Wrestling Forum banner

Update on Raven/Bagwell lawsuit

2K views 26 replies 12 participants last post by  zrc 
#1 ·
Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

The Scott Levy (Raven)/Marcus Bagwell lawsuit against WWE, claiming that talent should be paid royalties for WWE Network appearances, was slightly amended. The basics of the suit is the plaintiff argument they deserve royalties while WWE claiming that its contracts state performers are allowed royalties from things that are direct sales to the consumers, such as purchasing a PPV, merchandise, videotape, etc., but that the network does not fall into that category. Levy is arguing that his contract stated WWE would pay royalties on “video cassettes, videodiscs, CD Rom or other technology, including technology not yet created.” He’s claiming that streaming technology falls under that umbrella. WWE is arguing that there is no physical product being sold to a consumer, and it’s only the company granting a license to watch material if they have an active subscription. That becomes because PPV, where they have historically paid royalties, is similar in scope, not a physical product but a license to watch material if you order it. Levy is suing claiming the royalty rate for talent on DVD’s or PPVs should be used to calculate royalties talent deserves when appearing on the network
 
#3 ·
That tech in Raven's contract is physical, it can refer to DVDs, Blu-Rays, but the network is a different thing. Streaming is an alternative to TV not physical devices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrc
#15 ·
They bought the tapes. The ECW wrestlers got paid by Heyman/ECW already (or probably not). If they had a contract with the E then they already got paid for work done for them.

I don't go to work and expect to be paid twice for the same days work.
Good thing you don't own your own business. You'd be good at paying your employees peanuts.

- Vic
 
#4 ·
Yeah they actually have a case here. The whole, they shouldn't have to pay royalties because its not selling an actual product is bullshit because PPV's work in the same way and they still pay royalties for them. And ethically, WWE not paying them for it is pretty much wrong since the appeal of the network is based on their work.
 
#25 ·
Seems to me that Raven was no fool, and was being smart with his contract. I think he does have a case. Most musicians and actors would be paid royalties for their work so I can see where Raven is coming from anyway. "Including technology not yet created" was also smart because he was clever enough to see that eventually things like CDs and video cassettes would become obsolete, so he wanted to ensure that he will still be paid royalties later on down the line. Fair play to him I say, I hope he wins his case.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top