letter from steve lipscomb and wpt:

[KDawgCometh 2]

i am not talking about attendance or size of tournies or amounts of tournes or prize pools...i am talking about poker as a fan based buisness...all the shows u see on tv now, all the pros that are celebraties now...i am talking about how people that didnt know anything about poker and how they were exposed to it and how they fell in love with it and flooded all the poker sites...its cuz of ESPN

you are wrong again. WHere did people get their first exposure to people like Erik Lindgren, ANtonio Esfandaiari, DN, and most notably, Gus Hansen. All of them were profiled big time before ESPN caught onto them

[Petoria 0]

First of all... How awesome that I got stickied? :)Secondly.What is it that all the players are upset about? Is it the video game? Is there other things? Because I was talking about this, and compared it to college basketball or football video games. Those players don't see a dime either. And if the pro's do (I'm not sure whether they do or not) it would be very much at all, because it would have to be spread so thin anyway.But is there any other products they are upset about? Or is it like steve says, and it's hypothetical.I hope Harry D. stops in as well, I'm sure he has thoughts.

Congrats on the sticky.I thought the major problem was using their images without consent, even though that was the point of the agreement that every player signs.I may be wrong, but hadnt the table that is currently being used in the Poker Superstars tourneys in use in WSOP events previous to 2000?I'm probably just thinking of Rounders when they're watching Chan vs. Seidel and we can see their hole cards on the screen.

[blueodum 0]

And Howard Lederer became a big star mostly due to his performances in WPT season 1.

[tuckermitchell 1]

First of all... How awesome that I got stickied? :)Secondly.What is it that all the players are upset about? Is it the video game? Is there other things? Because I was talking about this, and compared it to college basketball or football video games. Those players don't see a dime either. And if the pro's do (I'm not sure whether they do or not) it would be very much at all, because it would have to be spread so thin anyway.But is there any other products they are upset about? Or is it like steve says, and it's hypothetical.I hope Harry D. stops in as well, I'm sure he has thoughts.

The problem with things like the nfl, ncaa, mlb, etc. is that they are organized leagues where they give written consent to use their names. That is why there was only madden 06 this year and no espn 2night to compete as the nfl signed an exclusivity contract for 10 years or something with the nfl. If the poker players formed some sort of union then they would have a hell of a lot better chance to fight the problem. It would probably be hard to form unions though and decide who is a pro and whatnot, especially with so many going broke and getting hit by buses.

[Vatche 0]

i am not talking about attendance or size of tournies or amounts of tournes or prize pools...i am talking about poker as a fan based buisness...all the shows u see on tv now, all the pros that are celebraties now...i am talking about how people that didnt know anything about poker and how they were exposed to it and how they fell in love with it and flooded all the poker sites...its cuz of ESPN

you are wrong again. WHere did people get their first exposure to people like Erik Lindgren, ANtonio Esfandaiari, DN, and most notably, Gus Hansen. All of them were profiled big time before ESPN caught onto them

i have to strongly disagree...im not sure how many of those people u mentioned were on season 1 cuz i havent seen all the episodes...but they were all on season 2(after the airing of moneymaker) and thats how they were exposed...do u honestly think antonio is known for his season 1 apperance at a final table, or for taking down the L.A. poker classic in season 2? Howard Lederer won 2 wpt tournies in season 1 and i bet u half the people on this forum dont even know that...while the WPT focused on poker(nothing wrong with that)...ESPN focused on entertainment and player personalities and made the pros the stars they are and the stars they deserve to be...

[blueodum 0]

I was disappointed with ESPN's coverage of the main event. The earlier events were covered moderately well, but the ME was just a bunch of goofy stuff with very few decent poker hands shown in between.I mean, how exciting is it for someone to go all-in preflop and see someone else call. What comes after that isn't really interesting - what I want to see is players making decisions all the way to the river, not watching a dealer turn over 5 cards while the players do nothing but await their fate.The WPT format is better IMO. You have 1.5 hour coverage of six players, allowing for many interesting hands to be shown. Neither of the WSOP commentators is a "real" poker player, and that makes the commentary inane.

[Vatche 0]

I was disappointed with ESPN's coverage of the main event. The earlier events were covered moderately well, but the ME was just a bunch of goofy stuff with very few decent poker hands shown in between.I mean, how exciting is it for someone to go all-in preflop and see someone else call. What comes after that isn't really interesting - what I want to see is players making decisions all the way to the river, not watching a dealer turn over 5 cards while the players do nothing but await their fate.The WPT format is better IMO. You have 1.5 hour coverage of six players, allowing for many interesting hands to be shown.  Neither of the WSOP commentators is a "real" poker player, and that makes the commentary inane.

i understand what u are saying but u are not looking at this as a buisnessman...they are not trying to please u, or me or any1 thats already a poker fan/player...they know the poker fans are going to watch regardless...they are trying to suck new fans in..

[mrdannyg 274]

I was very interested in reading Chris Ferguson's thoughts especially. Sorry I don't have a link, but I noticed a significant difference between him and other players like Bloch and Phillips. The main reasoning in difference seemed to be that Bloch and Phillips were "lost in hypotheticals" as Lipscomb says. Now this begs the question as to why those players should not be worried about these hypotheticals if WPT sees fit to include these possibilities. If the players don't need to worry about these situations, why does the WPT feel the need to protect itselves from them?But that is a side issue. Waivers usually cover far more than necessary, but that is in situations where the employer/seller is far more powerful than the purchasers/employers, which may or may not be the case.But Ferguson's thoughts seemed to differ because he was not worried about the rights he was giving away, but whether he was able to do so. Like most other mainstream players, Ferguson has contracts with various sponsors, notably Full Tilt. Of course we are not privy to the details, but as Ferguson implies, there is plenty of overlap between what he has contracted to Full Tilt and what he is releasing to the WPT. For instance, if the WPT wanted to put out player trading cards, which the waiver would give them the right too, this would conflict with certain rights which Ferguson has presumably contracted to Full Tilt.Ferguson is not worried about what rights he is giving away, but rather whether he is legally able to do so. As I said, we do not know the exact details of player's contracts with sites and sponsors, but it seems probable that there are many conflicting rights, and therefore players are simply not legally able to waive certain rights that they do so by signing the WPT waiver.Ferguson brings up the issue, but it seems probable also that most major players, including DN, have deals with sites and sponsors, to whom they have already contracted these rights. If the WPT wanted to make use of certain rights that have been waived, they would open themselves up to lawsuits from the rightful owners of those rights. Not the players, but the sites/sponsors. This begs the question then why the waivers have to be signed if they cannot be acted upon.Just two points to finish off.The first I just want to acknowledge Chris Ferguson. Already my favourite player, this just furthered my opinion of him. Dozens of players are probably unthinkingly breaching their contracts with sponsors who pay them millions by signing these waivers, but Ferguson virtuously chooses to give up huge tournament overlays (since he is arguably one of the best players in the world) so as not to breach a contract. I just think this is honourable and commendable.Secondly, if the question were to arise in courts, I think courts would certainly side with sites/sponsors as opposed to the WPT. Players pay to enter the WPT, while sites pay players. A player therefore owes a higher duty to the sites/sponsors, and so any rights that were conflicting would probably be decided in favour of the sites/sponsors. There is a valid argument that the WPT allows players the opportunity to make money, an clearly players consider the overlay an opportunity to make money otherwise they wouldn't play, but there are problems with this argument, and I doubt a lot of courts would see the logic and less would agree with it.Daniel

[blueodum 0]

Well, at a certain point, the viewing public is going to demand more sophisticated programming.Even so, the WPT is not geared towards the serious player - they cater to a mass audience as well. I think they do a better job of balancing entertainment and showing real poker than ESPN does. I also think Sexton's commentary is far more helpful for the novice player than what McEacherren and the other guy do (which in truth, is little more than comedy schtick).

[Pupsta 0]

one issue i have with all of this.doesn't it not matter one bit if they boycott it now, since they've already signed the waiver once? say, kurt goes on to win back to back WSOP championships in 5 years...can't the WPT use his name to promote itself since he signed the waiver at some point in time?

[Suited_Up 2]

Not sure how many caught this point though....And, finally, players who have played in any WPT events over the last three and a half years have already signed a release. That means that signing a release at the next hundred or a thousand WPT tournaments will have no effect of committing them any more than they are already committed. Meaning, these players have played these tournaments already, and signed waivers already. Boycotting future tournaments won't save them from any of the possibilities they are worried about.

[Suited_Up 2]

one issue i have with all of this.doesn't it not matter one bit if they boycott it now, since they've already signed the waiver once?  say, kurt goes on to win back to back WSOP championships in 5 years...can't the WPT use his name to promote itself since he signed the waiver at some point in time?

Why the hell did we just have the same thought at the same time??You're too fast. Man I just got back online, lol.

[KDawgCometh 2]

i am not talking about attendance or size of tournies or amounts of tournes or prize pools...i am talking about poker as a fan based buisness...all the shows u see on tv now, all the pros that are celebraties now...i am talking about how people that didnt know anything about poker and how they were exposed to it and how they fell in love with it and flooded all the poker sites...its cuz of ESPN

you are wrong again. WHere did people get their first exposure to people like Erik Lindgren, ANtonio Esfandaiari, DN, and most notably, Gus Hansen. All of them were profiled big time before ESPN caught onto them

i have to strongly disagree...im not sure how many of those people u mentioned were on season 1 cuz i havent seen all the episodes...but they were all on season 2(after the airing of moneymaker) and thats how they were exposed...do u honestly think antonio is known for his season 1 apperance at a final table, or for taking down the L.A. poker classic in season 2? Howard Lederer won 2 wpt tournies in season 1 and i bet u half the people on this forum dont even know that...while the WPT focused on poker(nothing wrong with that)...ESPN focused on entertainment and player personalities and made the pros the stars they are and the stars they deserve to be...

well, if you haven't seen season 1, then how on earth are you even attempting to make an argument. Yes, antonio made a huge splash with his season 1 appearance. His battle between him and Hellmuth was the stuff of great TV. He got under Hellmuth's skin big time. Also, gus became Gus on season 1. Freddie Deeb appeared on the WPT before the WSOP happened. Phil Ivey appeared 3 times on the WPT before the 2003 WSOP happened. I would be more then willing to bet that 95% of the people on this forum know that Howard Lederer won two WPT titles before his appearance in teh WSOP. YOu have just completely invalidated your argument completely with your ignorance on the subject that you are arguing for. Here is a hint on making a semi rational argument, be sure to have a lot of good facts before you try to make a counter viewpoint, and be sure to watch the season 1 to even say. I would also throw in Layne Flack becoming a household name from his two season 1 appearances. Please make sure that you have your facts straight before you try to make an argument again

[cfinnn 0]

Great to see a response from the WPT. It's nice to see them come to the table and openly address the concerns of their players.First, let me just say that I very much enjoy watching the WPT events, hold great respect for those who run the WPT and hope to participate in some of the events in the near future. I started a thread about the subject of the release forms a few days ago because I was concerned, not with the entire form, or even (necessarily) the intentions of the WPT, but rather with a single section of the language. The section that grants the WPT the rights to, "other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, "behind the scenes" productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary, and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publicity, home-entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.")Mr. Lipscomb states, "The release we utilize is a standard filming release that all production companies must have signed by everyone they film or the television broadcaster will refuse to air our material." I am a filmmaker. I have produced works for television broadcast. I can tell you that I have never been asked or required to include the above section in any of my contracts.Yes, the releases are designed to be broad. And yes, every contract I have ever drawn up has included all the rest of the things listed in that paragraph. But ancillary rights? No way. Never. Not unless I was making Lord of the Rings. And if that were the case, the terms would be negotiable. As far as I know in my 9 years of being a filmmaker, this clause is a bonus, not a requirement. If anyone can sight exceptions, please do.Now, I understand that this clause has not been exercised, but if, as is claimed above, it will not be exercised, then why include it in the contract? As was mentioned in a previous thread, what happens if the company and its assets are one day sold? All these rights go with it. In my book, intentions just don't matter when you have a contract.I am not trying to tell anyone here what to do or encourage anyone to formulate a poor opinion of the WPT. I am as big a fan as ever. All I am saying is that clause simply makes me uneasy. Particularly, if I were a pro player or a celebrity in Hollywood (who may not be legally able to sign this form) I would have concerns.I would still be interested in hearing why ancillary rights are included in this release.Thanks for all the great discussion everyone.

[Vatche 0]

i am not talking about attendance or size of tournies or amounts of tournes or prize pools...i am talking about poker as a fan based buisness...all the shows u see on tv now, all the pros that are celebraties now...i am talking about how people that didnt know anything about poker and how they were exposed to it and how they fell in love with it and flooded all the poker sites...its cuz of ESPN

you are wrong again. WHere did people get their first exposure to people like Erik Lindgren, ANtonio Esfandaiari, DN, and most notably, Gus Hansen. All of them were profiled big time before ESPN caught onto them

i have to strongly disagree...im not sure how many of those people u mentioned were on season 1 cuz i havent seen all the episodes...but they were all on season 2(after the airing of moneymaker) and thats how they were exposed...do u honestly think antonio is known for his season 1 apperance at a final table, or for taking down the L.A. poker classic in season 2? Howard Lederer won 2 wpt tournies in season 1 and i bet u half the people on this forum dont even know that...while the WPT focused on poker(nothing wrong with that)...ESPN focused on entertainment and player personalities and made the pros the stars they are and the stars they deserve to be...

well, if you haven't seen season 1, then how on earth are you even attempting to make an argument. Yes, antonio made a huge splash with his season 1 appearance. His battle between him and Hellmuth was the stuff of great TV. He got under Hellmuth's skin big time. Also, gus became Gus on season 1. Freddie Deeb appeared on the WPT before the WSOP happened. Phil Ivey appeared 3 times on the WPT before the 2003 WSOP happened. I would be more then willing to bet that 95% of the people on this forum know that Howard Lederer won two WPT titles before his appearance in teh WSOP. YOu have just completely invalidated your argument completely with your ignorance on the subject that you are arguing for. Here is a hint on making a semi rational argument, be sure to have a lot of good facts before you try to make a counter viewpoint, and be sure to watch the season 1 to even say. I would also throw in Layne Flack becoming a household name from his two season 1 appearances. Please make sure that you have your facts straight before you try to make an argument again

now ur just getting desperate and avoiding the topic...i havent seen all the episodes, but ive seen the one with gus and freddy and how freddy said he would love to play gus every day of his life, i slso have seen the one with antonio and helmuth...but thats not what im talking about...im talking about how poker was EXPOSED TO THE MASSES...ur fighting a lost cause...weather u like to or want to admit it, it was thru ESPN...tahts y season 2 was 10 times stroger the season 1 for the WPT, becayse ESPN aire the 2003 main event in between...

[mrdannyg 274]

Not sure how many caught this point though....And, finally, players who have played in any WPT events over the last three and a half years have already signed a release. That means that signing a release at the next hundred or a thousand WPT tournaments will have no effect of committing them any more than they are already committed. Meaning, these players have played these tournaments already, and signed waivers already.  Boycotting future tournaments won't save them from any of the possibilities they are worried about.

i know you put this second, but i have a thing for posts with bolded quotes.this is probably the best example of the need for change in the WPT waiver, and is one of the many logical issues players have with this waiver it also demonstrates mr lipscomb's poor understanding of the law.even though the waiver explicitly states for the player to be held to it for all eternity, most courts would side with a player who signed this standard form waiver, then chose not to sign it in the future, since the waiver is too far-reaching and the player clearly demonstrated that they did not wish to be held to it. also, as i said previously, if the WPT tried to act upon many of these rights, they would find themselves liable to the rightful owners of those rights, that is the player's sponsors.it is not just in the players' interests, but in the WPT's interests to redo this waiver. and if I were a player, I would insist that the new waiver explicitly rejected the old one.daniel

[Pupsta 0]

the WPT made a name of most of the pros, ESPN more or less created the poker boom.happy now?

[Longshanks 0]

yah the WPT has given people like Ivey pultiple tv tables

[gobears 0]

the WPT made a name of most of the pros, ESPN more or less created the poker boom.happy now?

Yup, if you're talking about the masses - then I give the credit to ESPN who knew a good thing when they saw it.C'mon. How many people get the travel channel? I have it and I still didn't watch season 1 or 2 until this year when I rented the DVDs thru Netflix.My friends and I got back into poker because of Moneymaker and Raymer. Once folks saw that an amateur like Moneymaker could take the whole thing and that he won his entry thru an online site, the boom hit.I actually think that it's a combination of ESPN and online poker - a confluence which resulted in Today's poker boom. The WPT is a contributor but if you're talking the masses, then ESPN/online poker were the keys.

[leftygolfer 7]

I was disappointed with ESPN's coverage of the main event. The earlier events were covered moderately well, but the ME was just a bunch of goofy stuff with very few decent poker hands shown in between.I mean, how exciting is it for someone to go all-in preflop and see someone else call. What comes after that isn't really interesting - what I want to see is players making decisions all the way to the river, not watching a dealer turn over 5 cards while the players do nothing but await their fate.The WPT format is better IMO. You have 1.5 hour coverage of six players, allowing for many interesting hands to be shown.  Neither of the WSOP commentators is a "real" poker player, and that makes the commentary inane.

Agreeed:E ntertainmentS portsP rogrammingN etworkPlease...give me a Mike Sexton or Howard Lederer as a commentator over a Norman Chad and his ex-wives jokes.The WPT and to an extent, the Full Tilt shows, give much better "poker" shows compared to the ESPN coverage. Sort of like comparing Card Player magazine vs. Bluff magazine. Each has its own audience, some like both and some like either.My $.02.

[bigcoled 1]

good post

[theresa113 0]

even tho they were the first with the hole cam, they ARE NOT the ones responsible for the poker boom...it was ESPN that caused all this...the season 1 wpt was a joke and the 2003 airing of the main event saved the WPT...

I strongly disagree. I had seen some ESPN WSOP coverage before seeing the first season of the WPT. The game was esoteric. I was following it to a certain degree, but I felt it was so out of my league. It was intriging but not inviting.Then, I saw the WPT. Every Thursday, I would talk about it a lunch and ask others if they saw any of the episodes. Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten explained the game, the thought process and gave their oppinions. Instead of poker seeming like you had to be part of some selective clique, I felt as if I could learn and play the game. The WPT is why I play poker. The WPT is why I am part of a poker league. The WPT is why I was looking up players on the internet and stumbled across Full Contact Poker BEFORE there was a forum.

[jonnyz 0]

Actually I think the first poker million (the one Duthie won) was the first to use camera's to show hole cards. It was done quite well and thats the format the espn and wpt adopted

[rog 0]

I want to make 2 points. The first is that the issue of "who made poker sexy" is irrelevant. Bringing it up in this context implies that WPT made these players who they are, so they should shut up and be grateful. This is wrong. The players owe WPT nothing. The players are clients who participated in business transactions with the WPT. It's whining to say after the fact "I made you what you are...you owe me!"Second. It is wrong to defend the current release on the grounds that they wont use the rights they are reserving for themsleves. This is business. Contracts are binding. By saying that they would never use certain rights that they reserve, they are admitting that their waiver goes too far. Fix it. This is not an issue of trust. I would never sign a contract that I was not comfortable with in any context no matter how much I trusted the other party not to invoke the clauses I felt were excessive. That would be bad business on my part. That's my 2c.

[digitalmonkey 929]

I still see a "we are legally entitled to, but we won't" mentality when it comes to the signing of the release.