Saunders

You realize that EA has a deal with the NCAA as well, right?

I'm not going to spend 4 hours reading through legal garbage to find some person's interpretation (what your definition of "is" is"). I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history. And FYI, I was simply stating that art is in the eye of the beholder, which is certainly the case. Edit: But..... Definition of art from Webster's New World Law Dictionary. art law definition v To utilize knowledge or skill according to rules and principles to create something. n A business, occupation, or pursuit that depends upon a skill. n In patent law, the method, process, or technique for creating something or for achieving a useful result.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/ I don’t know if it is the same lawsuit but it is basically the same thing. If I’m not mistaken Oscar Robertson “made it” in the big leagues. Where did you find a list of former players listed? Different case. Edit: But look at this juicy section. "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." Told you it would happen.

Wikipedia isn't exactly the best resource for a legal definition of art. For that you'll have to go back through case law where "art" has been defined. Websters: a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art Same concept, the source.

Going off of current legalities in broadcast television, no they're not. News media has investigation freedom and freedoms from the first amendment in order to report information. Universities COULD ban the news media from broadcasting a sport, but why would they? ESPN, ABC, athletic departments, etc., all receive benefits from having games broadcast on television. To me, this is completely different than making a video game out of them. You could have stopped right there, because you just made my argument for me. ESPN, ABC, Athletic departments all receive benefits from broadcasting a entertainment sporting even on television. If we ignore all the tv shows, ads, and everything else and just focus the the game being broadcast itself, my point stands easily. The TV networks have to sign contracts with the schools to broadcast the games. Have to. If they just tried taking some cameras in, and sending the feed to ESPN, they would get sued immediately. Why? They aren't broadcasting a game as a news service, they're broadcasting it as entertainment for the purpose of selling a product, advertising space. Billions and billions of dollars in ad space. The schools have licensing agreements with conferences and the NCAA that allows this. EA also has an agreement with the NCAA and schools. They all receive a cut of the revenues. Just like the do from TV money. The problem is, TV is considered a sacred cow, and many people don't want it to consider it as the same thing (which it absolutely is) and so they come up with bs reasoning why it isn't. I've also seen the "a person has a right to their celebrity" as an argument for why EA is wrong. Ok, then the kids also have a right to their "celebrity" being used to sell ads for ESPN and the TV networks. The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case. Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system? It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case. I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it. It depends, do you consider movies art? I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art. art1     [ahrt] Show IPA –noun Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant. I don't care what shallow, one-sentence dictionary definition you throw out there - it's a video game, not art. There's no more art to "NCAA 2011," than to football itself (which is a sport, not art). "NCAA 2011" is a game, just like "Monopoly" or "Yahtzee," or "Hungry Hippos." It is not art. I'm not arguing that it is artistic, but it can definitely be classified as art. There are definitely games that I would consider a work of art. The problem is, it's new medium, and people are stubborn. 80 years ago, you'd be considered nuts for thinking movies were art, and a large majority of sculptures and paintings that pass as art today would be considering trash. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Sam's cut would amount to several hundred dollars, at best. He's not doing this to get rich. I wonder what his lawyers will make if they win this case????? im guessing its more than few hundred dollars. They are just taking Sam along for the ride. Regardless though they are not gonna win this case. Like myself and others have stated, the digital Sam Keller and the real Sam Keller dont match up. Since he is the one of the faces in this case, then I think the jury/judge should start off first by comparing the "real" Sam Keller and the "digital" Sam Keller. When this case is overruled those lawyers will go after somebody else, something like this will never end. They stand to make a boatload... but then again, they are ambulance chasers. http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/settled-cases

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case. Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system? It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case. I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it. It depends, do you consider movies art? I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art. art1     [ahrt] Show IPA –noun Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

NCAA football was the only one to survive because the NCAA has an exclusive licensing agreement with EA. No other company can use the NCAA logo, or the logos of any of the teams in the league. They can't use conferences, schools, bowls, nothing. They could create some alternate universe, but nobody wants to play the game without the real teams, just like nobody wants to play the game without the real players, whether their name is there or not. Trust me, if EA was forced to completely randomize their rosters, there would be no reason to buy a new game. I've played their games, and they don't change in any significant way year to year. It's basically the same scam as the college professor who requires students to buy his textbook, and barely rewrites that textbook every year so that the students always have to buy the new edition. It's a scam. The exclusivity deal was signed before the demise of the basketball series and baseball series. The reason those stopped being made, is because they weren't making money. As for the NCAA football series, it's not perfect, but I enjoy playing it, especially the last 2 versions with Online Dynasty.

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case. Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system? It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case. I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it. It depends, do you consider movies art?

If you read his season recap, you almost feel sorry for the kid. He never had a chance to get into a rhythym anywhere. Had a mediocre game against Iowa State but so did the rest of the team. Not to mention he hadn't played in over a month. He had one dominant possession against K-State that puts Martinez's day into perspective a little more. He played well against Colorado. Early in the season he had a rough time holding onto the ball which is why many on this board probably have so many doubts. Take away those 4-5 fumbles early in the season and you can't really complain with his play. He played ok against ISU, and admirably against CU, but he looked as bad as TM in the bowl game.

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case. Correct, and each person is gonna make about $100 if they are lucky.

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really? Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly. Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No. Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not. If EA ends up having to pay all this money, and they have to pay extra every year, do you think they're gonna keep making something that is no longer profitable? Also, I never said it was dangerous to College football. I said it will affect the way we enjoy the sport through television. You're making a large assumption that it would no longer be profitable. Less profitable doesn't necessarily equal not profitable. You said this: "This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed." That seems to be a broader statement than the way we enjoy CFB through television, doesn't it? My apologies if I am misinterpreting it. College football itself will continue, but if the way we enjoy it (through television) is affected, it will certainly have a negative effect on the sport. While I was a bit hyperbolic in my original statement, the premis remains. Also, while I'm making a large assumption, I've been following the video game industry for years. Nobody is taking chances anymore, and if it's not largely profitable, it's not getting made anymore (see Guitar Hero). Guitar Hero isn't entirely analogous. The problem with Guitar Hero was largely that a slew of imitators saturated the market and each required an expensive proprietary controller. I'm not a huge gamer, but I'm not aware of any other college football games other than EA/NCAA line. It's analogous in that Activision was no longer making gobs of cash. It happens all the time. When the publishers are no longer raking it in, the series gets the axe. It's happened dozens of times. Right now, there is no other CFB game other than EA. 5-6 years ago, there was the 2K series (which in many ways, was better). One other interesting note is that at that time, there were also 3 different NCAA basketball games, and I believe there were 2 NCAA baseball games. So, you had 6-7 games dedicated to college athletics. What happened? They were no longer as profitable, and got the axe. Only NCAA Football by EA survived. If it's no longer deemed profitable enough, it too, will die.

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really? Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly. Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No. Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not. If EA ends up having to pay all this money, and they have to pay extra every year, do you think they're gonna keep making something that is no longer profitable? Also, I never said it was dangerous to College football. I said it will affect the way we enjoy the sport through television. You're making a large assumption that it would no longer be profitable. Less profitable doesn't necessarily equal not profitable. You said this: "This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed." That seems to be a broader statement than the way we enjoy CFB through television, doesn't it? My apologies if I am misinterpreting it. College football itself will continue, but if the way we enjoy it (through television) is affected, it will certainly have a negative effect on the sport. While I was a bit hyperbolic in my original statement, the premis remains. Also, while I'm making a large assumption, I've been following the video game industry for years. Nobody is taking chances anymore, and if it's not largely profitable, it's not getting made anymore (see Guitar Hero).

I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN. As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars. But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting torrents of past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right? I knew I was using the wrong terminology. Thanks for that. Regardless of the term, it's still legally viewed differently than a video game. Some smart lawyer type would have to tell us why. Which means that if you need some smart lawyer to tell you the supposed difference, they're going to be arguing semantics and BS. Logic shows that while the medium is different, the end result is the same. Making money. ESPN is broadcasting the games because they area charity. They're doing it for the cash, which is why they do things like sign billion dollar contracts to have BCS game rights.

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really? Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly. Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No. Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not. If EA ends up having to pay all this money, and they have to pay extra every year, do you think they're gonna keep making something that is no longer profitable? Also, I never said it was dangerous to College football. I said it will affect the way we enjoy the sport through television.

I've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda." Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one. I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN. As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars. But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting links to download past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right?

That's where you'd be mistaken. The reason the pay the player unions is because it's in the contract with those leagues. It allows them to use names, photographic images, and statistics.

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really?

And I sincerely hope it is tossed. And for those thinking I'm crazy about this getting applied to televising CFB games, read this: Ignoring the fact that EA does not use names, they are alleging that it's to solicit and advertise the sale of a game. What do you think ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS, and Versus do? They use actual photo/video footage of real players (not digital models) to solicit the sale of advertisements, to the tune of billions of dollars each year. So if they win, you can count on TV being next. I don't buy it. The video game company creating and expressly selling this likeness is not the same as a live broadcast of the player himself. That said, I would support NCAA athletes getting a cut of the enormous profits that they generate. It seems that everyone can profit from them but themselves. Yes, the education they receive is valuable. That said, why not pay them a flat fee from revenues as well? How is that any different than someone working a part time job for the university while they attend the school? Please explain how it is different? They suit says that EA does it to drive sales of a product. How is it any different than a television company using a kid in a promo for real game that they'll rake in millions in advertising dollars for? A company using a generic digital representation of a player as a bullet point in their marketing is worse than using acutal pictures and video of the real life person? Come on...... You're honestly going to tell me that it's different? Also, I agree that there should be a stipend given to the players, but the problem is due to title IX. From what I've heard said by those arguing for money for players (like Derrick Brooks), there are rules that basically say that you have to spread it equally. TLDR: You gotta pay everyone, or none at all.

And I sincerely hope it is tossed. And for those thinking I'm crazy about this getting applied to televising CFB games, read this: Ignoring the fact that EA does not use names, they are alleging that it's to solicit and advertise the sale of a game. What do you think ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS, and Versus do? They use actual photo/video footage of real players (not digital models) to solicit the sale of advertisements, to the tune of billions of dollars each year. So if they win, you can count on TV being next.

Now we're getting somewhere. The document and allegations contained are full of outright lies. "In reality, however, Electronic Arts with the knowledge, participation and approval of the NCAA and CLC extensively utilizes player names and likenesses." THIS IS A LIE. EA has never used names in their games. NEVER. They don't even have coaches names. So right there, part of the suit is based on a lie. In addition, EA matches the player's skin tone, hair color, and often even a player's hair style, although this last characteristic is highly variable over even a single season." Another LIE. There is no hair color or styles. There isn't even a hair model. If by "matches skin tone" then the mean generic racial features, then yes, that is somewhat correct. Although, TE#81 for us was black, so no go there. As for whether the similarities are coincidental, of course not. It's a ginormous grey area. BUT, in regards to model releases, and using someones likeness for commercial purposes, generic similarities don't matter. So random generic similarities? If not, it's a likeness isn't it? If there isn't a face that matches, it's random. I can take a picture of you on the street, blur/not show your face, and It's perfectly legal. You have yet to address the fact that core parts of this lawsuit are based on outright lies. Is it ok to say something is true, when it is most certainly not the case? Because that's what they are doing. First, no. The absence of a recognizable face does not absolutely bar a likeness claim. Second, your lie is probably an aspect of their claim that EA encourages uploading complete rosters with all player names. The judicial process is supposed to weed out any false claims in the case. As soon as the appeals court releases the opinion we can see which arguments were found to be meritorious and which were found lacking. While a non-recognizable face doesn't completely bar a likeness claim, it's 95% of it. The names is one part, but they're also claiming matching attributes that don't even exist in the game. Do those attributes exist in later versions of the game? If so, it could be true as to a joined party or a basketball game, etc. I didn't think about the hair being in the basketball, but it is possible. Both the baseball and football do not feature this however. But read this section here: The assert that the game matched his facial features both when he was at ASU, and NU which is laughable. I could mug shot it, and put it side by side, you couldn't even argue they were related, let alone the same person. They also say he wore a dark visor, which isn't true at all. He only wore a clear one, but the game only had 1 visor option, a Nike dark one.

Now we're getting somewhere. The document and allegations contained are full of outright lies. "In reality, however, Electronic Arts with the knowledge, participation and approval of the NCAA and CLC extensively utilizes player names and likenesses." THIS IS A LIE. EA has never used names in their games. NEVER. They don't even have coaches names. So right there, part of the suit is based on a lie. In addition, EA matches the player's skin tone, hair color, and often even a player's hair style, although this last characteristic is highly variable over even a single season." Another LIE. There is no hair color or styles. There isn't even a hair model. If by "matches skin tone" then the mean generic racial features, then yes, that is somewhat correct. Although, TE#81 for us was black, so no go there. As for whether the similarities are coincidental, of course not. It's a ginormous grey area. BUT, in regards to model releases, and using someones likeness for commercial purposes, generic similarities don't matter. So random generic similarities? If not, it's a likeness isn't it? If there isn't a face that matches, it's random. I can take a picture of you on the street, blur/not show your face, and It's perfectly legal. You have yet to address the fact that core parts of this lawsuit are based on outright lies. Is it ok to say something is true, when it is most certainly not the case? Because that's what they are doing. First, no. The absence of a recognizable face does not absolutely bar a likeness claim. Second, your lie is probably an aspect of their claim that EA encourages uploading complete rosters with all player names. The judicial process is supposed to weed out any false claims in the case. As soon as the appeals court releases the opinion we can see which arguments were found to be meritorious and which were found lacking. While a non-recognizable face doesn't completely bar a likeness claim, it's 95% of it. The names is one part, but they're also claiming matching attributes that don't even exist in the game.

Now we're getting somewhere. The document and allegations contained are full of outright lies. "In reality, however, Electronic Arts with the knowledge, participation and approval of the NCAA and CLC extensively utilizes player names and likenesses." THIS IS A LIE. EA has never used names in their games. NEVER. They don't even have coaches names. So right there, part of the suit is based on a lie. In addition, EA matches the player's skin tone, hair color, and often even a player's hair style, although this last characteristic is highly variable over even a single season." Another LIE. There is no hair color or styles. There isn't even a hair model. If by "matches skin tone" then the mean generic racial features, then yes, that is somewhat correct. Although, TE#81 for us was black, so no go there. As for whether the similarities are coincidental, of course not. It's a ginormous grey area. BUT, in regards to model releases, and using someones likeness for commercial purposes, generic similarities don't matter. So random generic similarities? If not, it's a likeness isn't it? If there isn't a face that matches, it's random. I can take a picture of you on the street, blur/not show your face, and It's perfectly legal. You have yet to address the fact that core parts of this lawsuit are based on outright lies. Is it ok to say something is true, pass it off as fact and evidence, when it is most certainly not true? Because that's what they are doing.

I agree one 1 and 2. However, on point 3 I will simply ask you this. Do you think that the NCAA is taking advantage of the athletes through television?