• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WWE Hit With Class Action Over WWE Network Streaming Royalties

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaladin

Member
On Wednesday, Rene Goguen (known in the ring as "Rene Dupree" as part of the group "La Resistance") brought a putative class-action lawsuit alleging he and others haven't seen money from the much-ballyhooed over-the-top channel, WWE Network, as well as videos put on Netflix.

According to the complaint filed in Connecticut federal court, Goguen signed a "booking contract" in 2003 where WWE took ownership over a wide swath of intellectual property including his nickname, personality, character, costumes, props, gimmicks, gestures, routines and themes.

In return, WWE was obligated to pay out 25 percent of net receipts to a pool of wrestlers for licensed products as well as for video cassettes, videodiscs, CD-ROMs "or other technology, including technology not yet created" consisting of pay-per-view videos. Other video items like a WrestleMania box set had just a five percent royalty share for wrestlers.

In February 2014, WWE made waves by launching its own $9.99 per month streaming network, which included videos of past live pay-per-view events as well as other wrestling-themed shows, and according to Goguen's lawsuit, this fits the definition of "other technology and/or technology not yet created" in the booking contract.

The lawsuit, aiming to represent those who signed booking contracts for the WWE and other professional wrestling outfits between 1980 to the present, asserts breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, with millions of dollars in alleged damages being sought. Clinton Krislov and Brenden Leydon are the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

In response, WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt tells THR that the problem with this lawsuit is that Goguen signed a contract in 2011 that destroys his ability to bring these types of claims. McDevitt wouldn't get into the specifics of this agreement, citing a provision on confidentiality, but he did say that he informed Goguen's lawyer last night. "His response back indicates he did not know about it," says McDevitt.

The WWE attorney wouldn't get into hypotheticals about potential other lawsuits from other wrestlers perhaps not bedeviled by waiver, but he expressed a lack of worry, pointing to the outcome of ESPN's legal dispute with wrestler Steve Ray for the proposition that many claims will be preempted by copyright law.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/wwe-hit-class-action-streaming-881763

This could get interesting. It has potential to go nowhere if Dupree signed what they say he signed and it is legit, or it has potential to see them being totally fucked if they're liable for these royalties.
 

FyreWulff

Member
I hope they win. From all that we've heard, WWE signed everyone to PPV buy royalties and DVD royalties, and aren't considering Network views as either of those.

There should either be a royalty they get for each match viewed (i mean, it's literally trackable) or they should get a large one-time sum for use of their likeness.
 

Kaladin

Member
I hope they win. From all that we've heard, WWE signed everyone to PPV buy royalties and DVD royalties, and aren't considering Network views as either of those.

There should either be a royalty they get for each match viewed (i mean, it's literally trackable) or they should get a large one-time sum for use of their likeness.

The contested term is "other technology and/or technology not yet created" which was included in the original contracts.

That could certainly include the Network.
 

UberTag

Member
This is what the WWE thinks of Rene's class action claim...

BgYgZMd.gif
 

Dead Man

Member
So the WWE lawyer isn't denying WWE are shafting people, they are just saying Rene can't do anything about it because he signed a waiver?
 

BigDug13

Member
I hope this doesn't create a precedent and cause content to be removed from the network. I'm making my way through the 1998 Attitude Era now.
 

Dead Man

Member
Well that means their not being shafted if they signed a waiver...

Does it? Doesn't it just mean they can't do anything about it if they are being shafted? Depends on what they waived, I suppose. Whether it was royalties or rights to bring a complaint. As it reads I can't tell, which is why my post was a question.
 

Jonbo298

Member
The contested term is "other technology and/or technology not yet created" which was included in the original contracts.

That could certainly include the Network.

He has a very strong case because of that terminology in the contract. It's ambiguous enough that they deserve a portion of revenue based on views of matches they were in. But it also depends on wording of the waiver.
 
Not really shocking, WWE screws everyone on royalties but no one does anything because their scared. Punk's story showed me how childish and petty they can be.

On the other side, i'm pretty sure Vince learned his lesson from the Ventura lawsuit and put that shit on lock down when they're no longer talent. Hence the waiver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom