Isn't this copyright infringement?

>>18423056 (OP)
Tony should sue

>WWE sends Danielson legal letters demanding he stop doing YES chants
>He does them anyway
>They respond by stealing ROH Phil footage

WWE licensed a bunch of ROH footage years ago when it was owned by sinclair.

>>18423232
This. If it’s on the punk dvd they probably have forever rights to it.

Do they have footage from the summer of 1992 in the vault?

>>18423056 (OP)
So Punk is winning. Thanks for the spoiler Gaytch.

>>18423149
>>WWE sends Danielson legal letters demanding he stop doing YES chants
Worked

>>18423433
Dave said

>>18423424
Next to Owen's fall tapes

>>18423427
punk was always winning. unless seth costs him directly.

>>18423500
dear oh dear

>>18423232
>>18423377
That's not how licensing works though.

>>18423232
>>18423377
Aren't WWE even coming out with an ROH era Punk figure?

>>18423056 (OP)
Phil got his ROH likeness rights back permanently as part of his AEW contract, he's letting WWE use it

>>18423438
He said it because Bryan said it ya mark

>>18423548
there is no one way that licensing works, stop acting like an idiot

>>18423548
You can absolutely license something in perpetuity. Most people don't do it for obvious reasons. But if you're Sinclair and want the cash then it is very possible.

Apparently it's just a photo. I suppose WWE licensed it from another source (i.e. PWI magazine).
If that's the case then they don't need TK's permission for that. Like when AEW used photos of Surfer/Wolfpac Sting for his retirement video package.

>>18423098
tsmt. Please, please, please give me what i want

i wouldn't trust any of you idiots to know anything about ip control when you constantly make the mistake of conflating copyrights and trademarks