7 Players Vs The Wpt

[jowest 0]

ok I read to half way down page 4 until I started to fall asleep at work.Maybe this has already been discussed so I appologize if it has.These players (at least most of them) have all played in a WPT event before. That means they have ALL signed the release before. So the damage is already done. Why won't the WPT let them play without signing again? They already have a release signed.I know Andy used to cross stuff out but I believe that he did eventually sign one with no superimposures.Just seems silly to me. Also DN keeps making a point and no one is picking up on it. WSOP is WAY worse on their release but God forbid these players make a stink about that. The real losers in this lawsuit are you and I and everyone else that has had their time wasted reading about it (I know, I know. I didn't have to read it. Well they don't have to play in the WPT either)

[Aardhart 0]

From 2+2:

Why couldn't all of you and sit down and try to arrive at a solution speaking man to man to man that is in the best interest of the game of poker for all players?Was there no way you could have sat down with Lyle & Co. and said come on bro, let’s work through this without dragging everything through the courts.That, in my humble opinion, would have been the most beneficial for all.

We agree, it would have been the best way. However, we tried that, and the only word we ever got from the WPT was "NO". They simply refused to amend the release, improve the final table structure, or make any other changes of more than very minor significance. We tried the nice way, and now it is time to go to court, or give up. We don't like to quit.Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...rue#Post6825100I think the only way to believe that the Ungrateful 7 are wrong is to believe that Lyle was right to refuse to change the release form. Bloch and Jesus were boycotting the WPT, repeatedly asked for a more reasonable release, and got nowhere. The lawsuit was not there first resort.I don't think WPT's contribution gives them power that should be unchecked. The WPT is culpable for this lawsuit unless their release should not change.Of course, name-calling was wrong, both calling Negreanu stupid and Bloch paranoid.

[Mikey Ravioli 0]

So lets say that the players STFU and sign so they can play WPT events. They get to be on tv and win millions of dollars.Someone remarked earlier that the WPT is losing money. What is to stop the WPT from starting their own internet poker site and slapping DN and lets say Iveys face all over the front page and all over their advertising. So now you are watching tv and you see an ad with Ivey in it for Tilt and then the next ad is an ad with Ivey in it for the new WPT online poker site. I'm confused. Does Ivey endorse Tilt or WPT poker? Is FCP DN's site or is it WPT online poker? Players should have the right to control when and how their images are being used. However, without the exposure that is due in large part to the WPT, no one would want to use their images in the first place. Would Phil Gordon get a book deal if he wasn't the host of Celebrity Poker?

[getarealjob 0]

Negreanu:Follow this link, I think it might help you understand what thiscase is really about.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/od_nm/...DRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

[Perfection 0]

Actually it is a matter of fact. The WPT has not used the players likenesses in any way that is inappropriate. The players are just mad because they MIGHT do it in the future.As for the release. I have not read it, nor have I signed one, but from what I have read about it the release is very broad and gives the WPT pretty much unlimited use of the players name and likeness. You may, as I do, think that this is unneccessary and should not be in a release, but that does not make it illegal. Thw WPT made the release that why just so they could avoid lawsuits:-)The bottom line is the players SIGNED the release giving the WPT to use the players name and likeness. The players cannot sue just because they changed their mind about wanting the WPT to POSSIBLY use their name and likeness.The person/people who said that you do not need a legal basis to sue is mistaken (I am trying to be nice here). A lawyer could, and probably would, get disbarred if they brought a lawsuit that had no legal basis. If you want to make a point, then write a letter, picket outside a WPT event, write letters-to-the-editor of poker publications, start a petition, or do one of several other things to get your point across. A lawsuit is for when a law has broken. You may think that the WPT release is bad for poker players, but if a player signs it they have to abide by its terms.

I was reading this thread out of curiousity than anything. But reading the above posters complete lack of legal skills, I felt compelled to register and post.Firstly, you said that you need a legal basis to bring a law suit. This is completely ludicrous. Whilst there are obviously reasonable limits to any action - for example someone wouldnt get very far arguing that they own the moon and america committed trespass by landing there. But if this were true -that a legal basis is needed for a suit- then every law suit EVER FILED would have to have been successful - Im pretty sure this isnt the case. Legal action is contentious and as such doesnt need to be successful to be heard in court. Any person with a modicum of legal training knows this.Secondly, on the contract issue. There are other issues of contract formation, but that is irrelevant here as your correct in asserting there is a contract. But just because the contract says the players have to do X doesnt mean they necessarily have to do X. I could contract to kill someone for money, but that contract would be void even though there was offer acceptance and consideration. Contracts, or more precisely, contractual terms, can be overruled and rendered void. Legislation exists to prevent the more obvious ones - for example when you sign a contract saying 'we exclude liability for personal injury' that clause would never be upheld in court if you were injured and sought damages. Reasonableness has already been mentioned, and indeed 'reasonableness' is an issue that features prominently in reading contractual terms. If I had to guess, my opinion is that youve had a tiny bit of legal training that consisted of rote memorisation rather than actually learning legal skills, such as interpretation and argument. The law is not a codification of rules and contracts are not upheld by courts literally. Saying this 'lawsuit has no legal basis and that is a fact' shows your complete lack of legal understanding. I could point out that an unsuccessful law suit may actually change the law in some way.

[SeanPhillippi 0]

I was reading this thread out of curiousity than anything. But reading the above posters complete lack of legal skills, I felt compelled to register and post.Firstly, you said that you need a legal basis to bring a law suit. This is completely ludicrous. Whilst there are obviously reasonable limits to any action - for example someone wouldnt get very far arguing that they own the moon and america committed trespass by landing there. But if this were true -that a legal basis is needed for a suit- then every law suit EVER FILED would have to have been successful - Im pretty sure this isnt the case. Legal action is contentious and as such doesnt need to be successful to be heard in court. Any person with a modicum of legal training knows this.Secondly, on the contract issue. There are other issues of contract formation, but that is irrelevant here as your correct in asserting there is a contract. But just because the contract says the players have to do X doesnt mean they necessarily have to do X. I could contract to kill someone for money, but that contract would be void even though there was offer acceptance and consideration. Contracts, or more precisely, contractual terms, can be overruled and rendered void. Legislation exists to prevent the more obvious ones - for example when you sign a contract saying 'we exclude liability for personal injury' that clause would never be upheld in court if you were injured and sought damages. Reasonableness has already been mentioned, and indeed 'reasonableness' is an issue that features prominently in reading contractual terms. If I had to guess, my opinion is that youve had a tiny bit of legal training that consisted of rote memorisation rather than actually learning legal skills, such as interpretation and argument. The law is not a codification of rules and contracts are not upheld by courts literally. Saying this 'lawsuit has no legal basis and that is a fact' shows your complete lack of legal understanding. I could point out that an unsuccessful law suit may actually change the law in some way.

I have said, more than once by the way, that there are many nuances to contract law, as there are to every type of law practiced. I have also said none of these nuances are applicable in this case. I say that because the seven players are suing because they do not like the terms of the contracts they signed, which is not a basis for a lawsuit that has any chance of winning. I am interested in hearing your reasoning why the release is not a valid contract. Other contract may get very deep into contract law, but this is not such an instance. There are instances where there are lawsuits that have no legal basis, but most of those that are successful are lawsuit where the law is not established or is unclear. The part of contract law in this case is well settled. When I am making statements about contract law, I am doing so about this particular case.Also, when I said there needs to be a legal basis for a lawsuit I was responding to a poster that said he could sue anyone he wants for any reason he wants.

So lets say that the players STFU and sign so they can play WPT events. They get to be on tv and win millions of dollars.Someone remarked earlier that the WPT is losing money. What is to stop the WPT from starting their own internet poker site and slapping DN and lets say Iveys face all over the front page and all over their advertising. So now you are watching tv and you see an ad with Ivey in it for Tilt and then the next ad is an ad with Ivey in it for the new WPT online poker site. I'm confused. Does Ivey endorse Tilt or WPT poker? Is FCP DN's site or is it WPT online poker? Players should have the right to control when and how their images are being used. However, without the exposure that is due in large part to the WPT, no one would want to use their images in the first place. Would Phil Gordon get a book deal if he wasn't the host of Celebrity Poker?

They do control those rights unless they sign them away, which they did with the WPT release. Also, another poster pointed out that the WSOP release is much worse. Why are the seven players going after the WPT and playing in the WSOP when the WSOP is more guilty than the WPT?

[PairTheBoard 0]

The WPT does NOT have the right to "steal" the players images. It reserves the right to use footage from THEIR show! I think they should have every right to do that. How in the world should the players have the right to say, no, you can't put me in a commercial to promote next weeks show. Do you realize how difficult it would be to do things without getting the players consent first? The release is broad to ensure that they don't have to deal with so many petty lawsuits. The WPT has done NOTHING to steal a player's image and use it against their will.

In the Lawsuit Complaint, sections 57 and 58 give two examples where the Plaintiffs allege WPTE has done exactly what Daniel claims they have never done. These are example where WPTE has used Player Images to promote WPTE Products - NOT to advertise the Tournament Shows. Furthermore, they are products in direct competition with products those players are actually endorsing. They are the same kinds of Image Misuse that WPTE tried to do with Daniel's Image but which they withdrew after Daniel's complaint. The Players below were evidently not given the same consideration.Daniel has said that if he became informed of examples where the WPT has actually misused the Broad Rights it insists on in its Release then Daniel would reconsider his position on the Lawsuit. It looks like 57 and 58 below are exactly such examples.The question really is puzzling, why does WPTE insist on the Broad Rights to Player Names and Images that go beyond advertising the show if it does not intend to use them? I think the answer is clear in 57 and 58 below. It does intend to use them, did use them in 57 and 58, just as it tried to use Daniel's image before his objection. Remember, when the WPT withdrew its use of Daniel's image after his objection it insisted that although it was accomodating Daniel's wishes in that case it had the legal right to do what it wanted.I think Daniel should take a look at these examples and either refute their validity/relevance or reevaluate his position as he has promised to do.From the Complaint:=============57. For example, WPTE markets the "World Poker Tour" video game which competes with, among other things, the "World Championship Poker" line of video games co-Plaintiffs Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer each have licensed to Crave Entertainment, Inc - which manufactures and sells the "World Championship Poker" video games - the exclusive right to use their names, likenesses, images in conjunction with Crave video games. WPTE, however, upon information and belief, has used video footage of Messrs. Lederer and Raymer and Ms Duke playing in the WPT tournament as part of its "World Poker Tour" video game. The co-Plaintiffs were never notified by WPTE of this fact, nor did they receive any compensation for WPTE's coercive use of their intellectual property rights.58. Another example is provided by WPTE's exploitation of the intellectual property rights of co-Plaintiff Phil Gordon, who is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Expert Insight, a company which markets instructional poker DVD's and books among other things. In connection with Expert Insight, Mr. Gordon and co-Plaintiff Andrew Bloch run the "Las Vegas Academy" poker fantasy camp, where interested poker and blackjack players can pay for instruction from Messrs. Gordon and Bloch. WPTE runs its own poker fantasy camp - "World Poker Tour Boot Camp" - which is a head-to-head competitor with the Las Vegas Academy. Upon information and belief, WPTE has used video footage of Mr. Gordon playing in WPT tournaments - without his prior knowledge or any compensation - to promote its World Poker Tour Boot Camp.==================I really can't see why WPTE should be granted such Broad Rights to Player names and Images that go beyond promotion of the actual Tournament Production. Technically, I don't think they should even have the right to a player's name and image to promote a show unless he is actually in that particular Tournament. I hope the Court agrees and limits them to that venue. If they want a player to help them promote one of their other products then they should have to negotiate with that player just like everybody else. Can you imagine the NBA selling basketballs signed by Michael Jordon and not having to pay him?Also, I really don't see the Downside that Daniel is worried about. He says that the issue of the Online Sites will get dragged into the case. I think Raymer claimed it won't. I don't see why it shouldn't. WPT wants to promote its own site and the players certainly can't afford to let go of their intellectual property rights in that area. That's really the big enchillada. So bring it. This is a Civil Case. It's not up to a Civil Court to get involved with whatever the Senate might be up to in their deliberations over the online gambling bill. As far as exposure goes, I think everybody knows about the online sites already.PairTheBoard

[wontbez 0]

In the Lawsuit Complaint, sections 57 and 58 give two examples where the Plaintiffs allege WPTE has done exactly what Daniel claims they have never done. These are example where WPTE has used Player Images to promote WPTE Products - NOT to advertise the Tournament Shows. Furthermore, they are products in direct competition with products those players are actually endorsing. They are the same kinds of Image Misuse that WPTE tried to do with Daniel's Image but which they withdrew after Daniel's complaint. The Players below were evidently not given the same consideration.Daniel has said that if he became informed of examples where the WPT has actually misused the Broad Rights it insists on in its Release then Daniel would reconsider his position on the Lawsuit. It looks like 57 and 58 below are exactly such examples.The question really is puzzling, why does WPTE insist on the Broad Rights to Player Names and Images that go beyond advertising the show if it does not intend to use them? I think the answer is clear in 57 and 58 below. It does intend to use them, did use them in 57 and 58, just as it tried to use Daniel's image before his objection. Remember, when the WPT withdrew its use of Daniel's image after his objection it insisted that although it was accomodating Daniel's wishes in that case it had the legal right to do what it wanted.I think Daniel should take a look at these examples and either refute their validity/relevance or reevaluate his position as he has promised to do.From the Complaint:=============57. For example, WPTE markets the "World Poker Tour" video game which competes with, among other things, the "World Championship Poker" line of video games co-Plaintiffs Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer each have licensed to Crave Entertainment, Inc - which manufactures and sells the "World Championship Poker" video games - the exclusive right to use their names, likenesses, images in conjunction with Crave video games. WPTE, however, upon information and belief, has used video footage of Messrs. Lederer and Raymer and Ms Duke playing in the WPT tournament as part of its "World Poker Tour" video game. The co-Plaintiffs were never notified by WPTE of this fact, nor did they receive any compensation for WPTE's coercive use of their intellectual property rights.58. Another example is provided by WPTE's exploitation of the intellectual property rights of co-Plaintiff Phil Gordon, who is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Expert Insight, a company which markets instructional poker DVD's and books among other things. In connection with Expert Insight, Mr. Gordon and co-Plaintiff Andrew Bloch run the "Las Vegas Academy" poker fantasy camp, where interested poker and blackjack players can pay for instruction from Messrs. Gordon and Bloch. WPTE runs its own poker fantasy camp - "World Poker Tour Boot Camp" - which is a head-to-head competitor with the Las Vegas Academy. Upon information and belief, WPTE has used video footage of Mr. Gordon playing in WPT tournaments - without his prior knowledge or any compensation - to promote its World Poker Tour Boot Camp.==================I really can't see why WPTE should be granted such Broad Rights to Player names and Images that go beyond promotion of the actual Tournament Production. Technically, I don't think they should even have the right to a player's name and image to promote a show unless he is actually in that particular Tournament. I hope the Court agrees and limits them to that venue. If they want a player to help them promote one of their other products then they should have to negotiate with that player just like everybody else. Can you imagine the NBA selling basketballs signed by Michael Jordon and not having to pay him?Also, I really don't see the Downside that Daniel is worried about. He says that the issue of the Online Sites will get dragged into the case. I think Raymer claimed it won't. I don't see why it shouldn't. WPT wants to promote its own site and the players certainly can't afford to let go of their intellectual property rights in that area. That's really the big enchillada. So bring it. This is a Civil Case. It's not up to a Civil Court to get involved with whatever the Senate might be up to in their deliberations over the online gambling bill. As far as exposure goes, I think everybody knows about the online sites already.PairTheBoard

Very well put, great post!

[CrazyJoe 0]

exactly, i 100% agree with what he ^^ said. using footage from the show for a commercial for the show is ok. Using footage from the show for other stuff should have to be ok'ed by the player.Daniel, even YOUR OWN AGENT complained about the same parts of the release in the lawsuit on this forum in one of the other threads you started on this same subject.Why not admit WPT is in the wrong? Just because they made some affiliate take down a banner that had your picture in it, doesn't mean they are doing the same for you. I'll bring it up one more time for you, WPT is using footage of YOU in a commercial for WPT Online that has aired in Canada multiple times. You don't have a problem with that?

[dimseven 0]

The question really is puzzling, why does WPTE insist on the Broad Rights to Player Names and Images that go beyond advertising the show if it does not intend to use them?

So that when ABC decides to buy WPTE, there is more incentive in that ABC will be able to use a picture of Phil Gordon walking on the show for their new poker themed energy drink.

[finztotheleft 0]

I have to disagree. I think if take a hard look at poker over the last few years _ Celebrity Poker _ was the real turning point that spurred the boom. But I respect my fellow Canadians opinion. Thanks.

Sweet avatar

Casinos cannot ban players just because they are, or could be since there is not one yet, a part of a union. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that is black letter law as I have studied the era where such laws were made.

Ummmm.....casinos can ban whoever they want, ie card counters at black jack. You really need to check your facts

[silkyjonson 1]

Hey Dimseven there is only enough room for 1 borat on this forum!!!!!My wiffe................

So that when ABC decides to buy WPTE, there is more incentive in that ABC will be able to use a picture of Phil Gordon walking on the show for their new poker themed energy drink.

Boooyah!! this is the killer point, in my opinion this brings the value of the WPTE up emmensly, if they ever wanted to sell they have huge value due to the ability to use the faces of all these superstars of poker for whatever they want

[finztotheleft 0]

These seven players signed the release, and then didn't like the terms of the release after they signed it and reaped the benefits of the WPT tournaments. I have said all along that I am not a lawyer, but I do know some things about the law. From what I do know, and my knowledge does apply a little to this situation, there is no basis for the lawsuit.

Sean, you are missing the main point here. The 7 didn't sign it and then decide they didn't like the terms. The 7 are currently not entering WPT events because they take issue with signing the contract. Please educate yourself about the actual situation.

[dimseven 0]

Hey Dimseven there is only enough room for 1 borat on this forum!!!!!My wiffe................Boooyah!! this is the killer point, in my opinion this brings the value of the WPTE up emmensly, if they ever wanted to sell they have huge value due to the ability to use the faces of all these superstars of poker for whatever they want

Eh she die... in a field...Yeah I just pulled that ABC buying WPTE out of my ***. Kind of an absurd take on Raymer's statement. But yeah, it is exploiting the players beond promoting the show .

[SeanPhillippi 0]

Sean, you are missing the main point here. The 7 didn't sign it and then decide they didn't like the terms. The 7 are currently not entering WPT events because they take issue with signing the contract. Please educate yourself about the actual situation.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. I realize that the players are now refusing to play in WPT events because of the release. The thing is, they have already signed the release once, which binds them to the terms of the release. Just because the refuse to sign it again does not release them from terms they agreed to before. I believe that the release states that they release the name and likeness for the pretty much the rest of time, is it does not matter that they refuse to sign it now because they already agreed to give up the rights to their name and likeness.

Sweet avatarUmmmm.....casinos can ban whoever they want, ie card counters at black jack. You really need to check your facts

Casinos can ban whoever they want unless the reason they are banning said person is against the law. For example, they cannot ban a woman just because she is a woman. There are very few "protected classes" in this country. Labor law says that employers cannot ban someone from work due to their membership in a union. So, the WSOP and WPT could not, by law, ban people from a poker event that is open to the public just because said person is a member of a union.

I really can't see why WPTE should be granted such Broad Rights to Player names and Images that go beyond promotion of the actual Tournament Production. Technically, I don't think they should even have the right to a player's name and image to promote a show unless he is actually in that particular Tournament.

The WPT does not have the right to use the players image in such a broad way unless said player agrees. The players did agree by signing the release, which gave the WPT the permission that you claim they need (which they do). I agree with you that the players should be compensated, but if the players sign a contract giving away their rights to their name and likeness with additional compensation, then it is their own fault. They were granted the "broad rights" as you call them by the players. Everyone on here is acting like the WPT is stealing something in the dark of night. Is the release fair to the player. I say no, but just because it is not fair imho does not mean that it is not a legally binding contract. If the contract was so bad that the players feel like they need to sue, then they should not have signed it in the first place.

[StevieV711 0]

57. For example, WPTE markets the "World Poker Tour" video game which competes with, among other things, the "World Championship Poker" line of video games co-Plaintiffs Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Greg Raymer each have licensed to Crave Entertainment, Inc - which manufactures and sells the "World Championship Poker" video games - the exclusive right to use their names, likenesses, images in conjunction with Crave video games. WPTE, however, upon information and belief, has used video footage of Messrs. Lederer and Raymer and Ms Duke playing in the WPT tournament as part of its "World Poker Tour" video game. The co-Plaintiffs were never notified by WPTE of this fact, nor did they receive any compensation for WPTE's coercive use of their intellectual property rights.Did they start these companies, games, before or after they appeared on the WPT? Not that it really makes much of a difference, however, what I think DN is and has been trying to say is that without the WPT, the show, and the popularity of it heading into the WSOP tourney (and hence ESPN picking up on the popularity of the WPT adding more tv to it), these games, the books, etc. wouldn't even make these players any money at all had it not be for the introduction of poker on tv and the WPT. One begets the other, and if they are going to go after the WPT, why not go after the worse culprit, the WSOP?? So to say the WPT is hindering their ability to earn a living is laughable and ludicrious. I am sure they are not complaining about the money they have been making at the WSOP, the "special" events on FSN, and other sites. And who knows on how much money they have made from cash games from "dead money" players that are rich and don't care that they lost money to some poker superstar, they just wanted the honor of playing them. 58. Another example is provided by WPTE's exploitation of the intellectual property rights of co-Plaintiff Phil Gordon, who is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Expert Insight, a company which markets instructional poker DVD's and books among other things. In connection with Expert Insight, Mr. Gordon and co-Plaintiff Andrew Bloch run the "Las Vegas Academy" poker fantasy camp, where interested poker and blackjack players can pay for instruction from Messrs. Gordon and Bloch. WPTE runs its own poker fantasy camp - "World Poker Tour Boot Camp" - which is a head-to-head competitor with the Las Vegas Academy. Upon information and belief, WPTE has used video footage of Mr. Gordon playing in WPT tournaments - without his prior knowledge or any compensation - to promote its World Poker Tour Boot Camp.Would these "boot camps" even be in existence had the WPT even started? OK, so an argument can be made that another company could have come in, that may be true, but I am sure the wording would be the same in any event. Here is my take on the situation, not that anyone even cares:They filed this lawsuit way too prematurely. 7 players doesn't come with a position of strength. Had they gone to most of the players and they had all agreed to boycott events, it would have held much more weight. Had they gotten a majority of the players to join them, they would have much more in way of settlement because it would ultimately make the WPT take notice and offer some concessions to the players to keep it from going away. Strength in numbers is where they need to be. Maybe the WSOP or other tourneys should charge a player for pimping their websites......Phil Gordon, Howard, et al sure do come to play in Full Tilt poker gear at any event they go to play in. Maybe when they are in a featured table they should get charged for the advertisement they display on their body. Their residual income from that site, and all of the other "events" and the tv shows they are on sure are making them a lot of money they wouldn't otherwise have. A few questions come to play here...why doesn't Mike "the Mouth" join in in the lawsuit, or Phil Ivey as they are part of the Full Tilt team? The thing is, they are not going in with a position of strength, and although they bring up good points, they are not going to get anything out of the lawsuit. Them not being able to "make a living" is a joke. Let's see how much they have made in all of this. Would Annie Duke be making movies, or doing all the things they have been doing without the recent popularity? Hell no would be the answer. The only way they could possibly change these contracts is to have a position of strength with all of the players boycotting the WPT. And until that happens, these 7 are just spinning their wheels.Maybe they would rethink their position if they had filed suit in Britain where the loser pays the others legal fees. And by the way, I didn't agree with the terms and conditions I had to agree to to in order to sign up for this site. You will be hearing from my attorney here shortly!

[jack24bauer24 0]

I've read a few times that the 7 players are looking for the final table structure to be changed...how exactly is that something that they can look to do through a lawsuit? The WPT can do what they want to with the final table structure, its their tournament, its not like there's one magical tournament structure that has to be followed...I just find it odd to read that this is something they are looking to have changed in part of the lawsuit.If you don't like the structure then don't play...seems pretty straight forward to me. Same thing with the release. If you don't like it then don't play.I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this lawsuit, anti-trust laws, etc, but what I do know is that the WPT put poker on the map for many people, it got people interested in it any followed it and made many of the stars that are followed today recognized names. The WSOP with Moneymaker continued this and brought it to another level. Why these players would have a problem with the WPT using their likeness to promote the show, which in turn drives up revenues which in turn will eventually make things better and more profitable for the players is a bad thing is beyond me. I'm not sure why the 7 players have such a problem with this and I think its rather silly for them to be boycotting the WPT.

[dirtystacks 0]

SeanPhillippi,I have legal training. I have a J.D. I work for a law firm. I've written published United States Court of Appeals opinions. I have read your posts. Please stop posting. You do not understand the law to the depth necessary to render an opinion on this suit. Your understanding of the legal issues and applicable rule of law is extremely superficial. Law is about nuance. You're talking at level 1--basic legal rules. Those are riddled with exceptions that ARE applicable here. You simply don't know them. You clearly don't understand antitrust law. The contract claims are relevant as they relate to antitrust law. Talking about black-letter, first year contract law won't get you anywhere. If you want to read my analysis of the issues here, go to the thread entitled WPT Lawsuit. Any lawyer will admit that this is AT LEAST a colorable claim which will probably survive summary judgment. That's all they need for leverage to get the WPT to settle.I was going to go through your posts and point out every inaccuracy, but it's just too much.

If you don't like the structure then don't play...seems pretty straight forward to me. Same thing with the release. If you don't like it then don't play.

This seems to be a common theme. Here's the problem with that. The WPT has locked up the high profile venues. But/for the WPT's contracts, these players would have many more televised, high-end casino tournaments available. Are there still some they can play in? Yes. But the WPT need not close off every outlet to have a negative effect on competition. That is the point here. Just closing off some casinos is a problem. Couple this with unreasonable releases and you have a real problem.

[dirtystacks 0]

Okay, I actually am going to point out where you are wrong.

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. I realize that the players are now refusing to play in WPT events because of the release. The thing is, they have already signed the release once, which binds them to the terms of the release. Just because the refuse to sign it again does not release them from terms they agreed to before. I believe that the release states that they release the name and likeness for the pretty much the rest of time, is it does not matter that they refuse to sign it now because they already agreed to give up the rights to their name and likeness.

You don't know what it says. It says they can use the footage from that tournbament for whatever they want. They don't have exclusive rights to the players' likeness in perpetuity. You treat these things as if they are equivalent. They are not.

Casinos can ban whoever they want unless the reason they are banning said person is against the law. For example, they cannot ban a woman just because she is a woman. There are very few "protected classes" in this country. Labor law says that employers cannot ban someone from work due to their membership in a union. So, the WSOP and WPT could not, by law, ban people from a poker event that is open to the public just because said person is a member of a union.

Where's the state action in this? Equal protection applies to state action, not that of private entities. These union laws you're talking about are specific statutes applicable to specific unions. They don't just automatically apply to something like a poker player's union.

Is the release fair to the player. I say no, but just because it is not fair imho does not mean that it is not a legally binding contract. If the contract was so bad that the players feel like they need to sue, then they should not have signed it in the first place.

One ground for invalidating a contract is economic duress. The players are arguing that the WPT has locked up the venues and is basically forcing them to sign away these rights for nothing. The key here is unequal bargaining position. Without a union, that's basically what we have here. I'm not saying a court will certainly invalidate based on an economic duress theory. I am saying it is a valid argument and anyone who says a court would never buy it is incorrect.

[finztotheleft 0]

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. I realize that the players are now refusing to play in WPT events because of the release. The thing is, they have already signed the release once, which binds them to the terms of the release. Just because the refuse to sign it again does not release them from terms they agreed to before. I believe that the release states that they release the name and likeness for the pretty much the rest of time, is it does not matter that they refuse to sign it now because they already agreed to give up the rights to their name and likeness.Casinos can ban whoever they want unless the reason they are banning said person is against the law. For example, they cannot ban a woman just because she is a woman. There are very few "protected classes" in this country. Labor law says that employers cannot ban someone from work due to their membership in a union. So, the WSOP and WPT could not, by law, ban people from a poker event that is open to the public just because said person is a member of a union.

*sigh*They are not, currently, disputing issues related to the past contracts. Phil Gordan presumably signed one before entering into the Bay 101 which he won. The WPT can use his likeness from that competition. They can't snap a new photo today and add that to their collection. The old contract was already in place when he signed up with FullTilt. His contract with FullTilt reportedly prohibits him from entering a new agreement giving away the rights to his name and likeness to a different company, ie the WPT.The casino might not be able to put a sign saying they ban all members of XYZ Union, but they could certainly say "We just don't like players A, B, C, D, E , F, and G and are not going to let them in. We don't discriminate against the union, in fact we let player Z in who happens to belong to it."

[SeanPhillippi 0]

SeanPhillippi,I have legal training. I have a J.D. I work for a law firm. I've written published United States Court of Appeals opinions. I have read your posts. Please stop posting. You do not understand the law to the depth necessary to render an opinion on this suit. Your understanding of the legal issues and applicable rule of law is extremely superficial. Law is about nuance. You're talking at level 1--basic legal rules. Those are riddled with exceptions that ARE applicable here. You simply don't know them. You clearly don't understand antitrust law. The contract claims are relevant as they relate to antitrust law. Talking about black-letter, first year contract law won't get you anywhere. If you want to read my analysis of the issues here, go to the thread entitled WPT Lawsuit. Any lawyer will admit that this is AT LEAST a colorable claim which will probably survive summary judgment. That's all they need for leverage to get the WPT to settle.I was going to go through your posts and point out every inaccuracy, but it's just too much.This seems to be a common theme. Here's the problem with that. The WPT has locked up the high profile venues. But/for the WPT's contracts, these players would have many more televised, high-end casino tournaments available. Are there still some they can play in? Yes. But the WPT need not close off every outlet to have a negative effect on competition. That is the point here. Just closing off some casinos is a problem. Couple this with unreasonable releases and you have a real problem.

I would love to hear the exceptions that are applicable in this case. I have said over and over again that contract law has many nuances, and I have never claimed to know all of them. I just read the WPT Player release and it is very clear cut. Read section 1 of it. Here is a link:http://www.bay101.com/Wpt%20Release%202006.pdfOther than offer acceptance, and consideration there are a few other things that need to be included. Here they are:Form - In some cases, certain formalities (that is, writing) must be observed. Capacity - The parties must be legally capable of entering into a contract. Consent - The agreement must have been entered into freely. Consent may be vitiated by duress or undue influence. Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy. The release is not vague, so that is out of the window. I would really love to hear why you think the player contract is not valid. You claim that there are nuances that are appliable that I am missing, so what are they? I have always said that I know contract law a lot more than anti-trust law. I have expressed my opinion on anti-trust law from what little I have read about it, but I have always stated my knowledge of anti-trust law is not that deep. I do not think there is an anti-trust case here from what I have read about anti-trust law from lawyers and from what I know about market structures and monopolistic competition (which I know a lot about). I am an economist, so I market structures are kind of my thing.

*sigh*They are not, currently, disputing issues related to the past contracts. Phil Gordan presumably signed one before entering into the Bay 101 which he won. The WPT can use his likeness from that competition. They can't snap a new photo today and add that to their collection. The old contract was already in place when he signed up with FullTilt. His contract with FullTilt reportedly prohibits him from entering a new agreement giving away the rights to his name and likeness to a different company, ie the WPT.The casino might not be able to put a sign saying they ban all members of XYZ Union, but they could certainly say "We just don't like players A, B, C, D, E , F, and G and are not going to let them in. We don't discriminate against the union, in fact we let player Z in who happens to belong to it."

If they ban players, and all the player that they ban happen to belong to a union, then I would say that it is more likely than not that the reason they were banned was due to their membership in a union. Even if they let one or two play. The rule of law in civil court is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is, in plain english, whether something is mroe likely than not to be true. If they did that, they would get sued and get their butts kicked in court. Also, banning players is bad for business and would get a ton of negative press, so I doubt the WSOP or WPT would ever ban a player unless they had a good reason (cheating and other such offenses).

[EdTheSock 0]

I am a sock puppethttp://www.edthesock.com/index.php?name=News&topic=2Daniel is a poker playerWhat do we have in commonhttp://www.coolcanuckaward.ca/joe_canadian.htm

[limpinainteasy 0]

How come Moneymaker didn't join the rest of the Pokerstars guys and add his name to the suit? I only recall one cash(Bay 101 a few years back) since he won the Main Event. Pretty sure he could use the exposure since I am sure he is broke by now. Last I saw him he was being destroyed in a $5-10 game in Tunica.

[Stylin_Fish 0]

I'm suing you all for making this thread so long that it's a pain to read.

[elaear 0]

The WPT has locked up the high profile venues. But/for the WPT's contracts, these players would have many more televised, high-end casino tournaments available. Are there still some they can play in? Yes. But the WPT need not close off every outlet to have a negative effect on competition. That is the point here. Just closing off some casinos is a problem. Couple this with unreasonable releases and you have a real problem.

Then, don't the players need to prove that the WPT exclusivity deals do have a negative impact on competition?From what I can tell from here, there are approximately 1,650 casinos in the US. The WPT probably has deals with less than 5% of that number. I don't see how barring under 5% of the casinos in America is preventing other TV-poker-tournament companies from starting up. True, the remaining 95% might not be "high-profile", but do viewers and players actually care in what casino a tournament is held?Also, how can only preventing the players from playing in televised events hurt them financially? Do cameras turn on their A-game or something? There are thousands of other tournaments going on every day. Why don't they just play in those? Are there more donks in TV tournaments than in non-TV tournaments, and are therefore more profitable? Probably, but to win on that point, they'd have to provide some statistics on the donkitude of tournament players in non-TV/TV tournaments, and I'm guessing those are hard to find.And you can't argue that WPT releases prevent them from getting media exposure, and therefore they can't promote their image. There would just be so many problems with that argument that it's not even worth talking about.From what I can tell, Daniel is right. The 7 are just full of themselves and pissy that they can't get their 15 minutes like momma told them they deserve. The players signed the WPT releases by their own volition, and now that they're celebrities, they feel superior to their non-famous former selves and therefore superior to their old agreements.Seriously, if an ordinary person were to press similar charges against the WPT, the court would laugh in his face and fine him for being an idiot. It should not be any different for the 7.Edit: Holy ****. I just read some of the WPT lawsuit official complaint, and they actually DO mention that the exclusion from tournaments with "the opportunity of extensive broadcast exposure" hinders them financially. That is one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard.First of all, the WPT doesn't even HAVE to show the players in the broadcast. They can easily choose to ignore every hand that the 7 are involved in, and they can't do anything about it. The WPT is not obligated to show their mugs on TV, even if one of the players happens to win the damn tournament.Secondly, the denial of "the opportunity of extensive broadcast exposure" hurts them financially as much as it hurts me or anyone else financially. I could then argue that because the WPT does not show my face on TV, I am losing valuable opportunities to make a living. Remember, just as the WPT is not obligated to show only its tournament's players on TV, they are not barred from showing non-players on TV.Also, the 7 say that "only poker tournaments which offer the potential for elite level earnings... are in the relevant market for the services of these elite players. Exclusion from such tournaments can be devastating to elite, high stakes professional poker players' careers." Have you ever heard of any more BS in your entire life? What, the daily $1,000 buy-in Bellagio tournaments are too small? And the WSOP?Here's a few statistics (according to Hendon Mob poker database):[Name] - [Total Winnings] - [WPT winnings as percentage of total winnings]Annie Duke - $3,234,598 - 5.4%Andy Bloch - $2,289,808 - 16.0%Chris Ferguson - $5,699,070 - 4.2%Phil Gordon - $1,034,073 - 34.8%Greg Raymer - $5,792,347 - 1.0%Joe Hachem - $8,024,170 - 0.14%Howard Lederer - $3,235,315 - 22.7%So, the only ones who would might be somewhat affected by not playing in the WPT is Andy Bloch, Phil Gordon, and Howard Lederer. But even without the WPT, Andy Bloch would still have $1,923,439 and Howard Lederer $2,501,667 -- hardly "devastating", as they claim. Phil Gordon loses a large portion of his winnings, but he is hardly considered a high stakes professional poker player. He's more like, a professional poker spokesperson, something he never would have been without the WPT in the first place. All the others are barely affected at all by being unable to play in the WPT, considering their results. Plus, as Daniel has said, their winnings outside the WPT probably would have been much worse without the WPT, which is completely contradictory to their claim.But not only do they say the WPT can be devastating to them, they say all "elite, high stakes professional poker players." Really? How has Minh Ly been affected by the WPT release? How about all of the players in the big game? Are they not "elite, high stakes professional poker players"? How are they "devastated" by the WPT?