Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Pillman: too much ?

 On 25 Jun 1996, Mark Davenport wrote:
 > 
 > Im curious why are people pissed off that Nash and Hall are using their
 > former gimmicks. But these people don't look twice at Pillman or Vader
 > or Steve Austin using their former gimmicks that were made popular in
 > wcw. Seems like selective reasoning.
 I really don't have a problem with it either way, and indeed wish 
 wrestling was the way it used to be, when a wrestler developed a gimmick 
 over long periods of time, and got a chance to become good at it.  The 
 only difference to me seems that their may be some legal entanglements 
 pertaining to Nash and Hall's gimmicks (i.e. copyrights), which I don't 
 believe are the case with Pillman or Austin's.  (To my knowledge, WCW 
 does not copyright gimmicks, if I am in error upon this, somebody please 
 correct me.)  As for Austin using the same gimmick he did in WCW, I don't 
 see where you get that.  The "Stone Cold" and "Stunning" names could not 
 cause any confusion (even if "Stunning" were copyrighted), and again, I 
 don't believe the name "Steve Austin" is copyrighted (though it is not 
 his real name, and, of course, was not an original WCW name, the name 
 came from the USWA)
 ******************************************************************************
 Travis Cook, The Sexiest MoMutant on Earth
 c594252@showme.missouri.edu
 "Ooh, you're such a ladykiller, super sexy mister,
  I bet you're still there, posing in the mirror."--Lush
                                               
 ******************************************************************************