Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

Not buying it. It might affect the way football video games are made, but it's not going to change the foundation of the movie-making business, nor is it going to change how we watch college sports on television.

Even if Keller wins (which he already has, and *gasp,* nothing has changed!), a judge in this case is never going to go so far as to rule that college athletes must be paid for appearances on television, or that Richard Nixon can't be alluded to in a movie script. That judge might as well put a bullet in their own career. They'll most likely keep their ruling limited to how video games are created. Then Keller and company can sue the television networks again using the EA case as ammunition if they really feel that strongly about it, but otherwise nothing is going to happen to television.

This case is not going to lead to the end of Hollywood using real-life figures in movies, and it's not going to lead to the end of video games doing so either. 99% of the of the time, cases like these result in minor adjustments, and not wholesale change to the way we experience anything.

Then why do all the major media players feel that this case could lead to that exact possibility? I don't personally think it will go that far, but there are a boatload of media companies that feel it could happen.

"The case will be reviewed tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit and may mean much, much more than just the liability of video game publishers and the economic foundation of collegiate sports in this country. The outcome of the case figures to impact how broadcasters and publishers can speak about or use real-life personalities in creative and commercial endeavors. For that reason, the dispute has attracted a wealth of amicus briefs from big media corporations like Viacom down to growing digital ventures like Gawker Media."

Link

"Although the case has to do with a videogame, Hollywood's studio lobby says that it stands to have an impact on the ability of content creators to include real-life figures in their storylines.
In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for the Motion Picture Assn. of America wrote that the fear is that Wilken's decision "may be used by publicity rights plaintiffs to censor, prohibit or otherwise chill valid creative expression that utilizes names and/or likenesses of public persons."

Link

This isn't something I just pulled out of thin air. I'm just passing on the news.

Fantastic. The Hollywood Reporter says that it may be about more than video games. I'm sold. I mean, I get all of my legal commentary from the Hollywood Reporter, so I think it's fair to go ahead and end the discussion right here right now.

Or we could take a minute to realize that there's a difference between a movie like "Forrest Gump," (which most people watch and appreciate because of the original, creative story, not because there are a couple of allusions to celebrities in it), and "NCAA Football 2011," (which most people only bought because "NCAA Football 2010," didn't have guys like Cam Newton and Taylor Martinez in it).

Next time, you might want to read before posting.

"attorneys for the Motion Picture Assn. of America wrote that the fear is that Wilken's decision "may be used by publicity rights plaintiffs to censor, prohibit or otherwise chill valid creative expression that utilizes names and/or likenesses of public persons."

That's a direct quote from the MPAA, not joe writer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America

But no.... it's just the "Hollywood Reporter" (Even though I posted 2 different sources which both cited the MPAA) being crazy. But since you know more about copyright than the MPAA (even though they and the RIAA were the two largest backers of the DMCA), you should call them and tell them that their fears are bogus, and that it's all good!!!

 

[knapplc]

Saunders, the fact that those other folks are getting involved doesn't mean they think the case has merit or a real chance at winning. It mostly means that they recognize that it's not impossible for this case to win, and they're hedging their bets just in case.

These organizations already all have teams of lawyers on retainer. They have to use these guys somehow.

 

[Saunders]

Saunders, the fact that those other folks are getting involved doesn't mean they think the case has merit or a real chance at winning. It mostly means that they recognize that it's not impossible for this case to win, and they're hedging their bets just in case.

These organizations already all have teams of lawyers on retainer. They have to use these guys somehow.

According to others on this board, Keller has already won. Yet, all I can find is that EA wanted it dismissed before going to trial, and the judge said no. I do agree that it's a longshot, but many assumed the Keller case was a longshot as well considering that Jim Brown filed a similar suit against EA and lost.

Also, I was just pointing out that I wasn't making up as story, nor was it an opinion article by the "Hollywood Reporter." I was only passing along information.

 

[knapplc]

Saunders, the fact that those other folks are getting involved doesn't mean they think the case has merit or a real chance at winning. It mostly means that they recognize that it's not impossible for this case to win, and they're hedging their bets just in case.

These organizations already all have teams of lawyers on retainer. They have to use these guys somehow.

According to others on this board, Keller has already won. Yet, all I can find is that EA wanted it dismissed before going to trial, and the judge said no. I do agree that it's a longshot, but many assumed the Keller case was a longshot as well considering that Jim Brown filed a similar suit against EA and lost.

Also, I was just pointing out that I wasn't making up as story, nor was it an opinion article by the "Hollywood Reporter." I was only passing along information.

They won a battle, not the war. This is going in front of the Supremes, nearly guaranteed. It's a big question.

 

[Saunders]

Saunders, the fact that those other folks are getting involved doesn't mean they think the case has merit or a real chance at winning. It mostly means that they recognize that it's not impossible for this case to win, and they're hedging their bets just in case.

These organizations already all have teams of lawyers on retainer. They have to use these guys somehow.

According to others on this board, Keller has already won. Yet, all I can find is that EA wanted it dismissed before going to trial, and the judge said no. I do agree that it's a longshot, but many assumed the Keller case was a longshot as well considering that Jim Brown filed a similar suit against EA and lost.

Also, I was just pointing out that I wasn't making up as story, nor was it an opinion article by the "Hollywood Reporter." I was only passing along information.

They won a battle, not the war. This is going in front of the Supremes, nearly guaranteed. It's a big question.

That was my understanding as well, but some on here made it sound like a done deal. And I agree this is going to be huge with what happens, and the media giants agree. Should be interesting...

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I still don't buy that this law suit, if successful, will lead to a dramatic, for the worse, way which we watch football games on TV. ESPN and the like have signed deals with conferences and individual schools (i.e. Texas/SEC). For us, the Big Ten has the Big Ten Network. These TV companies are not clueless as to potential downfalls in their companies by law suits such as these so therefore they should already have themselves covered by some clause in the contract.

The video game is a whole different case. The problem I have with this lawsuit is, why now? Players likenesses have been being used in video games for years on end now, so why is it now (3 years ago) that these lawyers/players feel the need to bring this to court? That's what doesn't make sense to me

And does anyone have experience with signing a LOI to play football at the University of (Insert Name here)? If not, then none of us know if those players sign their rights away or if they don't. The fact that the case has gotten this far may prove that they don't, but none of us can be sure that they do. All we have is speculation; opinion based on expertise.

 

[Saunders]

I still don't buy that this law suit, if successful, will lead to a dramatic, for the worse, way which we watch football games on TV. ESPN and the like have signed deals with conferences and individual schools (i.e. Texas/SEC). For us, the Big Ten has the Big Ten Network. These TV companies are not clueless as to potential downfalls in their companies by law suits such as these so therefore they should already have themselves covered by some clause in the contract.

The video game is a whole different case. The problem I have with this lawsuit is, why now? Players likenesses have been being used in video games for years on end now, so why is it now (3 years ago) that these lawyers/players feel the need to bring this to court? That's what doesn't make sense to me

And does anyone have experience with signing a LOI to play football at the University of (Insert Name here)? If not, then none of us know if those players sign their rights away or if they don't. The fact that the case has gotten this far may prove that they don't, but none of us can be sure that they do. All we have is speculation; opinion based on expertise.

That's what we don't know. What we do know is that EA does have a contract with the NCAA. Just like the television networks. The question is not whether TV networks can use a likeness, and EA can't. By rule, the NCAA forbid's any profiteering from a players likeness. And the video game is not a different case completely. It's being cited in the other case that IS going after print, video, and web promotion with athletes likeness. The 2 cases are tied together.

 

[Saunders]

More info via the Associated Press.

Keller's lawsuit has also unexpectedly ballooned into a major First Amendment challenge, prompting Hollywood's largest movie studios and dozens of other interests — from the estates of reggae legend Bob Marley and Nobel laureate John Steinbeck to ESPN and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund — to weigh in on the case.The hearing Tuesday in the historic Spanish Colonial Revival courthouse in Pasadena will focus on a February 2010 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken refusing to grant EA free speech protection and dismiss the lawsuit. EA argues that it uses the players' images to create works of art much in the same way authors, filmmakers and songwriters insert real people in novels, movies and songs....

EA and the NCAA appealed and are joined by the Hollywood studios, media companies and other organizations such as the Comic Book Defense Fund who fear that Wilken's ruling, if allowed to stand, will severely stifle artistic expression....

"Documentarians, biographers, filmmakers, novelists, photographers, songwriters, and many others do exactly what the district court said is not protected: they create expressive works that realistically depict individuals and/or refer to them by their actual names," EA's lawyers wrote in their appeal. Allowing the players' lawsuit to go forward will threaten future movie productions, Motion Picture Association of America wrote in support of EA....

If Keller prevails, many of the myriad lawyers involved in the case and legal scholars following it closely say the case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Keller said in an interview Thursday from Scottsdale, Ariz. where he lives and manages a hotel bar that he never envisioned his complaint becoming so far reaching.

Link

 

[junior4949]

If college athletics unionize, I will quit watching.

 

[Oklahoma Husker]

I still don't buy that this law suit, if successful, will lead to a dramatic, for the worse, way which we watch football games on TV. ESPN and the like have signed deals with conferences and individual schools (i.e. Texas/SEC). For us, the Big Ten has the Big Ten Network. These TV companies are not clueless as to potential downfalls in their companies by law suits such as these so therefore they should already have themselves covered by some clause in the contract.

The video game is a whole different case. The problem I have with this lawsuit is, why now? Players likenesses have been being used in video games for years on end now, so why is it now (3 years ago) that these lawyers/players feel the need to bring this to court? That's what doesn't make sense to me

And does anyone have experience with signing a LOI to play football at the University of (Insert Name here)? If not, then none of us know if those players sign their rights away or if they don't. The fact that the case has gotten this far may prove that they don't, but none of us can be sure that they do. All we have is speculation; opinion based on expertise.

I do have experience signing a LOI to play baseball for University of (insert name here) and all athletes sign a waiver that allows the university, the conference, and the NCAA to use their image. Whether or not it said "for profit" I can't quite remember but is there really any other reason for using the image?

And yes I'm still an NCAA athlete and football players need to worry about money a lot less than baseball players. (In reply to some people saying they struggle with necessities because they don't have the time for a job.) Main reason is they have a scholarship that pays for everything while baseball has 11.5 scholarships to split among 40 or 50 athletes. Almost no baseball players get a 100% scholarship and we still don't have time to get a job so we really struggle with affording necessities.

 

[Sparker]

If college athletics unionize, I will quit watching.

I will quit bathing.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

I think the point is that if you're basing your dislike of this lawsuit on your personal dislike for Sam Keller, then you're missing the point. Whether you like Sam Keller or not is irrelevant to this case.

I think you're both missing my point. It really has nothing to do with Sam Keller. I am basing my dislike of this lawsuit on the fact it is another person looking to get paid. I wish that people could understand that lawsuits like this only cost consumers.

The loss that a company incurs for some moron spilling coffee on them self, or someone falling in the parking lot translates into one thing....higher prices for the consumer. Another ridiculous lawsuit payout that needs to be funded somehow. No different then what EA would have to do.

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

Another Headline for you Carl

 

[Malth]

I think the point is that if you're basing your dislike of this lawsuit on your personal dislike for Sam Keller, then you're missing the point. Whether you like Sam Keller or not is irrelevant to this case.

I think you're both missing my point. It really has nothing to do with Sam Keller. I am basing my dislike of this lawsuit on the fact it is another person looking to get paid. I wish that people could understand that lawsuits like this only cost consumers.

The loss that a company incurs for some moron spilling coffee on them self, or someone falling in the parking lot translates into one thing....higher prices for the consumer. Another ridiculous lawsuit payout that needs to be funded somehow. No different then what EA would have to do.

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

Another Headline for you Carl

I'm pretty sure he meant that tort reform is a drop in the bucket.