Which is why everything that was taped is the same. No ring blur, omitted words, or changed theme musics.

I know, I know, but "that's different."

WWE releases videos over no objection from other people and particular circumstances.

Now, that's different. You know, because of the scenario here. Since trademark and copyrigth are enforced over (among other things) market confusion, and Martha does not wish her husband's likeness or name to be implied as an endorsement of WWE, it's virtually identical to the case of Hall and Nash in a legal sense.

Tossing around "That's different" won't actually make it so, from the very real legal sense that will be brought up in court, not the layman perspective you're offering.

Anyway, you can argue what you want or what you think is right, but from a real legal sense she has a case.

Whether that sits with entitled fanboys or the folks trying to apply common sense to the law is another thing. Whether you like it or not....

Yeah I agree that she has a case, if that was the agreement. I also agree that she has a right to be bitter and angry. But I also think she has gone a little too far, and is now taking away from Owen's achievements in life, and what he dedicated his whole life towards. Which is just backwards logic IMO.

Nobody can take his achievements away from him. The idea that anyone could do that, be it Vince or Martha, is insane.

I didn't say taking away his achievements themselves, because yes, that would be insane. I said taking away from his achievements, by not allowing wrestling fans to see them in the form of a DVD set, or a book dedicated to him or something along those lines.

Even to his children, she's pretty much hiding it from them. They'll only find his matches and stuff on youtube, which is pretty sad considering how good he was.

Protecting her kids is probably the most logical thing she's done. Perhaps taken to an extreme, but you consider how young they were when their father died. You consider one's still fifteen, and it's still logical.

You don't get between a mama bear and her cubs.

Wrestling fans seem to have this idea that "Wrestling > life" and I don't quite get it.

<object width="390" height="320" id="Redlasso"><param name="movie" value="http://player.redlasso.com/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=688e3067-3850-4122-bf43-e15611451660&pid=undefined" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://player.redlasso.com/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=688e3067-3850-4122-bf43-e15611451660&pid=undefined" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso"></embed></object>

It obviously doesn't. But I think things have to be taken differently when you work in the public eye.

WWE are legally required to blur out the old WWF logo due to a legal decision made in a London court. As far as any of us officially knows, there is no such provision in place when it comes to using Owen Hart's name or likeness. If there is no injunction in place, they can use that footage as they see fit as per the contract Owen - much like every other WWF/WWE performer - signed.

Theme music simply comes down to licensing rights.

These are not the same thing. I did not say WWE has the right to do what they want with footage 'as broadcast'. I said they have the right to do what they want with performances captured on tape, and quite clearly that refers to the wrestlers and their wrestling matches. You're talking about peripherals such as theme music and logos to try and muddy my argument... well, it wasn't even an argument until you came along... when I'm not referring to anything of the sort.

I dunno some people on here at like a lot of the wrestlers owe the business something, when in fact, the business owes these wrestlers a lot more than they get. WWE treats thse guys like pieces of meat, fires them on a wim, and they don't get insurance cuz they are independant contractors. It's bullshit.

Mind you the wrestlers have a choice, but I'm sorry, they owe NOTHING to the WWE. Without the wrestlers, the WWE is shit. Hell, with the wrestlers the WWE is shit, but imagine what it would be without all these great athletes.

TNA?

Because they were doing so in violation of the law. Are you fucking retarded?

That's it. That's all there is. The reason courts had to rule wasn't that this was some strange, unprecedented grounds but because WWE continued to operate in violation of the law.

If I use Hulk Hogan's name, or John Cena's name to imply their support of my promotion, I'm violating the law even before the court orders me to stop. I'm also violating the law even if I manage to fly below the radar.

As such, I have to reiterate:

Are you fucking retarded?

Theme music, by the way, does come down to licensing rights. Under the same laws of copyright being challenged here. Funny how that works.

Selectively applying copyright and trademark law is great to justify fan entitlement, or what one wants, but it doesn't make anything more true.

"Read on line about the Martha Hart lawsuit vs WWE. I am not a lawyer, have never played one on TV, and know zilch about this untimely legal matter. Nonetheless my personal opinion is that the timing of this legal posturing is questionable specifically as it relates to Connecticut politics. Plus, I have never recalled WWE ever doing any thing but honoring Owen’s legacy and certainly not ‘exploiting’ it in a negative light." -Jim Ross

At least he doesn't speculate on the legal elements.

Yes, yes, we get it though. It's a conspiracy.

"update"

The Vancouver Sun has a piece on Martha Hart's lawsuit against the WWE and Vince and Linda McMahon up available here. Some of the highlights are below:

- WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt stated in regards to Martha's claim that the company agreed to no longer use Owen Hart's name and likeness, "We own the copyright (to footage featuring Owen Hart) and we believe we're fully within our rights under the contract to do exactly what we did." The article stated that McDevitt "insists that there is no provision in the 2000 settlement agreement" that would have led to WWE giving up its rights to the footage.

- McDevitt stated that several months back, Hart filed an injunction to try and prevent the Canadian release of the Hart & Soul documentary and DVD set. Ontario courts denied the injunction. Yesterday McDevitt stated the company had not heard from Martha since 2000.

- Owen's brother Ross Hart commented on the lawsuit by saying, "If (WWE) exploited (Owen's) name negatively...I can understand, but this really was a documentary about the whole family. It was done in pretty good taste, even by WWE standards." He also stated that "Wrestling is really what made Owen famous and successful and such a legend and you can't erase that," Ross said. "As tragic and wrongful as his death was, you can't erase his legacy and what he accomplished in wrestling."

Should have been, "especially by WWE standards."

Do WWE wrestlers get any $$ from there DVD set sales anyways?

No I am most certainly not "fucking retarded". Don't patronise me. Just because I struggle to empathise with your evident loose grasp of my argument doesn't make me retarded. Au contraire.

My whole point was that WWE has only "operated in violation of the law" if they have broken a legally binding agreement to waive their right to use Owen's footage. If they haven't made any such agreement, they own that material. It is stipulated in a WWE talent contract.

Yes, they were in violation of an agreement made with the World Wildlife Fund for Nature as pertains to use of the initials WWF. As a result, they were forced to eliminate the use of the letters and change their existing footage.

A completely seperate situation with its own completely seperate legalities and WWE were made to pay for their violations.

As far as any of us know, this may or may not be the case with Owen. As I said, if they broke the law then they should - and will - be held accountable. But they will only have done so IF they made a legally binding agreement not to show, promote or market Owen Hart related material.

Yes they receive royalties for all commercial materials on which they appear, which they continue to receive long after their tenures with the company.

By the way Kane Knight, I do not speak from the perspective of "fan entitlement" or "what I want" - again, patronising me - as I am not some mindless mark, for WWE or Owen Hart.

I did study law however, including copyright law... fuck I was even involved in a copyright/defamation situation myself several years ago... so I'm not thoroughly unfamiliar. UK law differs from US law, granted, but nothing changes the fact of what is stipulated within the talent contract Owen Hart originally signed; be he dead or alive, or whether Kane Knight morally, legally, personally agrees with it or not.

So, Martha is suing WWE for basically helping bring in income as a widow? I mean thats what it sounded like in that Linda McMahon interview

Well that isn't why she is suing but you could look at it that way. The family will have received royalties from the Hart & Soul DVD.

And I'm sure Martha probably uses some of this royalties for The Owen Hart Foundation.

Maybe she's using his royalties to fund the lawsuit! How delicious.

I think Martha Hart just likes sueing people.

:eek:

MOTHER FUCKER!!!

Martha Hart killed Owen Hart..

Look who's gained the most... she has.

Interesting theory MrSpikeLee. I'll have to give that more thought