It's all good bro, I love the discussion (helping me kill time at work LOL). With a few exceptions, most people are keeping it cool.We're on opposite ends of this discussion@DannyNL , so I'm going to bow out but I appreciate you remaining respectful with your responses my dude.
I would bet the UFC loses money or barely makes a profit when Mighty Mouse headlines a card. No way he should be paid more.
I think we're in an age now with this inter-web, social media, ect where it's a lot easier to put public pressure on companies and get results. Almost every day you see public outrage and companies caving under pressure to get rid of the bad publicity.
A 1 step guide on how to contradict yourself in 2 sentences.
And that's where you're wrong. I'm not offering an opinion on the lawsuit. I'm offering an opinion of the people signed on to it.
There is demonstrable proof that social media pressure is not enough to make amything outside of cosmetic changes and even in instances where you see social media pressure being exerted to shift policies, there are organized movements at the helm, taking to social media as an amplification of their efforts. Despite what content mills would have you believe, social awareness campaigns rarely if ever go viral. They are spread through organized hierarchies of "influencers" and coordinated efforts with hundreds if not thousands of users.
The UFC doesn't own the rights to anyone's likeness. They own the rights to all works produced by the fighter while they are under contract. I'm sick of hearing this blatant misinformation.
I don't understand how you think that. So I legit can't think of a proper response to you man. The right for an athlete to have rights to his likeness is a given in today's world of professional sports. A view to the contrary is just so antiquated that its befuddling to hear.
You started out good, but you're starting to fall apart. Be more like Kneeblock and less like ThatOneDude.
According to Fitch and his manager. Good sources.
Very interesting stuff. I will check that out when I get some time.
They also own the rights to use a fighter's image in perpetuity according to the contract language. This includes video games, supplemental merchandise, books etc with no residuals. The video game thing was a sticking point with Koscheck, Fedor (who cited it as a reason to never sign), Randy, Fitch and older fighters like Ron Waterman and Tim Lajcik who unwittingly ended up permanently in UFC games. This is not limited to video archives nor should it be taken for granted that there won't be other ways to monetize a fighter's image with film, cgi animation, virtual reality etc while they benefit not at all.
Are you of the understanding that likeness rights are simply about the broadcast they were on? This is a woefully misinformed understanding. Please look into likeness rights to get a clearer picture. Not being rude, but that is just simply not true
No, I'm aware of what it entails. If you want to degrade this into intentionally misrepresenting my view and acting like my views are so outrageous that you can't understand how someone could possibly feel that way, maybe you should go sit at the kid's table with ThatOneDude and let the grown ups talk about it.
Actor's act in front of production crews too, still receive residuals.
lol you compared fighter likeness to actors. Which..I mean..is so off base it's confusing. I'm not going to sit here and explain everything for you. We're all adults and have access to the internet. I'll let you navigate those waters. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and be on my way from this conversation. It's getting redundant and weird. Unless you're a troll, which in that case, keep on, brah.
It doesn't matter he is wrong actors do receive residuals.
Well sir I must concede that point, but will rest my laurels on the studio musician example.
How should Mighty Mouse get more money?
I'm only reading now, not contributing. I just want to know how many points you have conceded in this thread since starting.
