JULY 2017 WRESTLING DISCUSSION

[Spritenaut 32]

On the one hand, I kinda see the argument that putting too much stuff on Youtube cuts into DVD sales/streaming, which Chikara probably depends heavily on.  On the other hand, the less Youtube, the fewer people you reach.  I'm of the mind that of you're doing most of your Chikara on Youtube, you're probably not planning to pay for it regardless.  Too many other streaming sources out there.  In general, I think small companies - wrestling or otherwise - are probably better off using Youtube and the like to get as much exposure as they possibly can, and try to come up with a hook to turn some of those Youtubers into paying customers.  Hell, I think TNA should embrace that philosophy.

Doesn't WWE have an official Youtube channel?  Do they have any say in the deals to rebroadcast Raw on Hulu or wherever or is that deal solely put together by the TV companies (USA/NBC)?

[Ace]

Since Hulu also has NXT and the non-TV shows, I'd assume it would be WWE.

 

[RIPPA]

Yeah.... TNA had a bunch of videos yanked ever since they were bought because the belief is the are doing an On-Demand Service via an app sometime in the future.

[Trebor]

1 hour ago, RIPPA said:

Yeah.... TNA had a bunch of videos yanked ever since they were bought because the belief is the are doing an On-Demand Service via an app sometime in the future.

 

How's that gonna work? They spam you w/videos until you pay them to stop?

[nate]

Re: Chikara & trademarks -- Blaster McMassive starts the recent Botchamoana with some cryptic comments toward this end.

 

Edit: -moana?!??!  Eh, it stays in.

[odessasteps]

From memory, i remember quack being proactive on getting stuff removed, usually matches, but not promos, from YouTube in the past. 

[caley]

46 minutes ago, Trebor said:

 

How's that gonna work? They spam you w/videos until you pay them to stop?

We get a 'TNA Epics' show of greatest TNA matches ever up here on 'The Fight Network'.  I've never seen a show so proud of its greatest matches which involve copious run-ins, non-finishes and screw-jobs.  It would be like making a 'Best matches of WWE' show and putting HBK-Bret (Montreal) and Brock-Vince (Steel Cage) on there (In case you don't remember the latter, Brock puts Vince in the F5, staggers and collapses, Vince gets in a fight with special ref Kurt Angle, Lesnar kips up and double-crosses Angle.  I was there live, and remember how angry the crowd was, hence why I remember it so well).

20 minutes ago, nate said:

Re: Chikara & trademarks -- Blaster McMassive starts the recent Botchamoana with some cryptic comments toward this end.

 

Edit: -moana?!??!  Eh, it stays in.

I was thinking "Oh no, are people on DVDVR back making up stupid alternate names for Strowman again?!" when I read this.

[NikoBaltimore]

32 minutes ago, nate said:

Re: Chikara & trademarks -- Blaster McMassive starts the recent Botchamoana with some cryptic comments toward this end.

 

Edit: -moana?!??!  Eh, it stays in.

Yeah, that was a weird one.  I don't know if Chikara's doing all this ensure they don't lose money/make more money, but something seems awfully fishy about all this.

[Cristobal]

43 minutes ago, nate said:

Re: Chikara & trademarks -- Blaster McMassive starts the recent Botchamoana with some cryptic comments toward this end.

 

Edit: -moana?!??!  Eh, it stays in.

[thee Reverend Axl Future]

Well, who came up with the JCottonbelly gimmick, CHIKARA/Quackenbush or, um, Mr. Cottonbelly?

Pro wrestling has always been able to utilize new tech to make money - the dawn of TV, early cable, VHS, PPV. It is interesting to me to observe feds big and small scramble to find revenue streams (as the suits say) in this Modern Age of social media, geek culture, ticket resellers, YouTube, streaming services, lessened house show and DVD bucks, digital media and all this copyright stuff.

- RAF

[OSJ]

Just to be pedantic, there are a couple of different issues being talked about here under the catch-all of "copyright". I sort of know this shit backward and forward because in thirty years of editing collections and novels by deceased writers, I had to learn the hard way how to dot all the i's and cross the t's. Anyway, copyright governs intellecyual property such as  a written work or performance. Hence, this is why youtube stuff can get yanked by the copyright owner. Trademark refers to a particular brand, used commercially, unlike copyright, trademark is governed by use, for example, I could wrestle a match as Thee Rev. Axl Future and unless the real Axl Future has trademarked the name, there wouldn't be a thing he could do about it. Further, to win a trademark violation you have to prove (1.) financial  harm or (2.) creating intentional confusion in the marketplace which is really a part of (1.) Now, using this silly example, the real Axl Future might have a hell of a time proving financial harm, since he never made a bunch on money and no one's going to pay a sixty year-old with bad knees to try and work a match. However, he can very easily cite "attempting to create confusion in the marketplace" and then it becomes up to the judge to decide what the potential damages might be. 

Bottom line kids, don't steal shit that doesn't belong to you and don't try to get booked as Rick Flare, Naitch doesn't have much of a sense of humor.

I'll be more than happy to be corrected by a real lawyer like LawfulMetal, me, I'm just a layman that knows some shit.

[Victator]

41 minutes ago, NikoBaltimore said:

Yeah, that was a weird one.  I don't know if Chikara's doing all this ensure they don't lose money/make more money, but something seems awfully fishy about all this.

My guess is its to hurt individual talent. Promotions trying to claim gimmicks as intellectual property has done nothing but hurt wrestling. 

[nate]

45 minutes ago, Cristobal said:

"You're welcome."

[thee Reverend Axl Future]

OSJ -

Thank you. I am planning my new start-up, RAFco. I will franchise out my gimmick to any young green workers, returning vets, rodeo clowns, burly dominatrices and deranged cosplayers. I get 10% of their earnings, and I will flow 10% of that to you, you smart cookie. Based on my old paydays, expect a check for $.03 quite soon. Please fill out a W-9.

- rich in spirit,

RAF

[Spritenaut 32]

Gotta admit I'm kinda surprised I've never come across "The Natural Boy' Rick Flare at an indy show.

[OSJ]

1 hour ago, thee Reverend Axl Future said:

OSJ -

Thank you. I am planning my new start-up, RAFco. I will franchise out my gimmick to any young green workers, returning vets, rodeo clowns, burly dominatrices and deranged cosplayers. I get 10% of their earnings, and I will flow 10% of that to you, you smart cookie. Based on my old paydays, expect a check for $.03 quite soon. Please fill out a W-9.

- rich in spirit,

RAF

Dude, with the massive earning potential, we gots to keep shit under the table... ;-)

[GuerrillaMonsoon]

If anyone wants a free PDF copy of OSJ's book with the font changed to Comic Sans and the really out of context blowjob scene from Good Will Hunting thrown into a chapter, let me know.

[SorceressKnight]

7 hours ago, Victator said:

My guess is its to hurt individual talent. Promotions trying to claim gimmicks as intellectual property has done nothing but hurt wrestling. 

Yeah- on the one hand, Cottonbelly was a character created by CHIKARA on the beginning, but since then it had become far bigger on the back of the person who took over the gimmick and really owned it.

Since the person playing the Cottonbelly gimmick has had a particularly big falling-out with CHIKARA recently, it's entirely likely this is being done out of spite.

[odessasteps]

Probably fair to say that many bridges have been burnt between quack and a good number of folks in the business, not all of them bad sports like the talking dead guy. 

[Lawful Metal]

7 hours ago, OSJ said:

Just to be pedantic, there are a couple of different issues being talked about here under the catch-all of "copyright". I sort of know this shit backward and forward because in thirty years of editing collections and novels by deceased writers, I had to learn the hard way how to dot all the i's and cross the t's. Anyway, copyright governs intellecyual property such as  a written work or performance. Hence, this is why youtube stuff can get yanked by the copyright owner. Trademark refers to a particular brand, used commercially, unlike copyright, trademark is governed by use, for example, I could wrestle a match as Thee Rev. Axl Future and unless the real Axl Future has trademarked the name, there wouldn't be a thing he could do about it. Further, to win a trademark violation you have to prove (1.) financial  harm or (2.) creating intentional confusion in the marketplace which is really a part of (1.) Now, using this silly example, the real Axl Future might have a hell of a time proving financial harm, since he never made a bunch on money and no one's going to pay a sixty year-old with bad knees to try and work a match. However, he can very easily cite "attempting to create confusion in the marketplace" and then it becomes up to the judge to decide what the potential damages might be. 

Bottom line kids, don't steal shit that doesn't belong to you and don't try to get booked as Rick Flare, Naitch doesn't have much of a sense of humor.

I'll be more than happy to be corrected by a real lawyer like LawfulMetal, me, I'm just a layman that knows some shit.

Listen to OSJ. Intellectual Property doesn't come up much when I'm trying to get somebody out of jail, so don't ask me.

[Rev Ray]

7 hours ago, thee Reverend Axl Future said:

OSJ -

Thank you. I am planning my new start-up, RAFco. I will franchise out my gimmick to any young green workers, returning vets, rodeo clowns, burly dominatrices and deranged cosplayers. I get 10% of their earnings, and I will flow 10% of that to you, you smart cookie. Based on my old paydays, expect a check for $.03 quite soon. Please fill out a W-9.

- rich in spirit,

RAF

You should allow them to work as axl future Too like Gallagher Too.

[SorceressKnight]

8 hours ago, OSJ said:

Just to be pedantic, there are a couple of different issues being talked about here under the catch-all of "copyright". I sort of know this shit backward and forward because in thirty years of editing collections and novels by deceased writers, I had to learn the hard way how to dot all the i's and cross the t's. Anyway, copyright governs intellecyual property such as  a written work or performance. Hence, this is why youtube stuff can get yanked by the copyright owner. Trademark refers to a particular brand, used commercially, unlike copyright, trademark is governed by use, for example, I could wrestle a match as Thee Rev. Axl Future and unless the real Axl Future has trademarked the name, there wouldn't be a thing he could do about it. Further, to win a trademark violation you have to prove (1.) financial  harm or (2.) creating intentional confusion in the marketplace which is really a part of (1.) Now, using this silly example, the real Axl Future might have a hell of a time proving financial harm, since he never made a bunch on money and no one's going to pay a sixty year-old with bad knees to try and work a match. However, he can very easily cite "attempting to create confusion in the marketplace" and then it becomes up to the judge to decide what the potential damages might be. 

Bottom line kids, don't steal shit that doesn't belong to you and don't try to get booked as Rick Flare, Naitch doesn't have much of a sense of humor.

I'll be more than happy to be corrected by a real lawyer like LawfulMetal, me, I'm just a layman that knows some shit.

Even with that, there is the big problem here since again, both sides have a strong case for trademark and copyright on this argument.

Using this case for example: CHIKARA usually keeps a "no outing the real-life performer behind the gimmick" (even though It's been pretty much widely admitted due to this issue that

Spoiler

Kevin Condron

plays Cottonbelly), but each side can say it.

CHIKARA has a pretty good argument for it: Mike Quackenbush did, in fact, create the Jervis Cottonbelly character, and it is his intellectual property.  By this, Quackenbush can absolutely claim copyright on the gimmick.

However, having said that, Cottonbelly is breaking out on the indy scene away from Quackenbush, and you can argue the trademark is on the hands of the wrestler who currently portrays Cottonbelly. You can prove financial harm to the wrestler behind the mask (it takes away the gimmick that has caught fire, and many [not all, but many] CHIKARA performers have found that they are not as over without the gimmick CHIKARA gave them), AND can prove intentional confusion in the marketplace to any promotions who book whichever WrestleFactory graduate Quackenbush gives the gimmick to and any fans who would go to a show because Cottonbelly is there (as they're not getting the performer who made the gimmick a star and getting a likely lesser product than they wanted), 

[odessasteps]

Am i wrong that this current Jervis is actually the second version of the character?  I was under the impression it was not the same person who played him 10 years ago ish. 

[SorceressKnight]

40 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

Am i wrong that this current Jervis is actually the second version of the character?  I was under the impression it was not the same person who played him 10 years ago ish. 

Yeah, this is (at least) the second, which muddies things up more.

[Technico Support]

4 hours ago, SorceressKnight said:

Yeah, this is (at least) the second, which muddies things up more.

As much as I dislike Quackenbush, I don't think anything is "muddy" here.  He created the character and assigned it to a guy.  Later, he assigned it to someone else.  It's still a character Quackenbush created.  If you think it's muddy, show me all the guys using their WWE names outside WWE or look at a guy like the artist formerly known as Pentagon Jr., who had to change his name to some convoluted shit.  

Quote

"However, having said that, Cottonbelly is breaking out on the indy scene away from Quackenbush, and you can argue the trademark is on the hands of the wrestler who currently portrays Cottonbelly."

Huh?  

So your argument is, "he's doing well on the indies with a gimmick that he doesn't own, so you could argue it should just be his."  I want you as my lawyer at my next theft trial.  "Your honor, my client did steal that car.  But he's driving it really well so one could argue that it should be his."

According to the law, Quackenbush owns it.  Shit, the fact that this is the second incarnation of that character probably strengthens Quackenbush's argument.