anselm 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The problem isn't that their Fulltilt contract prevents them from playing the WPT. I mean, that may be true in their cases, but the real issue is that they have to surrender those rights, which are valuable, for nothing.Right I understand that but for the FTP guys, isn't it also about the overlap between the two forms and that legally their FTP contract means they can't play in the WPT? Paul Phillips, for example, takes great exception to the WPT release as well but is not legally prohibited from signing it because of another contract -- whereas 4/7 in the lawsuit actually are. Correct or no? Link to post Share on other sites
mcpickl 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 1. That would be impossible since that group would never do something like this.2. I didn't coin the term "ungrateful 7". It was coined by other media outlets. Frankly, I think it fits though... do these people forget what the poker landscape looked like before the WPT? Some were broke, and now are selling products they could have NEVER sold without the creation of the WPT.Daniel, I respect you very much, so don't take my criticism as personal. It's not.the point i agree with is if the players involved in this suit were your friends, you wouldn't be calling them the "ungrateful 7" just because the media coined it. Since when do you just follow what the media says? That's not like you. You are obviously willing to speak your own mind. You also used the "paranoid 7". I haven't heard that in the media. Maybe it's out there, I work all day, haven't really watched what nicknames the media is making up. I stick by the point that you're are using the nickname because you have personal issues with some of the people involved in this suit, which is your right, I just don't think you're using the moniker because the media is.I've heard Howard interviewed on this suit and he agrees with you that the WPT has been great for poker. He knows he's much more marketable now. He knows he wouldn't be getting jobs as a poker commentator without the WPT. From what I understand he just wants the WPT to change their release that they get to use his image wherever they please. He said in the interview that he has no problem with them using his image to promote the WPT television show. He just doesn't think they should be able to use it wherever they want. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.You're obviously much closer to this issue than I am. If you would like to fill me in on what I'm missing(which I'm sure is many, many things) I would appreciate that very much.See you in the FCPHU playoffs, please take it easy on me. michael Link to post Share on other sites
Poker Royalty 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Hola FCP:Several questions have been raised in this thread regarding WPT's use of DN's image, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents...The WPT release has been changed/modified over the past three years. I have worked very hard behind the scenes for a long time to make the release more player friendly. Its latest version (for the current season, which is not the release language used in the lawsuit) allows the WPT to use a player's image in 2 ways: (1) to promote the show in advertising, etc., (2) to use the actual footage from the show (the video) for basically whatever they want (i.e. dvd's, video games, downloadable content, etc).Neither DN nor I have a problem with the WPT using his likeness to promote the show (ie a commercial on Travel Channel or a magazine ad) as long as it does not imply an endorsement of a particular WPT product or service. The latest version of the release specifically states the WPT cannot use his image in this way and specifically states they cannot use DN's image to create an avatar in a video game.The second possible usage is a little stickier... they have the right to take footage from a WPT show and use it pretty much however they like. I think we all agree they should be able to create a DVD set, but they should definitely not be able to use footage to promote WPT online. That's an open question.Although I am an attorney, I also hired outside counsel to assist me with these matters. We have elected to take a different path... As a matter of Law, you can only grant exclusive rights one time. So, since DN is exclusive with STACKED (among others), the WPT does not "as a matter of law" have the rights to use him in its video game. If they did use DN, STACKED could sue them since they own your exclusive rights in the category.Now, if that happened, the WPT could have a claim against DN that he "fraudulently" granted these rights twice. However, if they are aware or "on notice" that he has exclusive agreements and in what category, then our attorneys believe he should be insulated from liability.So, I believe (and our attorneys we pay way too much believe) that if you put the WSOP and WPT on notice of your exclusive agreements you can protect them. This of course, does not protect you from lost "merchandising" or other opportunities that you do not currently have an exclusive with- or any other companies with whom you sign non-exclusive deals.We became aware that DN's image was used in a banner ad for WPT online last fall. I called Steve Lipscomb and he had no knowledge of the ad, investigated the improper usage and had the ad removed in about 3 hours. He apologized to both me and DN and promised it would'nt happen again. Apparently, a 3rd party operator just did it without anyone at WPT's consent. Seemed like an honest mistake. We have never been aware of any other instance that the WPT used DN's likeness improperly.Brian Balsbaughwww.pokerroyalty.com Link to post Share on other sites
nosoul 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 As a matter of Law, you can only grant exclusive rights one time. So, since DN is exclusive with STACKED (among others), the WPT does not "as a matter of law" have the rights to use him in its video game. If they did use DN, STACKED could sue them since they own your exclusive rights in the category.Now, if that happened, the WPT could have a claim against DN that he "fraudulently" granted these rights twice. However, if they are aware or "on notice" that he has exclusive agreements and in what category, then our attorneys believe he should be insulated from liability.This raises a question, though. If a player doesn't already have an exclusive agreement before entering a WPT event, they must sign an exclusive agreement (for zero compensation, no less) with the WPT in order to play in the WPT event. Correct?Which means if they could get an exclusive deal, for real compensation, as a result of their increased exposure from the WPT, they are legally blocked from taking it. Correct? Link to post Share on other sites
Poker Royalty 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 This raises a question, though. If a player doesn't already have an exclusive agreement before entering a WPT event, they must sign an exclusive agreement (for zero compensation, no less) with the WPT in order to play in the WPT event. Correct?Which means if they could get an exclusive deal, for real compensation, as a result of their increased exposure from the WPT, they are legally blocked from taking it. Correct?Actually no, the WPT release is not an exclusive agreement. It only gives them the right to (1) use the image to advertise tv show, and (2) use their video footage in a pretty broad way. Link to post Share on other sites
mcpickl 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 thanks Brian,if the release has been changed in this way, what are the players fighting for in this lawsuit? Everything Ive heard has been about the release, which looks like its been changed significantly for the better. Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyJoe 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 thanks Brian,if the release has been changed in this way, what are the players fighting for in this lawsuit? Everything Ive heard has been about the release, which looks like its been changed significantly for the better.better doesn't mean good enough. there's still lots of room for improvement, if you read Poker Royalty's post you will see how vague the rights are and the lawsuits that can still come about from companies that hold exclusive rights and from the WPT, there's definitely still problems with the release. Link to post Share on other sites
dirtystacks 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 thanks Brian,if the release has been changed in this way, what are the players fighting for in this lawsuit? Everything Ive heard has been about the release, which looks like its been changed significantly for the better.I'm sure the players' position is that these broad derivative rights are unnecessary and excessive. Further, it interferes with their existing contracts. Sure, the WPT might be charged with notice. On the other hand, the company granted exclusive rights (such as Fulltilt) may sue the player for breach. It may get dismissed, but who wants to sign up for a lawsuit? Win or lose, frivolous or not, litigation costs money. Some of the other stuff they allege is pretty messed up too. Like Bloch (I think) showing up for a WPT event, saying he wouldn't sign the waiver, then they tell him he has to sign it or forfeit his buyin. That, of course, is absurd. It is what is known as a contract of adhesion forced onto the consumer under economic duress.Looking at the big picture, I think these players tried in good faith to get limiting, yet completely fair, language put into these contracts and they just got fed up with messing with it. I still don't understand why these broad rights are necessary for the WPT's existence. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Link to post Share on other sites
Bgfoot 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I don't have time to read every post but I had a question that I hoped some of you could answer.If I understand correctly, part of the problem for Lederer & Co. (excluding Hachem/Raymer for a sec) is that their agreements with Full Tilt Poker prohibit them from legally signing the WPT form. So why not go after FTP instead of the WPT? It would be quieter and less controversial especially considering the huge stake in that company that many of them have. Get their FTP contracts re-worded to allow them in the WPT after which point it just becomes personal preference. Ie, then they may not want to sign for some of the same reasons but there's nothing in their FTP contracts prohibiting them.Would seem to clear up some of the problems, no?Fulltilt, Pokerstars has nothing to do with the lawsuitHoward and Co. have side deals with DVD's and vidoe games (Activision)That's were they bump heads at Link to post Share on other sites
srblan 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 That, of course, is absurd. It is what is known as a contract of adhesion forced onto the consumer under economic duress.Which they, in fact, state in the complaint and ask that the previous agreements be voided. For the non-lawyers still left in the thread (myself included) adhesion contracts are precisely the ones that you can "either sign or not participate, " and they are voidable (the party forced to sign them can choose to have them voided). If it ever came to a legal battle, the WPT would likely lose if they tried to enforce derivative rights.I agree, though, that this waiver does nothing to further the existence of the WPT. Link to post Share on other sites
irishguy 14 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 From my understanding the release is very valid from the WPT side. To continue an analogy Howard Lederer started, years ago Jesse Ventura sued the WWE for for using his likeliness without consent in the form of DVDs/Videos released with him doing commentary. WWE lost this suit and has since invoked release forms for all talent for a number different ventures. This release from the standpoint of the WPT is put into place to ensure that any Joe Shmo who makes it deep and is then shown on DVD's and in sindication can't sue for royalties. Link to post Share on other sites
reedmcneal 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Right I understand that but for the FTP guys, isn't it also about the overlap between the two forms and that legally their FTP contract means they can't play in the WPT? Paul Phillips, for example, takes great exception to the WPT release as well but is not legally prohibited from signing it because of another contract -- whereas 4/7 in the lawsuit actually are. Correct or no?Agreed, but Paul Phillips is a billionaire who doesn't need to sell exclusive rights to his image to make money. The point is that to participate in WPT events, which are the biggest poker events the world has to offer for 10.5 months out of the year, you have to surrender the right to exclusively market your own image. The WPT is offering no compensation, so is essentially placing no value on these people's images, when this is obviously not true. Do you think basketball players would standby if they were unable to sign exclusive contracts with shoe companies, because of contracts they had to sign with NBA teams. Sure they could join another league, but the NBA dominates the market. If the NBA would attempt this, they would lose an enormous lawsuit in no time.Now the WPT's market share is not the same as the NBA's, but it is fairly significant. If it is deemed that they are essentially forcing participants to choose between their livelyhood (at least a good portion of their income) or the right to their image, the WPT could be in trouble. Link to post Share on other sites
Squirrelmonger 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Let me say I totally agree with DN that this really hurts poker in general with H.R. 4777 being recently approved in the house. In general its really bad timing, but I don't think dismissing someone's complaint on that basis alone is fair. So I went looking for information about it.Ok I have dug a bit deeper and found a bit more info on this. What I have found is that the WPTE's contracts with the various casinos that host its tournaments exclude those casinos, and the casinos that are owned by the same parent companies, from hosting non-WPTE poker events. I wasn't able to get a list of casinos bound by this contract currently, but if you read through the Sherman Antitrust Act it seems that having all casinos locked up is not required for this type of action to violate this law. Just the fact that they are attempting to prevent other tournaments from being able to holding events in a variety of different venues MAY be enough. Thats really for the court to decide.All that being said, I don't see why these player's are involving themselves in these concerns, I am not sure how it really impacts their ability to make money which seems to be their primary concern.As far as the likeness rights and the rest it seems the issue the player's are pushing is that they may actually be precluded from playing in the events because they can't sign the release form because of prior legal engagements. I don't know if this is the angle they are taking with the case but it seems this would be their most likely angle for success. Just to be clear again, I am not a lawyer I just have a bit of experience in this area if you will. Basically these guys have a weak case but with a good lawyer they may actually be able to win. As for congress...More things than just public opinion effect if a bill passes congress or not. You have to think about it like a crotchety old dude who wants to stay in office so he can make a lot more money off his position. What happens if online poker gets banned? What happens if online poker does not get banned? Well the answer is this, if poker is banned TONS of people will be extremely pissed off, and if it doesn't there is gonna be some griping from the goody goodies out there but not much more. So in true politician style they will make both group s "happy" by regulating like the PPA is trying to get passed. Once its regulated the people who don't understand it all will feel "safer" and the rest of us will be shipping a small cut to uncle sam..but at least we will be able to play still.In conclusion, DN's gut feeling that its a weak case is correct but I don't think its an unwinnable case. As for HR4777 there is not much chance it will ever be passed by both houses and even if it is I would expect George to veto it seeing as he was supposed to be a big poker player in his college days.I personally hope they drop the case, but I don't think as a business minded person I can hold it against them to do what they feel is in their best interest. That being said as poker player I think they are dead wrong about what their best interest is. I think they are looking at the short term rather than the long term.PS - Fabulous job on Day 1 Daniel . Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I understand where Daniel is coming from.It's not so much that he hates these 7 individual players as much as it's just a -EV move for poker in general.Let Pro Poker Players = SharksSharks eat fish.WPT produces fish.Online gaming feeds off the WPT and make MORE fish at a faster rate.Don't kill the fish makers...the real energy HAS to focus on saving online gaming. The loss of online players will be such a huge detriment to the tournament world they won't know what hit them.I can see it now...the WPT Bellagio 5 Star event...final two players and they only pour 8 bricks on the table. Way to go! Now you're only playing the top 100 pros at every event!!I'm no lawyer but regardless of whether the Ungrateful 7 win or lose I think poker will lose. Link to post Share on other sites
HoldemPokerPlyr 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 By the way here is a link:http://www.wptlawsuit.com/Most of those players fought with the PPA against the ban on online gambling and now they're busy suing the WPT? What? Did they gave up on the online poker ban because it's looking bad for us, so they're working on something else?It really, truly is horrible timing for them to be doing this. Atleast wait to do this after the online gambling nonsense is dealt with. -HoldemPokerPlyr Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 By the way here is a link:http://www.wptlawsuit.com/Most of those players fought with the PPA against the ban on online gambling and now they're busy suing the WPT? What? Did they gave up on the online poker ban because it's looking bad for us, so they're working on something else?It really, truly is horrible timing for them to be doing this. Atleast wait to do this after the online gambling nonsense is dealt with. -HoldemPokerPlyrThat's weird...Raymer always came off as such a smart fellow. Link to post Share on other sites
Squirrelmonger 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 That's weird...Raymer always came off as such a smart fellow.He is actually why i took the time to look into it, a pattent attourney should know when a case is obviously frivolous so I would think he wouldn't be in there if he didn't think he had a shot.But that doesn't have to be the case....he may just be getting good pot odds I really hope thats not what this is really about for these 7 players. If so thats just pathetic. Link to post Share on other sites
dirtystacks 0 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 He is actually why i took the time to look into it, a patent attourney should know when a case is obviously frivolous so I would think he wouldn't be in there if he didn't think he had a shot.Eh, a patent attorney does not necessarily know anything about antitrust law. Antitrust isn't a core law school subject so he probably wasn't exposed to it during his education. Unless he's doing antitrust and IP work (unlikely as most 'patent' lawyers simply file for patents with the USPTO--they don't litigate or do deals), he probably hasn't been exposed to it in practice.But you can look at my post on page 6 if you want my take on the suit (for what its worth). I think they have a pretty good shot. Link to post Share on other sites
BlinkersOn 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 1. That would be impossible since that group would never do something like this.2. I didn't coin the term "ungrateful 7". It was coined by other media outlets. Frankly, I think it fits though... do these people forget what the poker landscape looked like before the WPT? Some were broke, and now are selling products they could have NEVER sold without the creation of the WPT.make it hypothetical...they file a lawsuit you don't agree with ...do you trash them publicly... no way..it is personal Link to post Share on other sites
BlinkersOn 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Poker will not be hurt by this. Again, DN would not publicly trash friends, whether he agreed with them or not....however, he will publicly trash people he doesn't like...how sad. Grow up. There's always a high road...you haven't found it....you always take the low road. Link to post Share on other sites
ColeSLaw 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I think the statement of claim shows enough room for intelligent arguments to be made on both side.There are many ways to characterize a poker tournament, especially a televised one produced by a market leader. You could argue that the assignment of rights is not without compensation. While it is not direct compensation in the form of royalties, players are compensated through publicity and through specialty tournaments that the WPT supplies the prize pool.There are also different ways to characterize the agreements allegedly signed by the casinos.Bottom line, we will all wait and see how this unfolds.But like much litigation, it seems silly that the two sides couldn't come to an agreement without litigation. I'm sure a release could be written that respects both the WPT's interest in its product and the player's interest in their product, themselves.It is an interesting question who's interests are served by DN's video blogs on the matter. It gives the case extra attention, but clearly sides with the WPT. Link to post Share on other sites
dirtystacks 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 There are many ways to characterize a poker tournament, especially a televised one produced by a market leader. You could argue that the assignment of rights is not without compensation. While it is not direct compensation in the form of royalties, players are compensated through publicity and through specialty tournaments that the WPT supplies the prize pool.I agree with everything you said, but, with respect to the antitrust claims, whether they are compensated or not is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBloch 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Daniel claims that the term "ungrateful 7" was "coined by other media outlets." If so, then why haven't I found that term used anywhere else but here? Here are some searches: google google news google groups. I also search several poker chat sites directly and couldn't find it. What "media outlets" is Daniel referring to?I found it amusing that Daniel used the Survivor release as a comparison. Back in January, I surveyed a bunch of TV releases from sports, reality, and game shows, including the Survivor II release. In addition to all the obvious differences between Survivor and the WPT that others have pointed out, the Survivor release isn't anywhere near as bad as the WPT release.Daniel, you should talk to an antitrust lawyer before calling me a nutcase and posting that I'm totally wrong about the suit. Besides being a licensed attorney myself, and having done a lot of research into the relevant law, I've talked to the top lawyers in this field. (I suppose next you'll be posting more personal attacks, such as how I wear the same dirty clothes, day in and day out.) Link to post Share on other sites
TheCinciKid 0 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I've always had a ton of respect for Daniel, but I think his reaction to this is a bit out of line. There's nothing wrong with having an opposite opinion from that of the players involved in this lawsuit, but unless you're out there talking to lawyers and getting their opinions before you post, you should probably be careful of what you say. Remember that the players involved in this lawsuit are very smart people. Two are licensed attorneys. If their claim was completely frivolous it would never have been filed. Is it good for poker? Maybe, maybe not. But, I believe that their claim probably has at least some merit and I have to admit that the way DN responded to this has hurt my opinion of him just a bit. Don't get me wrong, I still have a ton of respect for him and it's great that he's willing to speak his mind, but I think it would be better to tone it back and bit and see how things develop. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I don't see why it has to be any more complicated then "If you don't like it, don't play." There isn't even close to a hint of a monopoly for the WPT. They don't have to sign and play if they don't want to. They can play in the 8 brazillion other tourneys across town. Case closed. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now