Saunders

More info via the Associated Press. Link

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.

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...

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.

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 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. 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!!!

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.

Following up on this, there was an additional hearing today, but I haven't seen any relevant info. While searching, it became apparent that this case is larger than sam keller and college football. It's being closely watched by all of the media companies and Hollywood. "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. The case has also split Hollywood, with movie and television studios supporting EA and actors and writers siding with collegiate athletes. Let's examine what each has to say. The MPAA has submitted a amicus brief that looks to safeguard the marketplace of ideas. In its brief, the movie industry points out that filmmakers often take the real world for inspiration to develop characters and scenes based on real-life individuals. Sometimes, it's literal, says the MPAA, such as when Forrest Gump employed archival newsreel footage of prominent public figures to create the backdrop for the title character's fictional encounters. Sometimes, it's representational, such as when Frost/Nixon dramatized journalist David Frost's famous televised interviews with Richard Nixon. And sometimes, it's allusive, such as when Citizen Kane modeled the title character after newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst." Link I had no idea that it was this big.

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school. We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility. The glaring difference being those athletes are paid, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and have the ability to absorb the loss of income. These students do not have that luxury. Although, I suppose, if these suits in some way lead to payment for NCAA players, we could see NFL-style labor disputes and the like. That would suck. And the last part is possible, but as I stated a few posts up, I'm not sure how the logistics would work with Title IX, or how the AD's could afford it.

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school. We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility.

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games. So could ESPN's deal with the SEC and/or Texas. So could conference expansion. So could a lot of things. Bottom line is, there are billions of dollars available for putting live football on my TV. Televised football is not going to stop because one group wants a slice. Likely video games aren't going to stop, either. In fact, an agreement could be reached whereby player likenesses are nearly spot-on in the games, meaning a win/win for everyone. This doesn't have to be Armageddon. It could work out all right. It could work out, and I hope it does. But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible. From what I've heard by those that want to get the players compensation for the money they bring in (like Derrick Brooks), there's a large snag in the the Title IX rules that won't let the schools only pay one group, or sport. Only 14 of the 120 D-1A schools Athletic Departments were in the black last year. If they have to start shelling out more money to every athlete on campus, they're gonna be ruined. So, they'll have to get more from the TV networks, sponsors, and licensees. Well, what are these companies going to do? I doubt they will just absorb these news costs, so this added cost will get passed on to the consumers (fans).

I see the point you are trying to make, but if you had considered what I put further into my post, you would have seen why I think you're wrong. What I'm saying is that broadcasting games on television, in a generic definition, is broadcasting the news. Two teams play and whichever one wins and loses is the subject of the 'news'. Furthermore, you're trying to apply a tag to broadcast television like the NCAA and specific television affiliates only take advantage of NCAA athletes. What about Scripps National Spelling Bee contestants? They're on television and they don't see any of the money Scripps or the convention center they hold it in are making from the television rights. Are they being taken advantage of? Are little league world series participants being taken advantage of? My point is there are SO many examples of people being on television (with television contracts being involved) and those people aren't making squat. This is the ways news has been for decades and it is an accepted part of the way things work. This video game argument, although similar in ways, is still in a completely different ball park. The problem with your argument, is in trying to classify broadcasting a sporting event as news. It's not news, it's entertainment. News agencies don't negotiate contracts to cover a disaster, a shooting, or discussing your local politician. They send their crews there, and just do it. Do you see that happening in CFB games? Not a chance. The schools and conferences negotiate with specific networks to allow them to broadcast the game, for entertainment. Hell, ESPN's name is "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network." Watching sports is entertainment, just like listening to music or watching a movie. That's why they sell tickets, so people can come and enjoy the entertainment. Televising the event is another way of generating revenue.

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

This part is also interesting: "The lawsuit does not question the NCAA’s ability to market current players, but argues that the NCAA should not be able to maintain control over people forever." Link In the Keller case, they are arguing that EA uses current player likenesses to market their product, which the lawsuit states that the NCAA knowingly allows them to do. In the Roberts/O'Bannon case, they are stating that the NCAA markets current player likenesses through media (TV, Web, Print), but it's ok. Yet, the same athletes are involved in both cases. Um, what???

They might be 2 separate cases however they are totally intertwined with each other. The Keller case is referenced in the official complaint filed for Oscar Robertson lawyers. It also mentions Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in one of the sections. Did he already have a complaint going as well. The Robertson case is against the NCAA and EA Sports. Bingo. Both suits happen to have some of the same athletes attached. "The O’Bannon suit, which is progressing through the courts, argued the NCAA “has illegally deprived former student-athletes” from “myriad revenue streams” including “DVDs, video games, memorabilia, photographs, television rebroadcasts and use in advertising.” You can now add trading cards to the list." Link IIRC, Ed O'Bannon was one of the first, if not the first, to hop on the EA lawsuit. He's also involved with this case. You said it yourself Knappic, they aren't going to get much money. So then what? Go after bigger fish. It looks like they've already started the process.

What were my exact words? IF this case wins, CFB is screwed. Did I say at this point in time it is screwed, nope. My statement hinges on the outcome of the case. So no, I did not "say exactly that," at all. Here, read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611 It also links to the case notes. In 5 minutes of reading, it appears this has more legs than the keller case based on perusing the case notes. And hopefully the system in place gives us the right answer, but that's not always the case. The Keller case has already been won. It's more likely to be upheld than tossed if for no other reason than judicial deference. Not sure where you are trying to go with that line of logic. It looks like backpedaling. If I have time at the capitol this afternoon I'll check out the other case. How is proving that you are incorrect "backpedaling?" Unless you are referring to my comments regarding the Roberts case having more legs, it's quite simple. If the Keller case is upheld, then I don't see how the Roberts case doesn't win. It's there in black and white as far as I can tell. It's quite fascinating, and even though I'm no lawyer, I can see how it can easily be applied to televising college athletics. However, what I am unfamiliar with is the verbage in the contract that the athletes sign with the schools. That's a crucial piece of info I can't find.

What were my exact words? IF this case wins, CFB is screwed. Did I say at this point in time it is screwed? Nope. In my clarification, I stated that while the wording may have been hyperbolic, the premise was not. You're claiming I'm "rewriting" history, when I actually never changed my stance, only clarified it. My statement hinges on the outcome of the case. So no, I did not "say exactly that," at all. Here, read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611 It also links to the case notes. In 5 minutes of reading, it appears this has more legs than the keller case based on perusing the case notes. And hopefully the system in place gives us the right answer, but that's not always the case.

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much. Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous). But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this: "George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/ It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought. You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed. Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling. It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know. Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit? I think you missed my point. Would you like me to clarify or would you rather believe that CFB is doomed? You seem extremely attached to that idea so I'm starting to think it's a waste of my time to tell you otherwise. Do I, at this point in time, believe CFB is doomed. No. I've never said that. What I have said, is that it is a real possibility. Believe that something can happen, and something will happen, are different things. BUT, if these cases win and are upheld, do you think that it won't negatively affect the sport, and set a precedent for other lawsuits? I do believe that if these cases win, it will start a landslide effect. Again, do you think the above case has merit?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much. Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous). But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this: "George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/ It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought. You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed. Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling. It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know. Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much. Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous). But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this: "George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/ It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

My apologies. I mistakenly thought you were interested in a sober discussion, not just random angst. Have fun storming the castle. Ah, playing the "high road" card I see? You were obviously not interested in a sober discussion either, hence your dancing around the subject, and "you're wrong" comments, without proving why I am wrong. Common courtesy is that if you are going to correct someone, you show them why they are wrong, not just tell them they are. If you don't do this, then it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about. Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school. In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play. And without athletes, you have no team. FYI, people buy a video game because they want to play as their team (not all, alot of people create their own schools). It applies to both, or neither. So, which is it? And I totally agree with your statement. I could have sworn that Fantasy Football and other teams, the players have to agree before their names can be put on the list to play. But with games, how many covers have a certain players image? For that I believe the person would have a case to sue. But if it is a digital with no name on the back, then this is a waste of tax payers money. For Fantasy sports, they are negotiated with player unions. This allows the use of names, photos, and league statistics. As for players on the cover, only players that have completed their amateur status and have graduated (or left early) are eligible. The players are the cover also sign contracts with EA and get paid handsomely for their an actual photo of them to be used. The current rosters for each team feature generic players, with (mostly) correct numbers and homestates. Those are the most accurate attributes that can be applied to real persons.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using. Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much. What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician. I simply stated you were using an incorrect definition of the term, which you were. Any time you want this tangent to end, you can find the correct definition and speak from an educated position. Or you can keep perpetuating this tangent. I'm using the incorrect definition based on what evidence? Your opinion? Gotcha. I followed up the wikipedia definition with an official webster's one.The same source that is excepted at every university and college in the country. Then you give me the "it's a definition from the spoken common tongue." Uh, written language is an extension of the spoken tongue. It's how we as a species record data. I've provided a correct and accepted definition of what a word can mean. A Fact. Something that is infallible. Until you want to contribute with facts, I suggest you stop trying to derail the thread. We're talking about the keller case, not how many definitions exist for a word.

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school. In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play. And without athletes, you have no team. FYI, people buy a video game because they want to play as their team (not all, alot of people create their own schools). It applies to both, or neither. So, which is it?

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using. Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much. What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using. Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. Contribute to the subject at hand.