extempore: go get 'em

Paul Phillips (

extempore) wrote,
@ 2006-07-19 15:58:00

go get 'em
Y'know, I'm hurt they didn't give me a chance to join. Either I'm too much of a non-factor in the poker world these days (always possible) or I've historically been too difficult to deal with (definitely possible) or I murdered a close relative of one of the principals (possible in only 3/7 cases, so that's not it.)

Seven players suing World Poker Tour over use of likeness, name

LAS VEGAS Seven top-name pro poker players say they're suing the operator of the World Poker Tour over their access to play in televised tournaments and the use of their likeness in ads.

The players include Howard "The Professor" Lederer, Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, and World Series of Poker champs Joseph Hachem and Greg Raymer.

(53 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	Shooting Stars luckydraw 2006-07-19 10:11 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe this means Bay101 won't have to pull the Shooting Stars off of the WPT when the current contract expires. It's unfortunate that so many great bounties can't play in it right now because of the WPT. (Reply to this)

	lpasnak 2006-07-19 10:25 pm UTC (link)
	You could always sue them for not including you in the lawsuit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	extempore 2006-07-19 11:10 pm UTC (link)
	Hum the star spangled banner when you say that! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ts4z 2006-07-19 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	You could ask. This is just a press release. I haven't read that they actually filed the suit yet. Then again, one of the bullet points is that all of the folks named have multiple endorsement deals outside of the WPT sign-your-life-away deals. I don't think you have a paid endorsement for a video game, but it seems the will-be plaintiffs all do. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	extempore 2006-07-19 11:09 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think you have a paid endorsement for a video game Um, is someone forgetting BILL FILLMAFF'S DIAMOND QUEST I mean JEWEL JAM!? Thank you for paying attention. (Reply to this) (Parent)

vandelay8
2006-07-20 12:58 am UTC (link)

Paul would have probably not have legal standing to be a plaintiff. Given the legal theories set forth in the complaint, I think an appropriate plaintiff would have to be "an elite, high stakes professional poker player" who is being deliberately prevented from playing poker tournaments at any WPT-affiliated casinos because the WPT release forms 1) conflict with the terms of existing endorsement deals and 2) interfere with a plaintiff's ability to enter into new endorsement deals. I'm sure the seven plaintiffs were carefully chosen to ensure that lack of "antitrust injury" or "antitrust standing" will not be a viable defense for the WPT.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	njc2o 2006-07-19 11:36 pm UTC (link)
	so, paul... do you think this case (if it ever gets filed) will ever get anything done? besides the obvious negative press that is... (Reply to this)

	racist voiceovers honestiago 2006-07-20 12:53 am UTC (link)
	I'm surprised none of the Asian players whose likenesses were used in connection with racist voiceovers are involved in this suit. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: racist voiceovers bigdmcgee 2006-07-20 09:35 am UTC (link)
	This made me laugh. I never did understand how they got away with that. Imagine them doing a voice over of phil ivey, saying something like, "Gosh boss, I sure is excited ta be raisn' up this pot, lord yes". (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: racist voiceovers -

honestiago, 2006-07-20 10:31 am UTC

	Re: racist voiceovers nate75sanders 2006-07-20 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	can you cite an episode where they did this? I'd like to see it (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: racist voiceovers -

samholden, 2006-07-20 02:17 pm UTC

Re: racist voiceovers -

bigdmcgee, 2006-07-21 04:07 am UTC

	perhaps there's another reason... arcticlaw 2006-07-20 01:07 am UTC (link)
	you're self described as retired from poker, save the HORSE event. (Reply to this)

morlith
2006-07-20 01:40 am UTC (link)

They say that in order to enter World Poker Tour tournaments, the tour operator made them waive lucrative rights to use their images and names to promote products and video games.

If this is the angle they're going to take, this case is destined to fail from the get go. At this point the WPT can say, "They read the release and signed it. It's legally binding. Any questions?"

There's going to be arguments, but the onus is going to be on the seven pros to provide solid proof. That's going to be an uphill battle.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	kcolloran 2006-07-20 10:08 am UTC (link)
	the argument of anti-trust sidesteps issues of signed contracts. What they're going after is the contract themselves. Contracts signed under states of coercion lose legal standing, as far as I understand it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

kcolloran, 2006-07-20 10:13 am UTC

	luckylefty 2006-07-20 04:13 am UTC (link)
	If you want to bring a suit, you should bring one yourself. This suit is being brought with the assistance of a lawyer, who you think is the scum of the earth, by virtue of his being a lawyer, so you wouldn't want to involve yourself in this one. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	extempore 2006-07-20 11:01 am UTC (link)
	It's pretty clever to point out that you need lawyers for lawsuits. I hadn't realized it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Lyle Berman sure is something.

jonathankaplan
2006-07-20 04:38 am UTC (link)

I heard a story, confirmed by Ron Rose, that Lyle had a meeting in 2004/5 with all the winners of the inaugural season of the WPT. He walked into the meeting late, and his first statement was (pretty much) that "the WPT could get 6 monkeys for the TV final table and the WPT would be just as successful." (or something close enough to that.)
I'm definitely rooting for that lawsuit.

I just joined the WPA. I (generally) think that almost any collective labor organization has a nearly impossible task, but I couldn't not join this fight, in some way. Have you seen that organization? Any thoughts about their effort?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	forgotten link jonathankaplan 2006-07-20 04:41 am UTC (link)
	Oops, forgot to include this link to the WPA website, so here it is. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Lyle Berman sure is something. -

howardtreesong, 2006-07-20 02:44 pm UTC

Re: Lyle Berman sure is something. -

mosch2000, 2006-07-21 02:05 am UTC

Re: Lyle Berman sure is something. -

emarkm, 2006-07-24 03:58 am UTC

Re: Lyle Berman sure is something. -

andy_ward_uk, 2006-07-24 08:08 pm UTC

	Forgot One Thing badblood44 2006-07-20 05:19 am UTC (link)
	Or.... They read this livejournal and understand how fucking much you hate fucking lawyers. (Reply to this)

	nfulton 2006-07-20 06:51 am UTC (link)
	It names four of the seven. Who are the other three? I know Andy Bloch and Phil Gordon have also boycotted WPT events, is it them? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bigdmcgee 2006-07-20 09:50 am UTC (link)
	http://www.wptlawsuit.com/ (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) -

qweeeejk, 2006-07-20 04:03 pm UTC

	michaelsullivan 2006-07-20 01:28 pm UTC (link)
	The players include Howard "The Professor" Lederer, Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, and World Series of Poker champs Joseph Hachem and Greg Raymer. I love this bit. Didn't that Jesus guy win the main event too? Oh, I forgot. It wasn't really poker they were playing way back then in 2000. The game has changed completely. It's like the dead-ball era of poker. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	david_j_parker 2006-07-20 04:21 pm UTC (link)
	I think it'd be more appropriate to call this the "live player" era of poker (Reply to this) (Parent)

Why fight?

ezrastiles
2006-07-20 05:01 pm UTC (link)

Imagine you are the CEO of WPTE. Your business model, to put it charitably, doesn't work. TV rights has essentially been losing money even at the height of the poker boom. Primarily this may be because of the bad contract you signed with the travel channel, but either way, you are still losing money now. Currently your big hope is that a WPTE poker site will turn things around, and almost a million in last quarter revenues says it might.

Do you need this fight? How much incremental revenue are these likenesses worth to you? How much revenue does it cost when you don't have name pros at final tables, and they instead bad mouth your tournaments constantly.

Maybe you still believe you only need 6 monkeys at a final table. After all, the PPT appears to be a dismal failure, people don't appear to be excited to watch name pros in action. If you think this, my guess is you are very wrong.

My guess is the incremental revenues here are minor, so why not punt and settle the lawsuit expeditiously. This has the side benefit of keeping the fees to those greedy bastard lawyers down. But you also benefit by having Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Greg Raymer, et al in your tournaments. And you might start to build some goodwill in your target market.

And as a former WPT regular viewer, that would address one of my biggest complaints. It's alright to have one or two "lottery winners" at the table, but a table full of luckboxes is as interesting as watching the world championship of blackjack (check the ratings on that lately?). My guess it would make their shows more compelling and interesting (esp. if they reduced final table blinds so that it wasn't an allin fest).

I don't expect the WPTE to do the right thing. They've constantly mismanaged their business so far, so the smart money is they'll continue to do it for the forseeable future.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Why fight?

emagnetism
2006-07-21 11:37 am UTC (link)

What about the primary figures guiding the WPT now leads you to belive they know ANYTHING about big buisness, especially in the media? Anyone else recall Doyle Brunson losing his ass with Cardoza Publishing?

So, without this turning into a WPT bash-fest (Do we really need another dissertation on why Vince Van Patten sucks?) I would like to know what empirical evidence do you have that leads you to believe that WPTE will choose the smartest option available?

I think WPTE is suffering from classic rat-fucking-the-elephant syndrome in overestimating their role in their own success.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

saba_aba
2006-07-20 06:25 pm UTC (link)

Can't the WPT just claim that the only reason they have endorsement deals in the first place is because of them and only because they signed the release form in the first place? Let's go back to 2003, anyone here heard of any of the players named in the lawsuit? How about a guy named Paul Phillips, heard of him?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like a lot of the things the WPT does, but the truth is, the WPT was the reason poker took off and why I personally watched the 2003 WSOP. How many of you watched the 2002 WSOP not on reruns?

If Ford sponsors the PGA, does Tiger have to drive a Ford? Isn't the problem that the players signed "exclusive" rights with other companies that excludes them from playing in the WPT and not the other way around?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

prettypathetick
2006-07-20 08:02 pm UTC (link)

If Ford sponsors the PGA, does Tiger have to drive a Ford?

Maybe I am incredibly stupid, then again maybe you're incredibly stupid, but if Tiger plays in a Ford sponsored PGA tour event, does that mean they have the right to use him in a Ford racing game, or a commerical to sell Ford products? I don't think so. But the release the players sign allows the WPT to use the players' faces to promote its products. This is where the problem lies, because many of the players' have signed exclusivity rights to other sponsors that won't allow them to be on the WPT video games, products, etc. If this and your failed golf analogy were the same, Tiger would not be able to play in a Ford sponsored PGA event because he is required to promote the vehicles of Buick.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

saba_aba, 2006-07-20 10:13 pm UTC

(no subject) -

andy_ward_uk, 2006-07-20 10:38 pm UTC

minor quibble -

deaconblus, 2006-07-21 06:10 pm UTC

henryclay
2006-07-20 09:17 pm UTC (link)

It is certainly a very interesting case. Antitrust laws are essentially intended to protect competitors, not the players. Yet, the courts have continually ruled in favor of the players of major sports and in this sense they have a case.

The question is whether the WPT has a monopoly and is unfairly preventing someone from setting up a poker tournament. If they have a choice to play WPT or go somewhere else then it's not quite an antitrust violation. A good example of this is indy car racing, where rival leagues have been setup.

Regardless of whether they win or not, the WPT is certainly taking advantage of the players and I cringed when I signed their waiver.

Then again, ESPN/Harrahs has the same clause? Am I wrong? I thought I signed my likeness away to both of them.

(Reply to this)

Actually, there is a precedent of sorts

shezzavague
2006-07-21 09:59 am UTC (link)

Although not one that has much bearing in the US.

In cricket, the world's largest commercial market is India (check the figures for their recent media rights sales).

Their players refused to sign a waiver during the World Cup which would have precluded them from promoting rival products to the competition's official sponsors. The problem of multiple entry points to events for sponsors is an increasing issue in the commercialisation of sport.

However, the most valuable IPRs in sport are clearly held by players, not governing bodies. History shows (with successful breakaways like the Premiership in football and the Super League in rugby) that the public does not care who is organising an event, as long as the top players are involved.

(Reply to this)

Just Call Me Crazy...

joshdvm
2006-07-24 06:52 am UTC (link)

“They say that in order to enter World Poker Tour tournaments, the tour operator made them waive lucrative rights to use their images and names to promote products and video games.”

Hey, I just came up with this crazy idea that will totally resolve the situation! I realize it’s radical and really wacky, so hold onto your chairs, but—now, get this—if Lederer, Ferguson, et al., don’t want their images and names to be used by the tour operator, maybe they can…oh, I don’t know…maybe they can, like…NOT FREAKING ENTER the event.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Donkey Play...

joshdvm
2006-07-24 06:03 pm UTC (link)

Moreover, how disappointing to all advocates of liberty that these top pros whom I personally hold in such high esteem—particularly the distinguished figure of Howard Lederer, no less—would stoop to such an undignified and illegitimate method of attempting to impose their will on a private entity through the sleazy coercion of lawsuit—“anti-trust” lawsuit, at that. Yecch!

Huge donkey play on their part.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Donkey Play... -

andybloch, 2006-07-25 11:05 am UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

joshdvm, 2006-07-26 12:42 am UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

extempore, 2006-07-26 02:09 am UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

joshdvm, 2006-07-27 01:57 am UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

samholden, 2006-07-27 03:30 pm UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

joshdvm, 2006-07-27 06:18 pm UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

dreish, 2006-07-28 06:41 pm UTC

Re: Donkey Play... -

joshdvm, 2006-07-28 08:33 pm UTC

I like this Idea,

b_buddy
2006-08-10 03:43 pm UTC (link)

Paul use some of your money and/or get some friends (investors) to Buy the WPT(E), then you and them will own the rights to all these people. If you don't have the cash, put together and LBO.

As owner of the company, you can sell the poker players rights to themselves, back to themselves. Pretty neat. If they don't buy themselves back(the poker players, that is) then start to produce merchandise with their images and endorsements, heck even put toghether an Online poker site like Full Tilt and use the same poeple like Howard and Chris and make it look like they are endorsing and using the site. Since you now have those agreements to use the image and likeness you can do anything you want with them.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

(53 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store