Strange WPT Blurring

[MrMon]

Has anyone else notice some rather strange editing on the WPT this year. As in blurring of the picture. I know they're doing this to eliminate logos, but they're inconsistent at it. Last week on the Aruba show, the low angle shots of the UltimateBet.net logo in the middle of the table were always blurred, but the overhead shots were not. This makes no sense whatsoever. And they put the logo smack in the middle of the table, then blur it and don't mention UltimateBet the whole broadcast? This makes no sense.

Other shows are also constantly blurring or blacking out logos on player's clothing. Does the PGA do this? Or any other sport? It's just tacky and smacks of greed on someone's part. I suspect the players are pretty hacked at this trend and if anyone has any insight on it, I'd love to hear it. If the pros are going to unify around any issue, this might be it.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect the players are pretty hacked at this trend and if anyone has any insight on it, I'd love to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]

think justice department and the threat of seizure or other punitive measures. if in doubt, ponder whether the goverment has ever seized any money paid to the travel channel to run online poker adverstising, perhaps moeny paid by paradise

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else notice some rather strange editing on the WPT this year. As in blurring of the picture. I know they're doing this to eliminate logos, but they're inconsistent at it. Last week on the Aruba show, the low angle shots of the UltimateBet.net logo in the middle of the table were always blurred, but the overhead shots were not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logo on the table was UB.com. The .net logo seen on overhead shots was computer generated and imposed over the actual logo. They can't do this at lower angles, so they just blur it out.

[Trainwreck]

I find it more amusing that ALL the POKER sites advertised during the WPT:

ARE JUST FOR FUN!

With disclaimers: Not a gambling site

LOL! This is the retooled campaign due to laws not allowing them to advertise actual gambling sites in SOME states I think.

>TW<

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the PGA do this?

[/ QUOTE ]
They probably would if the players were wearing logos for cash gambling sites.

Everything that has been blurred out has been a .com reference. The .net URL you saw on the overhead shots was very clearly superimposed and is a loophole since the sites are "play for free" even though the real money tables are only one more mouse click away.

[MrMon]

I agree that a gambling web site could be a problem with the feds, but let's be real here. You're seeing some sites, but not others. They aren't wiping everyone out, just "non-sponsors". If a gambling site put up say UltimateBet, but not UltimateBet.com, would that be a violation? I really don't know, but if UltimateBet is a violation, how is UltimateBet.net not? Like EVERYONE doesn't know what that really means.

There are federal restrictions to consider, yes, but I also suspect exclusive sponsorship has something to do with it. Is AB going to allow someone to wear a Miller hat on the WPT? Again, I have no direct knowledge, but I suspect there's a restriction.

Has anyone who's been on TV at any of these events ever been given a list a restricted logos? I recall someone posting about getting on a WSOP final table and getting their hat replaced, but that's been awhile. I'm curious.

[Zetack]

This talk of loopholes and restrictions is all wrong. There are no explicit laws or regulations against advertising online gambling sites. Most lawyers who've looked at it seem to agree the Justice Department doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Nevertheless, the justice department threatened media outlets with the possibility of prosecution. That was when you saw all the Party Poker adds stop on the WPT. This .net stuff is a way they came up with to reasure to reasure the media outlets, not the result of some astute interpretation of a statute.

Likely they could advertise the heck out of any of the .coms and be alright.

Heck, technically, nobody plays poker at Partypoker.com, that's just a website. On that note has anybody downloaded the software from a .net? Is it any different from what you get at a .com?

--Zetack

[MicroBob]

to my knowledge the dot-net just takes you to a lobby with juust the play-money tables only.

naturally many of the people who see the ads will go to dot-com instead because so many people are used to typing dot-com at the end of the websites.

and those who do go to dot-net sites likely get all kinds of e-mails telling them about a first-deposit bonus over at the dot-com site.




I find the whole dot-net wave of advertising somewhat amusing.

If the dot-com ads ARE illegal (or just not a good idea) then the dot-net ads probably are also.


It would be like Camel Cigarettes running TV ads for their new product Camel Coffee with the same logo and everything.

Cigarette advertising on TV and radio has been illegal in the U.S. since about 1972 i believe. But if Camel wanted to produce a product that is legal to advertise on TV, such as coffee, they certainly wouldn't be able to get away with it. using the same name and logo would be construed as trying to 'get around' the law prohibiting them from advertising their cigarettes via those outlets...and that the TRUE purpose of producing Camel coffee (and keeping the same name/logo) is to give additional exposure to the cigarette brand.



However....the whole dot-net thing DOES help the TV and radio stations comfortability level. If there ARE problems about it in the future then the TV and radio stations can always fall back on the old "well....we are only accepting ads for play-money sites and we have disclaimers that say 'not a gambling site.' We would certainly NEVER want to accept ads that promote any kind of illegal off-shore gambling site Mr. Senator."

something like that anyway.

[MoneyFunnel]

I had a meeting with someone involved with Full Tilt and he said that the .net ads were self imposed to avoid any problem.

Thanks for clearing up the blur. I was thinking UB only paid for the top down camera.

[TransientR]

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more of a stink with the political powers that be over the explosion of poker and online poker in particular. When I read articles in the NY Times about how many kids are taking up NL Hold em and playing for money, you would think the morality police would start moaning about the sin of gambling and the corruption of the young, etc.

I guess the fact that all the major sites are offshore, and there isn't much stomach for going after the thousands of individual players, and that poker is very popular (I'm sure a few of the moral fire breathing types in Congress play the game), has slowed down the "we have to stop this for your own good," crowd.

Frank