Whats worse is the "Efren vs Keith" match was taped by ESPN, AKA ESPN are the right holders to that video, not Lawman888 or his dad, and Lawman's dad has tacked on Keith vs his buddy
So buyer beware, if you are marketed a Keith vs Efren match that match is a ESPN production. The only thing Lawman's dad actually has rights to is the stuff "At the end of the tape in question", Keith vs Richard Garrison.
Anyone who gets the tape feel free to post the Keith vs Efren match, ESPN taped that, not Lawman888's dad.
as stated in post 19 is bullshit, that video was ESPN's originally.
Reading comprehension is not the issue here, piss poor communication skills are, and those communication skills that lack are all Lawman888's.
Actually this is not true.
ESPN has the rights to the video that THEY made. Anyone else who was also making a video has the rights to the video they made.
Imagine a wedding.
The hired professional photographer retains all rights to the photos he/she takes unless otherwise contractually agreed upon. The photographer has ZERO rights to any of the photos shot by anyone else at the wedding.
Not to be nasty but honestly Celtic, five minutes of reading about copyright law would have given you the correct answer. (yes I am being catty because you are acting like a child in the other thread).
Edit: I am just speaking to the fact of what copyright is. I don't know about the ACTUAL video in question. If it is referring to one that lawman88's father recorded then his father has the rights to that video and not ESPN.
Last edited: