Dear Friends kind regards I was wondering if the WWF scratch logo is being blurred in WWE DVD's? I was informed by a Wrestling journalist that the WWF attitude scratch logo doesn't have to be blurred. If you know anything about this I'd be grateful. yours thankfully John
I really don't see why it has to be retroactive. The scratch logo should just be banned from the point of the Lawsuit decision.
Oh well, It's been almost two years since the name change, and I now find myself saying stupid things like HBK was a three time "WWE" Champion, so I guess the brainwashing worked.
"Hulk Hogan may be a house hold name, but so is Garbage, and it stinks when it gets old too"- Jim Cornette
The scratch logo has to be blurred out in all WWE content, and has been ever since the court settlement with the World Wildlife Fund. The only `WWF' logo they can show is the older block logo from appeared between the 80's and mid-90's.
Regardless of what any journalist tells you, that has been the case since May 6, 2002 (or at least that's when they publicly announced the name change; it could have been done a day or two before). There was some time they had to phase-in the changes for marketing campaigns, etc., but today -- they can't use the scratch logo. Period.
Remember the 80's? Neither does Canadian Bulldog in this special edition of Inside The Ropes!!!
------------------------------------------------------------ The official Inside The Ropes archive!!!
What I'm wondering is why they even have that logo on the screen at all. When you buy or rent a DVD, you're not watching it on television and don't really need to know what you're watching and WWE doesn't need to protect its video content with a watermark so you know it's a WWE product.
Do their master archive tapes really have the watermark on it? That's pretty cheap.
Originally posted by InVerseCouldn't they just blur the F and leave the WW alone? That's all they did with the new logo was drop the two prongs on the right, isn't it?
They do this whenever possible. But it probably takes more time to try and edit half the logo than it does to just edit the whole thing.
Either way, it's quite annoying and distracting. I agree with SKLOKAZOID in that old video footage really shouldn't have to be edited like this. But I guess there isn't anything WWE can do about. Oh well. There goes those dreams of a WrestleMania DVD box-set.
Originally posted by MARTYEWRWhat I've always wanted to know is why is the WWF attitude/scratch logo illegal, but the WWF block logo (80s-mid 90s) perfectly fine?
Apparently, it didn't look like WWF. It looked more like WF. So they let it slide.
You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture.
Originally posted by MARTYEWRWhat I've always wanted to know is why is the WWF attitude/scratch logo illegal, but the WWF block logo (80s-mid 90s) perfectly fine?
Simple - the block logo was (and is) covered by the old agreement with the Fund. The scratch logo was (and is) considered a breach of that agreement.
EDIT: Geez, John, did you have to post this question TWICE? I mean, I've already had to undo TWO thread closings AND a ban from the "moderators;" you're really pushing it here.
Dear friends kind regards CRZ.........Sincere apologies for my mistake. I have been informed from a source that the WWE is negotiating to have the ban lifted on the WWF attitude scratch logo. Is this true? if it is and you have more information I'd appreciate it. yours thankfully John
I know that one of the last Judgemental decisions was in favor of the WWE to be able to use the "WWF" name in some shape or form. I can't remember though if for what it was. Still don't like the Panda People for doing what they did to this company. Talk about a semi-crippling blow. I mean to come off of XFL, ugh, then to be slammed by this the next year was a MAJOR cash down the tube.
As Eric Bishoff asks if he's ok I get this message ------------
ssjaj23: Goldberg: What's wrong? I can't sell, I'm sloppy in the ring. I don't like being heel. I have no ring phycology
Originally posted by jwrestleI know that one of the last Judgemental decisions was in favor of the WWE to be able to use the "WWF" name in some shape or form. I can't remember though if for what it was. Still don't like the Panda People for doing what they did to this company. Talk about a semi-crippling blow. I mean to come off of XFL, ugh, then to be slammed by this the next year was a MAJOR cash down the tube.
Panda didn't do shit. Vince carelessly and recklessly violated their original agreement.
Originally posted by jwrestleI know that one of the last Judgemental decisions was in favor of the WWE to be able to use the "WWF" name in some shape or form. I can't remember though if for what it was. Still don't like the Panda People for doing what they did to this company. Talk about a semi-crippling blow. I mean to come off of XFL, ugh, then to be slammed by this the next year was a MAJOR cash down the tube.
Panda didn't do shit. Vince carelessly and recklessly violated their original agreement.
Mabe he just didn't read the Fine Print. Besides as he said on Smackdown, "Do you know who I am? I'm Vincent Kennedy MacMahon." Apparently that's what he was thinking when he violated the thing. Once again saying MAJOR cash flushing because that's what it became.
As Eric Bishoff asks if he's ok I get this message ------------
ssjaj23: Goldberg: What's wrong? I can't sell, I'm sloppy in the ring. I don't like being heel. I have no ring phycology
Funny thing was, shortly after the last lawsuit, my Step- Mother recieved a letter from the panda-people. I handed it to her, telling her she got a letter from the "WWF," and she could not understand why she would get wrestling junk mail-
Mind you this is a woman who never watched wrestling, and has been a donation-sucker for the animal people for years- and SHE could not even connect WWF to the Wolrd Wildlife Fund. Pretty silly to me.
Originally posted by MoralmanDear friends kind regards CRZ.........Sincere apologies for my mistake. I have been informed from a source that the WWE is negotiating to have the ban lifted on the WWF attitude scratch logo. Is this true? if it is and you have more information I'd appreciate it. yours thankfully John
Yes they are always trying to get the judge's decision reversed (kinda on how you keep wanting the WWF Videos on DVD).
I really wish it would be reversed so they can do my INGENIOUS idea of changing the "RAW Brand" to "WWF" and change the "Smackdown Brand" to "WWE" so we can have a WWF vs WWE feud. And on RAW they can call their titles "WWF Titles" so we don't have to deal with just calling them World and etc type titles. But sadly it will never happen. Don't blame Vince blame the Panda Patrol. (P.S. Blame Vince too for pissing them off.)
It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!
Part of the blame should go to Vince's lawyers, too.
I'm flabbergasted that any legal team (a) allowed themselves to sign that initial agreement in the first place (b) didn't strongly warn McMahon that he was in danger of violating said agreement and (c) Lost the name in such a decisive manner.
Everything I've ever read about trademarking says that there has to be `confusion in the marketplace' about your name in order to make it a legal challenge. Who would ever be confused by a wrestling company and a wildlife concern? And even if some could get confused, how would it cause either company to lose business?
Obviously, none of us were ever privy to the conversations between the two companies (and from what the Torch has reported, lawyers working for the current WWF were a shady bunch), but something somewhere went horribly wrong. The hard-headed Vince McMahon is probably somewhat to blame, but don't discount the awful legal advice he's probably received here.
Outwit! Outlast! OutPredict! The 100% accurate Surviving Series preview edition is now up atInside The Ropes!!!
------------------------------------------------------------ The official Inside The Ropes archive!!!
The conflict was over the international use of WWF. Vince was free to use WWF in North America all he wanted and he still can but he didn't have the rights to use it in at least England and elsewhere internationally.
The name change cost them so little that there was barely even a mention in the annual reports that year.
Well, if the WWE can still use the WWF name/logo here in the US, why is it blurred out on domestic releases?
It is the soldier not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press
It is the soldier not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech
It is the soldier not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate
It is the soldier not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial
It is the soldier, who saluted the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag -Anonymous
11/9/06 Yeah yeah yeah I know, this is over a month old. And with Russo in charge I assume a million things have happened in the last four weeks making the belated report seem even more dated.