[...] couple of very important aspects were overlooked. First, AEW used the footage in a commercial setting, the footage was generated in the UK and is subject to GDPR laws, using security footage for commercial purposes is wide open for legal challenge because they have effectively made money from something they do not own. Secondly, Wembley might claim ownership as it was on private proprerty however for them to allow it to be commercialised they would need subject consent before the data holder (Wembley) could release and monetise or pass rights to a third party for monetisation. From Punk's perspective, his image has been used in a commercial setting without consent or renumeration. He has also been portrayed in a negative light, no obvious right to rebuttal on the same platform has been afforded to him. Should he wish to do so then he persue this for an apology and some 'go away' money as a way of ensuring AEW learn a lesson about breaking laws in other countries because they are too cheap to consult a UK barrister. It's madness really, Tony has access to the Fulham FC legal representation, as its not a footballing matter he'd like have a bill to pay but he still has direct access to legitimate and appropriate legal advice for the given jurisdiction.