Kemo
12-03-2016, 09:01 PM
The latest development in the ongoing battle between WWE and the various wrestlers suing them came yesterday in the form of WWE filing a motion to dismiss the action filed by Marcus “Buff” Bagwell and Scott “Raven” Levy. This is the case dealing with WWE Network royalties, and there are two prongs to it:
That WWE has a legal obligation to pay both wrestlers royalties for WCW footage in general.
Levy’s 2000 WWF contract, because it allows for royalties from videos released in formats yet to be invented and did not specifically exempt royalties from internet and video on demand subscription fees the way current WWE contracts do.
WWE’s motion to dismiss deals with each in simple yet highly detailed fashion:
WWE does not fall under any of the legal criteria that would make it a successor company to WCW, if just because the legal entity formerly known as WCW still exists as the Universal Wrestling Corporation. Both plaintiffs’ WCW contracts also saw them forgo video royalties in exchange for other considerations.
The key language in the contracts is that royalties come from a “direct sale” of WWE home video products, with the references to technology not yet invented referring to formats like Blu-Ray. It didn’t exist at the time of the contract, but, like VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD, it’s a physical product that can be sold and re-sold. There’s also a detailed argument about how there’s legal precedent saying that a “sale” refers to a physical product, not a temporary license like a WWE Network subscription is. WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt also points out that a WWE contract’s royalty structure is pretty much impossible to apply to WWE Network.
No word yet as far as when a ruling should be expected.
That WWE has a legal obligation to pay both wrestlers royalties for WCW footage in general.
Levy’s 2000 WWF contract, because it allows for royalties from videos released in formats yet to be invented and did not specifically exempt royalties from internet and video on demand subscription fees the way current WWE contracts do.
WWE’s motion to dismiss deals with each in simple yet highly detailed fashion:
WWE does not fall under any of the legal criteria that would make it a successor company to WCW, if just because the legal entity formerly known as WCW still exists as the Universal Wrestling Corporation. Both plaintiffs’ WCW contracts also saw them forgo video royalties in exchange for other considerations.
The key language in the contracts is that royalties come from a “direct sale” of WWE home video products, with the references to technology not yet invented referring to formats like Blu-Ray. It didn’t exist at the time of the contract, but, like VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD, it’s a physical product that can be sold and re-sold. There’s also a detailed argument about how there’s legal precedent saying that a “sale” refers to a physical product, not a temporary license like a WWE Network subscription is. WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt also points out that a WWE contract’s royalty structure is pretty much impossible to apply to WWE Network.
No word yet as far as when a ruling should be expected.