Phil Gordon Makes A Good Point About The Wpt Lawsuit, Don't Be Bias, Read

[milbucksfans 0]

QUOTE(milbucksfans @ Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 4:54 PM) If the WPT has never taken advantage of their "in perpetuity throughout the universe" clause, and never intends to, then why have the clause? Why is it even available to them if they don't plan to use it at some point?Isn't that the real issue? Daniel goes to great lengths to explain that there is "no smoking gun", but does there need to be? I can't understand why he would defend the WPT's stance so vehemently with regard to the "player's likeness" clause. If it's written into the contract, it's available. So why is the WPT so adamant about keeping it if they never intend to use it?They're willing to go to court to defend it. One would think there must be an underlying reason.Superleeds wrote:There is an underlying reason. That clause if it could be legally enforced would greatly increase the value of the company. And Daniel, why won't you respond to CrazyJoe

That's my whole point. The clause is there for a reason...so the WPT can invoke it when they need to. The fact that they have not done so to date is entirely irrelevant.

[superleeds 0]

That's my whole point.

I know. My reply was aimed at the people who incredulously ask 'but why doen't LB just change the release and take out the offending lines'? Because he's not stupid, that's why.

[bengy3 0]

they are standing up to the WPT with their own money to try and change something that does/will negatively impact all present/future players of WPT. How can you say what gives someone the right to fight for someone else, whether Daniel agrees with the "timing" of it or not, even he has to agree that if the players force the WPT to change the release, it's a good thing for all players.

Whether or not it is a good thing for players right now is something the players are split over. If those seven wanted to bring the suit to benefit themselves, but to do it claiming to speak for all poker players is completely different.

[CrazyJoe 0]

Whether or not it is a good thing for players right now is something the players are split over. If those seven wanted to bring the suit to benefit themselves, but to do it claiming to speak for all poker players is completely different.

no, you don't even understand what people are fighting over. Some players think bringing the lawsuit is a bad thing, this is debatable. NOBODY likes the WPT release, they might accept it, but I guarantee you 100% of poker players would vote for the release to be changed if they had a vote. The reason Daniel doesn't like it, at least from what I can see, is that the lawsuit will bring bad attention to poker in general. Trying to change the release is a good thing, period, some may disagree with the methods, but if they succeed it will be good for all players.

[PairTheBoard 0]

That's my whole point. The clause is there for a reason...so the WPT can invoke it when they need to. The fact that they have not done so to date is entirely irrelevant.

The fact is they HAVE DONE SO to date.Read items 57,58 of the Complaint. Read CrazyJoe's post on this thread. Read any of my posts on any of the other threads on this subject. One thing you won't be able to read is Daniel's response to these examples where WPT Has "done so to date".

[LiquorBeaver 0]

no, you don't even understand what people are fighting over. Some players think bringing the lawsuit is a bad thing, this is debatable. NOBODY likes the WPT release, they might accept it, but I guarantee you 100% of poker players would vote for the release to be changed if they had a vote. The reason Daniel doesn't like it, at least from what I can see, is that the lawsuit will bring bad attention to poker in general. Trying to change the release is a good thing, period, some may disagree with the methods, but if they succeed it will be good for all players.

WRONG! The current release is much better for your average player today because it keeps the good, known players out of the WPT tourneys. I hope they never change the release so the good players will stay out and average players like myself will have a chance to win. If those greedy assholes don't want to sign the release, then they shouldn't play in the WPT tourneys.

The fact is they HAVE DONE SO to date.Read items 57,58 of the Complaint. Read CrazyJoe's post on this thread. Read any of my posts on any of the other threads on this subject. One thing you won't be able to read is Daniel's response to these examples where WPT Has "done so to date".

The WPT hasn't done what Raymer is claiming they are doing. The WPT merely used video footage WHICH THEY OWN inside of a video game and at a fantasy camp. The footage was used as a part of the product, not to promote the product. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you don't believe that the WPT should have the right to contract (in the form of the release) how to use their own video footage, then you are a communist.

[bengy3 0]

no, you don't even understand what people are fighting over. Some players think bringing the lawsuit is a bad thing, this is debatable. NOBODY likes the WPT release, they might accept it, but I guarantee you 100% of poker players would vote for the release to be changed if they had a vote. The reason Daniel doesn't like it, at least from what I can see, is that the lawsuit will bring bad attention to poker in general. Trying to change the release is a good thing, period, some may disagree with the methods, but if they succeed it will be good for all players.

I understand completely what people are fighting over. Trying to change the release may be a good thing, period, but if there are poker players who disagree with any part of the lawsuit (whether it be with its goal, timing, other repercussions that come with it or anything else), don't claim you are speaking for everyone when you aren't.

[PairTheBoard 0]

THE WPT IS USING FOOTAGE OF PLAYERS FOR OUTSIDE PRODUCTS.WPT Online has a commercial which uses footage from WPT tournaments featuring several players INCLUDING Daniel Negreanu himself. WPT Online isn't available to US players, so the commerical doesn't air there.

I Don't know if they would let me open an account there, but I have no problem viewing the WPT Online Site. The Main Picture they use is of the WPT announcers. But in the Poker section they have the smaller image shown below:Doyle Brunson is clearly being shown. There is also someone wearing a blue shirt in the #8 seat who has been inked out of the picture. I wonder who that is.PairTheBoard

[pippisan 0]

I just hope I can play internet poker. If these 7 geniuses have anything to do with taking away my ability to easily play poker online, then I will be marketing Andy Block voodoo dolls for all of us to stick with pins.

[Aardhart 0]

WPT: If you want to play in our tournaments, sign the release giving us permission to butt rape you. We promise not to butt rape you.U7: No, we don't want to give you permission to butt rape us. We don't want to get butt raped. Can you remove that clause?WPT: Don't be silly. I never butt raped anyone and I'm not going to.U7: OK, just remove that clause and we'll sign it.WPT: I refuse to remove the clause. The release must have the butt rape clause for the tourneys I run.U7: We will not sign that release giving you permission to butt rape us. That release is illegal.WPT: Tough. It's my release. I can get 6 monkees to play the final table and get the same ratings. Go play in some other tournaments.U7: There are almost no other tournaments, because almost all the casinos work with you. We'll sue you.DN: The U7 are wrong because WPT never butt raped anyone. Fighting the clause may lead to the swallowing of a fly, which may lead to the swallowing of a horse, if the WPT decides to use a nuclear option to destroy their own business to spite the U7. The blame lies with the U7 for filing the lawsuit after many attempts at talking, rather than with WPT for insisting on a clause that no one thinks is necessary or reasonable.

[The Nuts 0]

None of this morality stuff really matters. When it comes lawsuits and the like, the only thing that matters is the law. If the WPT is breaking the law, then something should be done to rectify it. It's really that simple.The motives behind the suit may be muddy, underhanded or low to some. But the law must be upheld.

[Alina 0]

WPT: If you want to play in our tournaments, sign the release giving us permission to butt rape you. We promise not to butt rape you.U7: No, we don't want to give you permission to butt rape us. We don't want to get butt raped. Can you remove that clause?WPT: Don't be silly. I never butt raped anyone and I'm not going to.U7: OK, just remove that clause and we'll sign it.WPT: I refuse to remove the clause. The release must have the butt rape clause for the tourneys I run.U7: We will not sign that release giving you permission to butt rape us. That release is illegal.WPT: Tough. It's my release. I can get 6 monkees to play the final table and get the same ratings. Go play in some other tournaments.U7: There are almost no other tournaments, because almost all the casinos work with you. We'll sue you.DN: The U7 are wrong because WPT never butt raped anyone. Fighting the clause may lead to the swallowing of a fly, which may lead to the swallowing of a horse, if the WPT decides to use a nuclear option to destroy their own business to spite the U7. The blame lies with the U7 for filing the lawsuit after many attempts at talking, rather than with WPT for insisting on a clause that no one thinks is necessary or reasonable.

Good post.DNis just annoyed that Annie duke turned him down, The Professor is smarter than him, Raymer is more successful than him; and they didn't ask him to join the writ.

[Diva_4_pkr 0]

It annoys me to no end that Gordon, Bloch, and co. contuniously use that, "How would you feel if they made a bobblehead with your image on it and didn't pay you!" Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once. There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.

Daniel, can I have your autograph?? Right here on this release form that says I can use your name, likness, etc. FOREVER to do with as I please. I haven't done ANYTHING so far, so there should be no reason you wouldn't sign it. You are doing just as much harm to poker as you say these 7 are by constantly berating them and keep the issue up front in everyone's face. You aren't involved in the lawsuit, by your choice, then stay out of it. If YOUR lawyers have satisfied you that you are protected againist unlawful use of your image and likeness, then be satisfied and go play golf. I haven't been in this forum for very long and won't be much longer, because this is the biggest "hate" fest I have ever seen. WHERE IS THE POKER?? All I see is people flaming each other.....

[PairTheBoard 0]

QUOTE(PairTheBoard @ Wednesday, August 9th, 2006, 12:13 PM) The fact is they HAVE DONE SO to date.Read items 57,58 of the Complaint. Read CrazyJoe's post on this thread. Read any of my posts on any of the other threads on this subject. One thing you won't be able to read is Daniel's response to these examples where WPT Has "done so to date".

The WPT hasn't done what Raymer is claiming they are doing. The WPT merely used video footage WHICH THEY OWN inside of a video game and at a fantasy camp. The footage was used as a part of the product, not to promote the product. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you don't believe that the WPT should have the right to contract (in the form of the release) how to use their own video footage, then you are a communist.

Your communist crack is silly. But the more I think about it the more I wonder if you might be right. For example, is this picture that the WPT has in the Poker Section of its online site really an inappropriate use of player images?I doubt if anybody in that picture was paid to allow their image to be used by WPT this way. And at least Brunson has affiliations with another online poker site. Yet is the image really inappropriate? It's the WPT Online Site and they show a picture of a WPT final table. If the NFL shows a picture of players in a game on one of their products do they have to track down all 32 players that were on the field and get their ok? I don't think so. It may be what WPT has done in the Video Game and Fantasy Camp items 57 and 58 of the Complaint amounts to the same kind of thing. Basically the WPT showing its Face. As long as such use of player images does not give the impression that particular players are endorsing the WPT products, I'm thinking the WPT should probably be allowed to use such images. It's understandable that the The WPT should want to have the right to Show Its Face and along with the WPT announcers the Face of the WPT is players playing at WPT final tables.I think it's all a bit of a tricky wicket legally. Let the courts decide.PairTheBoard

[esamilin 0]

It annoys me to no end that Gordon, Bloch, and co. contuniously use that, "How would you feel if they made a bobblehead with your image on it and didn't pay you!" Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once. There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.

[CrazyJoe 0]

was there a point in repeating that ^^^

[socalpoker_j 1]

let me summarize:Phil you are a traitor"no I am not"Holy crap a "famous" person acknowleged my existance. Never mind phil. you are the best everI know. The lawsuit is good because (insert same crap here)Wow phil your buns are tight. Let me massage them for you.

Haha QFT

[esamilin 0]

Daniel, what are you going to do if WPT decided to advertise your cute innocent face picture in a gay porno magazine next to a huge **ck?end of argument.

[phlegm 6]

Daniel, what are you going to do if WPT decided to advertise your cute innocent face picture in a gay porno magazine next to a huge **ck?end of argument.

Dude you are broke. End of argument.

[CrazyJoe 0]

The WPT hasn't done what Raymer is claiming they are doing. The WPT merely used video footage WHICH THEY OWN inside of a video game and at a fantasy camp. The footage was used as a part of the product, not to promote the product. HUGE DIFFERENCE. If you don't believe that the WPT should have the right to contract (in the form of the release) how to use their own video footage, then you are a communist.Your communist crack is silly. But the more I think about it the more I wonder if you might be right. For example, is this picture that the WPT has in the Poker Section of its online site really an inappropriate use of player images?I doubt if anybody in that picture was paid to allow their image to be used by WPT this way. And at least Brunson has affiliations with another online poker site. Yet is the image really inappropriate? It's the WPT Online Site and they show a picture of a WPT final table. If the NFL shows a picture of players in a game on one of their products do they have to track down all 32 players that were on the field and get their ok? I don't think so. It may be what WPT has done in the Video Game and Fantasy Camp items 57 and 58 of the Complaint amounts to the same kind of thing. Basically the WPT showing its Face. As long as such use of player images does not give the impression that particular players are endorsing the WPT products, I'm thinking the WPT should probably be allowed to use such images. It's understandable that the The WPT should want to have the right to Show Its Face and along with the WPT announcers the Face of the WPT is players playing at WPT final tables.I think it's all a bit of a tricky wicket legally. Let the courts decide.PairTheBoard

i see where you are coming from, but a generic picture of a table is a different story than images that feature one individual player. Seeing that picture, nobody could really think Doyle endorses WPT Online. I really assume that in the other cases spoken of, it's a much more obvious use of image, and in the WPT Online commercial, it for sure is, it's like a montage of winners celebrating, not generic shots of tables with players at them.

[nmdavidb 0]

Good post.DNis just annoyed that Annie duke turned him down, The Professor is smarter than him, Raymer is more successful than him; and they didn't ask him to join the writ.

Oh please...DN has actually won more money than almost all of the players that we see on TV...well I am sure Doyle over the years can claim that title.This point is moot. You all are arguing over something that really makes no sense. How come you don't see anyone suing about the "High Stakes Poker" show? They use there images all of the time.The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Do you not think WPT pays alot of money to get all of the things to promote their shows? It is a business deal.Me being a stand up comic can refuse to do a gig if the money is not right or I don't like the setting. These people had that same right and they signed the paper...hopefully after reading it...and in the end they are still bound by a contract.Simple as that.Dave

[harryhj 0]

Ok The release form is illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Does any of the other bullshit matter after that????Who cares if they are the ones who benefit most?Who gives a crap if there are other tournies to play?If the release form is illegal it should be changed. full stop.

The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Dave

If the contract is illegal it the whole dont sign it if you don't like it bulls*hit doesnt come into it!

[bengy3 0]

Oh please...DN has actually won more money than almost all of the players that we see on TV...well I am sure Doyle over the years can claim that title.This point is moot. You all are arguing over something that really makes no sense. How come you don't see anyone suing about the "High Stakes Poker" show? They use there images all of the time.The final fact is this...you sign a contract...you must abide by it's rules. If you don't like it you don't sign it. These people did sign and now they are pissed off because they know there is more money to be made.Do you not think WPT pays alot of money to get all of the things to promote their shows? It is a business deal.Me being a stand up comic can refuse to do a gig if the money is not right or I don't like the setting. These people had that same right and they signed the paper...hopefully after reading it...and in the end they are still bound by a contract.Simple as that.Dave

That post wasn't very funny for a stand up comic.

[WowThats 0]

Tell the truth... Do you really give a crap about this lawsuit?

[StevieV711 0]

Why is everyone looking at it only from the players side of the argument? Think about what the WPT potentially has to lose by changing the release. The release has the wording there for a reason, and I am quite sure they had attorneys pour over the release to make sure that it was within the interpretation of the law. I am sure they thought that it may be challenged at some point, and if they thought it was illegal, why waste money for attorneys if they knew they wouldn't win?The WPT will not be bullied by a few poker "stars" to change their release when their product hasn't suffered from it. I am sure their concern may be that if they do change the release, they may be subject to MORE lawsuits in the future for not asking for permission from everyone they show on tv. If the WPT's attorneys are worth anything, they will not be concerned about the lawsuit if they firmly believe they are on firm legal grounds.As for the players stating that the release is illegal and criminal, well, I am sure it will be settled by some judge down the road. Then it will be appealed, and the players will end up taking it in the shorts as far as legal fees are concerned. And, I do have a question about the PPT....Is the release different for the PPT? I thought it was the same people that ran the WPT? Why are the players playing in the PPT, the WSOP and the PPT if their are release forms that may be questionable?