Oh no, Dwyane

[Pakuni]

DWade
@DwyaneWade

@NickCannon We are with you✊🏿 Keep leading!

[Hards Alumni]

DWade
@DwyaneWade

@NickCannon We are with you✊🏿 Keep leading!

Depends on the context.  If he is advocating antisemitism then bad.  If he is advocating for Nick Cannon to gain control of the brand he created, then it's fine.

[Pakuni]

Depends on the context.  If he is advocating antisemitism then bad.  If he is advocating for Nick Cannon to gain control of the brand he created, then it's fine.

Eh.
I get that DWade has pretty much attained God status around these parts, and for good reason, but this was a very bad tweet. Which he seems to have recognized, as he has since deleted it.
What does "gain control of the brand he created" even mean?

[Johnny B]

Nick cannon said people with less melanin have a deficiency I mean what is this shi t. Idk I may be misreading somthing

[Warrior2008]

Depends on the context.  If he is advocating antisemitism then bad.  If he is advocating for Nick Cannon to gain control of the brand he created, then it's fine.

Context is irrelevant if you are endorsing someone who said the things Nick Cannon said.   

I love D Wade, but this is a huge PR mistake. Deleting the tweet and apologizing is a good start, but yikes was that dumb.

[Galway Eagle]

Nick cannon said people with less melanin have a deficiency I mean what is this shi t. Idk I may be misreading somthing

Could be talking about vitamin d?

[Hards Alumni]

Eh.
I get that DWade has pretty much attained God status around these parts, and for good reason, but this was a very bad tweet. Which he seems to have recognized, as he has since deleted it.
What does "gain control of the brand he created" even mean?

Cannon went on a rant that he created the "Wild n Out" brand that was worth billions (his words, not mine).  And that Viacom should give it back to him since he created it.

You know, totally rational stuff.

[Pakuni]

Cannon went on a rant that he created the "Wild n Out" brand that was worth billions (his words, not mine).  And that Viacom should give it back to him since he created it.

You know, totally rational stuff.

Just read his comments. Honestly, they're all the more reason for DWade not to publicly support him.
For all I know, they're good friends, and if that were true and Dwyane wanted to offer him support behind the scenes, that's fine.  But publicly stating "We are with you" in the wake of Cannon's comments is not great.
Wonder what Micky Arison might have to say.
Not saying this makes Dwyane a bad guy or anything, just a really bad decision for which he's getting deservedly dragged.

[Pakuni]

Update ...


DWade
@DwyaneWade
I want to clarify my now deleted tweet. I was not supporting or condoning what Nick Cannon specifically said, but I had expressed my support of him owning the content and brand he helped create

[Galway Eagle]

Did Viacom buy out the brand fair and square? I mean you can't get all upset when you made a business decision that you regret later.

[Hards Alumni]

Did Viacom buy out the brand fair and square? I mean you can't get all upset when you made a business decision that you regret later.

IIRC he was an employee and as such has zero right to the brand.  I understand him wanting to deflect and change the narrative, but... yeah, you got your money as an employee of Viacom... so that's your compensation.  You can't just decide that it wasn't enough years later.

[Cfollow]

IIRC he was an employee and as such has zero right to the brand.  I understand him wanting to deflect and change the narrative, but... yeah, you got your money as an employee of Viacom... so that's your compensation.  You can't just decide that it wasn't enough years later.

This is 100% correct. I am so tired of people thinking they own what a corporation payed them to create while they were an employee. News flash: You don't own anything you created while at work.  It's the same thing as these musicians acting like they own their songs. Once you sign that record deal the label owns the song not the artist, very simple concepts.

[🏀]

Cheeks is back!

[Newsdreams]

This is 100% correct. I am so tired of people thinking they own what a corporation payed them to create while they were an employee. News flash: You don't own anything you created while at work.  It's the same thing as these musicians acting like they own their songs. Once you sign that record deal the label owns the song not the artist, very simple concepts.

Totally incorrect.

[Hards Alumni]

Totally incorrect.

Actually totally correct.  If you create something while at work using work resources you don't own it, your employer does.

[brewcity77]

Actually totally correct.  If you create something while at work using work resources you don't own it, your employer does.

I think totally depends would be the actual answer. Depending on the type of work, contracts in place, and past precedent, this would be different in many fields.

[Newsdreams]

Actually totally correct.  If you create something while at work using work resources you don't own it, your employer does.

Courts have determined on many occasions that those contracts are invalid. Plenty of cases to choose from.

[Hards Alumni]

Courts have determined on many occasions that those contracts are invalid. Plenty of cases to choose from.

We were talking generally, of course there are always exceptions.  Usually, when someone has truly been wronged. 

Do you honestly think that Viacom doesn't have an air tight contract with Nick Cannon?  Viacom absolutely owns those copyrights.  This was his attempt to distract from his antisemitic rant.

I think totally depends would be the actual answer. Depending on the type of work, contracts in place, and past precedent, this would be different in many fields.

You're saying there are exceptions to things?  Hot take.   

[palellama]

Courts have determined on many occasions that those contracts are invalid. Plenty of cases to choose from.

There doesn't even need to be a contract in place for your employer to own everything you create relating to the scope of your employment, even if you create it at home with your own resources.  That is the default situation under the Copyright Act.  You can change that via employment contract, but it is exceedingly rare for an employer to agree to a change from the default for an actual employee (frequently agreed to for contractors).

[Pakuni]

You're saying there are exceptions to things?  Hot take.   

These aren't really exceptions, but a recognition that different employees/employers have a wide variety of arrangements when it comes to intellectual property. This is especially true of creatives in the entertainment industry, where there isn't a traditional employee-employer relationship.

[Dawson Rental]

This is 100% correct. I am so tired of people thinking they own what a corporation payed them to create while they were an employee. News flash: You don't own anything you created while at work.  It's the same thing as these musicians acting like they own their songs. Once you sign that record deal the label owns the song not the artist, very simple concepts.

I fully understand your point of view. Having just two boxes (black and white) to put things into greatly simplifies thought by removing annoying nuance.

[Hards Alumni]

These aren't really exceptions, but a recognition that different employees/employers have a wide variety of arrangements when it comes to intellectual property. This is especially true of creatives in the entertainment industry, where there isn't a traditional employee-employer relationship.

Of course, but in the entertainment industry there are usually contracts, no?

[Pakuni]

Of course, but in the entertainment industry there are usually contracts, no?

Of course, but the point is, not every contract is the same.
Some musicians own their masters. Others' masters are owned by the label. Some directors own a share of the rights to their films. Some are held exclusively by the producer/production house. Some authors own the exclusive rights to their books. Sometimes it's the publisher.
These aren't "exceptions." 

[Hards Alumni]

Of course, but the point is, not every contract is the same.
Some musicians own their masters. Others' masters are owned by the label. Some directors own a share of the rights to their films. Some are held exclusively by the producer/production house. Some authors own the exclusive rights to their books. Sometimes it's the publisher.
These aren't "exceptions."

I understand that not all contracts are the same, obviously.

Why would Nick complain that he should have control of his "Wild N Out" brand?  Could it be that he gave up the rights to it, when he agreed to terms with Viacom?

What recourse does he have to regain control of the IP after he has apparently given up the rights to said IP?

[Pakuni]

I understand that not all contracts are the same, obviously.

Why would Nick complain that he should have control of his "Wild N Out" brand?  Could it be that he gave up the rights to it, when he agreed to terms with Viacom?

What recourse does he have to regain control of the IP after he has apparently given up the rights to said IP?

I don't know the specifics of Cannon's contract with Viacom, but I tend to believe you are correct in that this is an attempt to deflect.
I'm speaking less to Cannon's particular situation than the notion that, as Cfollow put it, "You don't own anything you created while at work."