others dont have yet - or yeah, he could be trying to stand up to them - or might be too dumb to realise what the new rules are.

Isn't the big talent meeting about it today?

Going forward, as well as fully expecting to see a WWE version or area within the platform, I think we'll see much more breaking of kayfabe and people being clearer that 'this is my character and this is me' and a lot less people signing over their own names as a TM

Nobody is appearing as their pro wrestling character on twitch. It does not matter. WWE is claiming it and demanding they hand over their accounts to them, where WWE will pay out the twitch revenue against their downside. Everybody who had any name tied to their WWE character has already changed it, it was weeks after that was already done that WWE made this move. It is very much its own thing and that's the crux of the problem here entirely. Everybody is already streaming out of kayfabe, there is no WWE claim. That's the entire problem

But they were using the signed over name or character name at some point? If so, I'd assume they could claim they used the TM to build the fan base in the first place.

There are then digital media image rights to consider - I have no idea if the deals signed by people hand over their actual likeness to the company for digital and streaming purposes; how they can be used in video games and appear on the Network even after leaving the company - would that have anything to do with anything because it's a digital image of them?

I only know as much as you do, but I'm trying to spit ball to get to the crux of how they can do it legally, rather than just criticise that they have, as that discussion feels like it's been had.

I'm genuinely curious to know what the legal basis is for this, or if they really are just trying it on and they have no right to do this, in which case yes, the talent should en masse take action - but there must be something, even if it's flimsy and might not stand up against a good legal team, that WWE is pointing to as their reason for this. I want to know how they are getting away with it, or if this is actually something we might see more and more with crossover stars who want to do 'outside' things on the internet.

And Trademarks and digital imaging rights seems the most plausible.

[Deleted]

So seems that NXT people are immune to the bullshit Vince is pulling with the main roster talents.

Cole , Dakota , Jess can all keep streaming.

Papa H about to get a whole lot of requests to head to or back to in some cases NXT.

[Final Countdown Jones]

Oct 30, 2020 12:04:51 GMT -5 Legion said:

Oct 30, 2020 11:46:06 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Nobody is appearing as their pro wrestling character on twitch. It does not matter. WWE is claiming it and demanding they hand over their accounts to them, where WWE will pay out the twitch revenue against their downside. Everybody who had any name tied to their WWE character has already changed it, it was weeks after that was already done that WWE made this move. It is very much its own thing and that's the crux of the problem here entirely. Everybody is already streaming out of kayfabe, there is no WWE claim. That's the entire problem

But they were using the signed over name or character name at some point? If so, I'd assume they could claim they used the TM to build the fan base in the first place.

There are then digital media image rights to consider - I have no idea if the deals signed by people hand over their actual likeness to the company for digital and streaming purposes; how they can be used in video games and appear on the Network even after leaving the company - would that have anything to do with anything because it's a digital image of them?

I only know as much as you do, but I'm trying to spit ball to get to the crux of how they can do it legally, rather than just criticise that they have, as that discussion feels like it's been had.

I'm genuinely curious to know what the legal basis is for this, or if they really are just trying it on and they have no right to do this, in which case yes, the talent should en masse take action - but there must be something, even if it's flimsy and might not stand up against a good legal team, that WWE is pointing to as their reason for this. I want to know how they are getting away with it, or if this is actually something we might see more and more with crossover stars who want to do 'outside' things on the internet.

And Trademarks and digital imaging rights seems the most plausible.

People who were never using WWE-owned names and who went to great lengths to express that they were never using WWE-owned names are being hit by that. There's a good chance they can't do this legally but don't care. That's something a lot of comapnies do, and WWE isn't exactly concerned with what they're legally able to do if they think they can get away with it.

[Legion]

Oct 30, 2020 12:16:09 GMT -5 Final Countdown Jones said:

Oct 30, 2020 12:04:51 GMT -5 Legion said:

But they were using the signed over name or character name at some point? If so, I'd assume they could claim they used the TM to build the fan base in the first place.

There are then digital media image rights to consider - I have no idea if the deals signed by people hand over their actual likeness to the company for digital and streaming purposes; how they can be used in video games and appear on the Network even after leaving the company - would that have anything to do with anything because it's a digital image of them?

I only know as much as you do, but I'm trying to spit ball to get to the crux of how they can do it legally, rather than just criticise that they have, as that discussion feels like it's been had.

I'm genuinely curious to know what the legal basis is for this, or if they really are just trying it on and they have no right to do this, in which case yes, the talent should en masse take action - but there must be something, even if it's flimsy and might not stand up against a good legal team, that WWE is pointing to as their reason for this. I want to know how they are getting away with it, or if this is actually something we might see more and more with crossover stars who want to do 'outside' things on the internet.

And Trademarks and digital imaging rights seems the most plausible.

People who were never using WWE-owned names and who went to great lengths to express that they were never using WWE-owned names are being hit by that. There's a good chance they can't do this legally but don't care. That's something a lot of comapnies do, and WWE isn't exactly concerned with what they're legally able to do if they think they can get away with it.

Then yeah, if they cant actually enforce it, I'd assume it'll end much like the stripper ban from the 90s. The low carders or those who dont like to rock the boat will play by the rules, while top stars or those who give zero shits will do it anyway and WWE wont be able to touch them, or dont care enough about them in the first place to do anything about it and eventually, it'll just go away

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

My buddy pointed this out on Twitter but Vince is literally Deebo taking Red’s bike 😂😂😂

[JoDaNa1281]

Oct 30, 2020 2:52:08 GMT -5 Jedi-El of Tomorrow said:

Oct 30, 2020 1:29:54 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

if they get taken to court to it and the WWE don't settle a ton of money is going to come the WWE's way to fight it.

The WWE is not the only industry that overstep their bounds with the Independent Contractor status

Might one of those companies share a name with a rain forest and river?

?

[Perd]

Vince is going to demand Seth and Becky’s baby. Little Cletus McMahon will never know who his real parents are.

[Deleted]

This company is f***ing toxic.

Genuinely.

Imagine trying to control what your employees do outside working hours.

Whats next, Shopping for groceries is now seen as a "public appearance"?

If I'm a wrestler, I'd continue streaming and if they threatened to fire me, I'd take their ass to court.

If I'm a big enough deal, then they won't fire me. If I'm doing nothing on TV anyway, maybe I'm better off. It's a win win

[One of the Cooler, Candid TOKs]

Oct 30, 2020 12:43:48 GMT -5 JoDaNa1281 said:

Oct 30, 2020 2:52:08 GMT -5 Jedi-El of Tomorrow said:

Might one of those companies share a name with a rain forest and river?

?

The same people that own Twitch

[Dub H]

Oct 30, 2020 13:06:22 GMT -5 One of the Cooler, Candid TOKs said:

Oct 30, 2020 12:43:48 GMT -5 JoDaNa1281 said:

?

The same people that own Twitch

I wish that Amazon was the one on fire

[JoDaNa1281]

Oct 30, 2020 13:06:22 GMT -5 One of the Cooler, Candid TOKs said:

Oct 30, 2020 12:43:48 GMT -5 JoDaNa1281 said:

?

The same people that own Twitch

Ah...well, I feel stupid.

[The Heartbreak TWERK]

Oct 30, 2020 12:57:51 GMT -5 @negan said:

Imagine trying to control what your employees do outside working hours.

At the very least, imagine trying to prevent your employees from doing something outside of working hours that keeps them from going out where they're going to f***ing contract COVID-19.

[Dat Dude]

Funny thing is: all it would take to scrap this policy is if Rousey simply said “I’m not gonna re-sign if you don’t drop this rule” and watch how quickly they change it. Hell are they gonna fire her friends over it? This is where top talents need to flex their power. If Rollins wants to be “the locker room leader” then he needs to stand by talent and not management, same with Regins and Champa. He’ll if I was AJ, I would just laugh it off and continue streaming. “You gonna fire one of your top consistent draws during a time when company revenue is trending downward? Lol FOH”

[gl83]

Adam Cole is streaming on Twitch right now, as is Drake Maverick. So right now, it does seem like NXT is excluded from all this.

[Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story]

Between this nonsense and what Yang's been talking about lately, it feels like WWE could find themselves with the first real challenge to the independent contractor clause.

[Hypnosis]

Oct 30, 2020 14:48:03 GMT -5 gl83 said:

Adam Cole is streaming on Twitch right now, as is Drake Maverick. So right now, it does seem like NXT is excluded from all this.

Cole's genuinely happy about all the subs today.  Can't blame him.

[RKTaker]

Oct 30, 2020 15:23:21 GMT -5 Hypnosis said:

Oct 30, 2020 14:48:03 GMT -5 gl83 said:

Adam Cole is streaming on Twitch right now, as is Drake Maverick. So right now, it does seem like NXT is excluded from all this.

Cole's genuinely happy about all the subs today.  Can't blame him.

he's always happy about the subs

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Oct 30, 2020 12:57:51 GMT -5 @negan said:

This company is f***ing toxic.

Genuinely.

Imagine trying to control what your employees do outside working hours.

Whats next, Shopping for groceries is now seen as a "public appearance"?

If I'm a wrestler, I'd continue streaming and if they threatened to fire me, I'd take their ass to court.

If I'm a big enough deal, then they won't fire me. If I'm doing nothing on TV anyway, maybe I'm better off. It's a win win

They dictate how talent dress while travelling, something they do in their own time and on their own dime so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.