PDA

View Full Version : WWE Legal Copyright Mania/The Monday Night War


Batsu
04-09-2006, 12:40 PM
Word is WWE Legal has gone copyright crazy again:

"WWE have filed a trademark on the term, Umaga. They also recently filed trademarks on Todd Gymini, Mike Gymini, Chain Gang, Chain Gang Soldier, CG, CGC and CG Click."

from pwinsider.com, by ways of a WWE blog.

LOL.

I doubt that "Jamal" (or whatever his name really is) would want to use the "Umaga" character outside of WWE were he to get canned again. Ditto for the Gyminis if they don't get over in WWE with those personas.

and all that extra "John Cena" stuff is funny.

Somewhat related, I finally got a chance to look back at some of the situations that sparked this by following the suggestions of some of you here at TPWW and checking out The Monday Night War DVD.

Great story, great collection of footage and interviews... and for the most part they didn't cut corners (outside of the still-annoying WWF-scratch logo blurs and everyone pretending that company name didn't exist in interviews).


Besides the blurring, I wish they had played the entirety of that X-Pac trashing WCW speech when he came to join DX.

Seeing Jim Ross react to the "Oklahoma" thing, which was in REAL poor taste, was also interesting. He wasn't hopping mad, which was kind of a shocker, but it was probably because some time had passed. It's one thing to make fun of the geriatric theatrics of WCW (as WWE did with Billionaire Ted, The Huckster, and The Nacho Man), but to make fun of the announcer's physical infliction was and still is bullshit.

I was expecting the worst, seeing that this was a WWE production, but they allowed Eric Bischoff to be the honest, brutal asshole he was known to be during that time, instead of "Vince's Bitch" as he seems to have been made on TV, detailing every and anything.

I especially liked how they included Rocky Maivia's "Die Rocky Die" speech, if only an excerpt. Thinking now, what's happening with John Cena, it makes one wonder what would happen if WWE didn't edit crowd reaction or suppress dissention among fans now.

There was a great collection of WCW footage in there, too...brought back a lot of memories... and it kind of made me mad how they sort of used Flair as a crutch (much like WWE does now).

You see here that Vince still seems shaky about admitting how much his product was getting his ass kicked, a quality that Bischoff doesn't seem to have...and it illustrates one of the biggest problems in WWE today.

Just once I'd wish they'd just take the L their priority-phobic legal department caught and pay the Panda Fund what it takes to allow them to say "WWF" and show the logos in their videos. If they did it to acquire ECW's library after it sunk, why can't they do it for their OWN product?

But don't let the blurring idiocy steer you from watching this -- if you haven't...find this video and pick it up. It's worth the money.

Great video, especially in the context of today's WWE. I hope TNA doesn't ever fall into the trap of trying to compete with WWE and paying attention to what they do, lest the same thing happen to them...

vampiro03
04-09-2006, 01:33 PM
they can't use the wwf acronym unless they pay the fund for every video release with said acronym. there are a LOT of wwf/e videos. I recieved my first wm dvd set and they don't change a thing but I know a portion of the money I spent goes to the fund. so, they could do it. they don't want to pay royalties up the ass. they're still paying Marvel for the use of the word "Hulk".

Xero
04-09-2006, 02:19 PM
Hogan owns/leases/whatevers the "Hulk" name, not the WWE.

Batsu
04-09-2006, 03:28 PM
they can't use the wwf acronym unless they pay the fund for every video release with said acronym. there are a LOT of wwf/e videos. I recieved my first wm dvd set and they don't change a thing but I know a portion of the money I spent goes to the fund. so, they could do it. they don't want to pay royalties up the ass. they're still paying Marvel for the use of the word "Hulk".

So wait, the WM DVD set contains no blurring and full on "WWF"-ing?

Xero
04-09-2006, 03:31 PM
Well, the block logo wasn't blurred, but anything with "WWF" visible (Like Koko's tights), anytime it's said, and the scratch logo was censored.

Batsu
04-09-2006, 04:06 PM
Well, the block logo wasn't blurred, but anything with "WWF" visible (Like Koko's tights), anytime it's said, and the scratch logo was censored.

That's pretty gay.

But I've gone over that subject a million times before...

At least WCW stuff wasn't really altered.

Xero
04-09-2006, 05:08 PM
That's pretty gay.

But I've gone over that subject a million times before...

At least WCW stuff wasn't really altered.
Yeah, but most of the music, some commentary and Michael Buffer are censored.

Kane Knight
04-09-2006, 06:41 PM
Just once I'd wish they'd just take the L their priority-phobic legal department caught and pay the Panda Fund what it takes to allow them to say "WWF" and show the logos in their videos. If they did it to acquire ECW's library after it sunk, why can't they do it for their OWN product?

Here's the sticky wicket. They bought the rights to ECW, which wasn't in any way contested (Except they started doing it before they bought the rights).

With the WWF, it's a little more complicated. It was never about money in the first place. The WWFund agreed to let the WWFed use the WWF trademark on the grounds of a good faith agreement. The WWFed shit on that goof WWFaith agreement.

You see, ECW was out to be bought. The WWF trademark never was.

Honestly, Vince WWFucked himself when he pissed all over an agreement which was incredibly beneficial to him.

The WWE will likely never be able to get that back, because Vince burned his bridges. Unfortunately for Vince, burning your bridges in the legal world is nothing like doing it in wrestling.

Frankly, I couldn't be happier. Vince got slapped for thinking he was bigger than God, the WWF stood up to Mister McMahon, and and same mental midgets who bitch about tradition look like retards trying to complain about how they should be allowed to go back to it.

Kane Knight
04-09-2006, 06:43 PM
So wait, the WM DVD set contains no blurring and full on "WWF"-ing?

Most of the pre-attitude era stuff isn't edited, note most.

Also, before anyone else says it, a portion of the wrestlemania profits does not go to the WWFund.

Batsu
04-09-2006, 11:42 PM
Yeah, but most of the music, some commentary and Michael Buffer are censored.

Michael Buffer is censored?

Batsu
04-09-2006, 11:46 PM
With the WWF, it's a little more complicated. It was never about money in the first place. The WWFund agreed to let the WWFed use the WWF trademark on the grounds of a good faith agreement. The WWFed shit on that goof WWFaith agreement.

Wonder why Vince just couldn't just edit the videos for the UK like all the crap is done now...it's kind of like how TSN edits the "good stuff" out of Raw, and so forth.

And that's kind of ironic, since the continual subject of "good faith agreements" getting pissed on came up in that DVD.

In a way, it's kind of good to see Vince get his just desserts, but this crap has effectively locked out perhaps what could have been a point at which Vince could make his greatest profit -- sales of Attitude era videos. Of all WWE videos, those are in the highest demand, and they're all locked out.

Edit: WTF? So the reason why the old WWF logo is OK, but the new one is bad has to do with the font it's in? Link: http://www.capitalresearch.org/news/news.asp?ID=129

Both parties needed their asses kicked.

Batsu
04-10-2006, 01:51 AM
Also, to take the subject off the WWE/WWF nonsense...

There was one big part of the WCW show while it was in decline that was interesting: Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit's worked shoots that came on air. I can't get my timelines right... was that before Bischoff got axed, or was that while he was still in charge? That was gold that they actually allowed that to spill onto TV, even though...

Pinnacle Charisma
04-10-2006, 06:14 AM
The Bisch was awesome in that DVD.

Kinda makes me sad that for the last 3 years he has been made to look like Vinces bitch on TV.

Batsu
04-10-2006, 09:41 AM
The Bisch was awesome in that DVD.

Kinda makes me sad that for the last 3 years he has been made to look like Vinces bitch on TV.

That's why despite all the SHIT he did in WCW, Bischoff's got all my respect...for basically doing that, but still giving it his all.

Kane Knight
04-10-2006, 09:48 AM
In a way, it's kind of good to see Vince get his just desserts, but this crap has effectively locked out perhaps what could have been a point at which Vince could make his greatest profit -- sales of Attitude era videos. Of all WWE videos, those are in the highest demand, and they're all locked out.

They can still sell attitude era videos, they just need to remove the logos and such.

TerranRich
04-10-2006, 10:49 AM
And the WWE doesn't pay any royalties to WWF for use of the old block logo. It was just a settled agreement. Or am I wrong on that?

Batsu
04-10-2006, 10:58 AM
They can still sell attitude era videos, they just need to remove the logos and such.

considering how many pivotal promos said "WWF" and scenes showed that logo prominently...it would be distracting though. Like when someone got "Rey Mysterio-ed" on the WWF.COM logo...

Batsu
04-10-2006, 11:00 AM
And the WWE doesn't pay any royalties to WWF for use of the old block logo. It was just a settled agreement. Or am I wrong on that?

Yeah. That logo is OK because the block design generally was unoffensive. Apparently, according to that article, WWF in Times New Roman (or using the same font as the WWFund logo) was off limits. However, there was some unspecified problem with the "scratch logo" that made the Fund get irritated again...

Xero
04-10-2006, 11:03 AM
Michael Buffer is censored?
Yeah, apparently he only licensed his voice for the live broadcast so the WWE can't release anything with him on it.

Yeah. That logo is OK because the block design generally was unoffensive. Apparently, according to that article, WWF in Times New Roman (or using the same font as the WWFund logo) was off limits. However, there was some unspecified problem with the "scratch logo" that made the Fund get irritated again...
From what I understand they didn't go after the block logo because it wasn't in use anymore. The WWF Scratch logo was the brand's main logo at the time and they only made them not use that one. Or something along those lines.

TerranRich
04-10-2006, 12:25 PM
I always thought that the reason WWF won't let WWE use the old WWF scratch logo anymore is because they currently use a WWE scratch logo and the old scratch logo is too similar to their current logo. That was my reasoning anyway.