Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you not been paying attention ?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I've been paying attention, I'm just not buying Raymer's spin. For one thing, this lawsuit is way more analogous to a lawsuit between GE and Microsoft than it is between your average poker player and the "evil" WPT. 99.99% of poker players will never play on the WPT so this will not affect 99.99% of poker players positively in any way. Furthermore, of those .01% who do play in the WPT (or the WSOP or any big tourney), only .01% of them will ever be offered an endorsement deal. So, this lawsuit could only ever benefit .0001% (1 in 100,000) poker players. This is just a lawsuit between two super-rich organizations and will have no positive benefits whatsoever for the large majority of poker players. For Greg to say that this will benefit other poker players is pure BS.

These 7 poker players signed their rights away before they had an image to sell, just like the American Idol contestants do. Now that the WPT has made them famous, they want all the monies from their images to themselves. It's pure greed and simple greed and nothing else. There is no altruism here.

If you read, the complain, items 57 and 58, all the WPT has done has used footage from one of their tournaments in a video game and at one of their fantasy camps. Big, whoopty [censored]. It's not like they put Raymer's chubby mug on the packaging of the video game and used his unsavory image to try to sell the game. It's only when you start playing the video game do you see a small snippet of footage (I think the footage includes Jesus). The players are making a mountain out of a molehill. I assure you that no one bought the video game to see Chris Ferguson play a hand of poker. For one thing, a consumer wouldn't even know about the footage until they bought the game.

By the way, anyone who doesn't think the income stream of these 7 goofballs won't be relevant is living in a fantasy land. From the complaint:

[ QUOTE ]
63. Exclusion from such donkaments can be devastating to elite, high stakes pro poker players' careers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plaintiffs have made their income streams an issue with that statement (and several others) and it will be discoverable. I'm going to laugh when we all find out that Jesus makes $2 million per year from Full Tilt. Then everyone will be able to see just how greedy these guys really are.



I find this particular item from the complain to be very funny:
[ QUOTE ]
28. A critical input for televised, high stakes poker donkaments is the participation of elite, high stakes pro poker players whose skills and notoriety make the events highly attractive to broadcasters and poker fans.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://wptlawsuit.com/files/29194-27742/Complaint.pdf

I guess these self-appointed "elite 7" are not so critical since the WPT is refusing to let them play without signing a release. These guys have way, way over-estimated their importance. The WPT can defintiely survive without the participation of these 7 tools. In fact, their lack of participation is much more likely to benefit the average poker player than this lawsuit, because then average poker players will have a better chancce in these big tourneys.

[bruceypants]

[bruceypants]

Let's make it clear what this lawsuit is about. From the complaint, items 57 and 58, the great atrocities committed by the WPT are:

1) The WPT has used video footage from one of their tourneys inside a WPT video game
2) The WPT has used video footage of a WPT tourney at their fantasy camps.

http://wptlawsuit.com/files/29194-27742/Complaint.pdf

That's it. Despite Raymer's spin, they haven't put Raymer's image on a billboard and used it to try to sell Coke or something. Nope, the WPT has merely used snippets of video footage.

So, the real issue is not whether the WPT should be able to use the players' likenesses, but rather whether the WPT should be able to use WPT video footage not to promote products, but rather within products.

Personally, I think the WPT should be able to use their video footage in this manner. At the very least, the WPT should be able to include language in their release that allows them to use video footage in this manner.

Anyway, now you can see what these 7 goofballs are really after. They want to be paid any time the WPT uses video footage that includes them. These "elite 7" belive they should be paid to appear in WPT broadcasts. They want to have control over how WPT uses any video footage with them in it.

Now that we've gotten down to the real issue in this case, you can see that the WPT is not this evil monster that the 7 plaintiffs are trying to make them out to be. The real issue is whether the WPT should have control over its own broadcast footage. This lawsuit is not about Raymer's image appearing on a billboard without his consent, but rather it is about WPT footage possibly being used to teach at a fantasy camp (or something similar).

I think Annie Duke summed up the feelings of the elite 7 with her recent comment: "We're not even slaves. We're people paying to pick cotton."

[maurile]

brucypants, those allegations are there for tactical reasons to support a claim for damages rather than just an injunction. But the fantasy camps stuff isn't what the suit is really about. It's about getting the release declared unenforceable.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite Raymer's spin, they haven't put Raymer's image on a billboard and used it to try to sell Coke or something.

[/ QUOTE ]


No they haven't.
And Raymer never said that they did.

The fact is, the WPT could do this IF THEY WANTED TO because of the contract.

And the players are just supposed to take the WPT on their word that they will be listened to if they are bothered by the way in which their likeness is being used.

But the WPT wouldn't have to listen if they didn't want to because they make the participants sign the contract.


If the WPT isn't going to mis-use a player's likeness in such a way then why not reflect that in the contract?

The fact that they refuse to adjust the contract in such a way and instead say, "Oh, don't worry about it. Just tell us if there's a problem and we super-duper promise we'll do what you want and just forget about the contract" is somewhat disquieting and I don't blame them for that aspect of the lawsuit.

But there is logic to the argument that "if you don't like how they do it...there are plenty of other tournaments you can play instead."


evidently some of the casinos that are interested in running other tournaments at other times are unable to because of their ties to the WPT and they get kind of pinned-down.

Obviously these casinos probably shouldn't have signed such a contract in the first place.
Seems to me that their potential for future big tourneys wouldn't be there in the first place without the WPT.
So I don't have quite as much sympathy in regards to this issue either. As Daniel points out, if you want to hold a big tourney, you can do it elsewhere (although the concept of the Gold Coast holding a big-time tourney struck me as pretty amusing).

[sekrah]

Annie Duke chatting on UB right now.. She says Daniel is making threats toward her and Howard, threatning to turn them in for tax evasion. Annie says him and Lyle are close and he's getting fed all his crap from the top.

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke chatting on UB right now.. She says Daniel is making threats toward her and Howard, threatning to turn them in for tax evasion. Annie says him and Lyle are close and he's getting fed all his crap from the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sooo awesome! I've changed my mind about this lawsuit. I think it's going to be the best thing ever. Way to go Annie, Raymer, Howard, Bloch, Hachem, Jesus, and Gordon! You guys rock!

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke chatting on UB right now.. She says Daniel is making threats toward her and Howard, threatning to turn them in for tax evasion. Annie says him and Lyle are close and he's getting fed all his crap from the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, some of these pros act like a bunch of third graders. LOL

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite Raymer's spin, they haven't put Raymer's image on a billboard and used it to try to sell Coke or something.

[/ QUOTE ]


No they haven't.
And Raymer never said that they did.

The fact is, the WPT could do this IF THEY WANTED TO because of the contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the event the WPT ever is forced to sell or go out of business, their intelectual property and contractural holdings will be sold. The new owner at that point can use the likenesses of WPT players as they please, it would be immoral but 100% legal.

I chatted once again with my attorney about the case today (he hasn't looked over the public filings yet but I think I gave him a fair basic overview), he tells me there is precedence in existing contractual cases in some states that would the clause of this contract invalid. Sorry I don't have more specifics at this time.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
In the event the WPT ever is forced to sell or go out of business, their intelectual property and contractural holdings will be sold. The new owner at that point can use the likenesses of WPT players as they please, it would be immoral but 100% legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be curious to here what the players think is fair use of their image by the WPT. It's not clear to me exactly what they want. As near as I can tell, the WPT has used only video footage of the players from WPT events and has only used that footage as part of a product (footage in a fantasy camp and footage in a video game).

It seems to me that the WPT should be able to contract for that. That is, if players want to play in WPT tourneys, then they should have to agree to let the WPT use the video footage in this manner. After all, the WPT does own the video footage.

I also wonder what limits are inherent in the current WPT release. Just because the release says they can use player images however they want, doesn't mean that there isn't some other law (right of publicity perhaps?) that limits that use.

Anyhoo, hopefully this will be a very contentious, very entertaining lawsuit.