Saunders

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?

I was just going by what was stated in the complaint paperwork. I do know he wore #5 in the Spring though and switched at the beginning of fall camp. So that explains why he was #5 on the game that year and not #9 Ah, I understand. I've been re-reading through the docs (I glanced at them a while back), and I can't believe how much BS is in here. There's so much stuff that's incorrect, or just plain lies. If a jury actually agrees with this case.... they need their heads examined.

NO U.....

I thought the player on the game was a redshirt senior that wore #5 and a black visor like Keller did in Spring ball when the game was being completed. The change to #9 and the clear visor happened after the game had already hit the shelves. Keller never wore a dark visor at NU. EA also normally completes the final touches and sends the GM to press in the beginning of June.

They have negotiated contracts with each league, just like they do the NCAA. EA also has a contract with the NCAA.

Ah. You were a senior quarterback for Nebraska wearing number 9 in 2007? Nope. Neither was Sam Keller. Sam was a (RS) Senior who wore number 5. The player in the game was a Senior who wore #9. In fact, I'd say it looks more like Beau Davis or Joe Ganz than Keller.... Ah, so. He wasn't a senior, he was a REDSHIRT senior. Wonderful. I'd imagine you were one of those people who were disappointed that EA got his number wrong? I couldn't go over to the huskerboard gaming forum and find complaints about EA roster errors, could I? LOL... I've already proven that the following things that you stated as evidence were wrong. Jersey Number Hometown Hair (isn't even in the game) Age personal visor/arm band preference So, because it's a generic white QB from California, Sam has a case? And no, I wasn't mad. Why? Because I edited my own personal roster to be correct as it could, which is entirely legal. Eh. I should have looked into it further. It's his state, not his hometown, etc. The complaint itself is posted. Arguing against me doesn't do anything to diminish the merits or weaknesses of the suit. Quote: "With rare exception, virtually every real-life Division I football or basketball player in the NCAA has a corresponding player in EA games with the same jersey number, and virtually identical height, weight, build, and home state. 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." Let's simplify this: do you argue that the Senior (REDSHIRT!) quarterback's similarities to Sam Keller are entirely coincidental? EA just assigned some random statistics to an entire roster . . . and by pure it happens to coincide with real athlete? Just curious. That's what you seem to be implying with your "that could be me!" argument. 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.

It's not what they're aiming for, because if they were, it would have been tossed. You can't sue a company for allowing a consumer to do something they are legally allowed to do.

Why not?

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U We all pay, one way or another. What exactly would you suggest? Perhaps we should appoint you to decide whether each suit is meritorious before letting the courts have a go at it. These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious. So a woman suing McDonalds for millions because she is dumb and spilled hot coffee on herself is meritorious? Search this forum. There is a lengthy thread about this very topic. I seriously doubt that you know all the facts. Also, the fact that this single case is repeatedly cited as showing the failures of the judicial system is an excellent example of the exceptions proving the rule. (keep in mind that I believe it wasn't an exception. I happen to agree with the jury. knapplc, and many others, disagree.) Of course you do.... aren't you a lawyer? And so your mind is made up . . . without bothering to look into it. Arguing with a closed mind is a waste of anyone's time. Of course you're ignorant about this case . . . aren't you a conservative? LOL.... ignorant. Perhaps you should read up on the "facts" you posted about the sam keller video game character. Go ahead and call me a nazi conservative next. Let's Godwin this bitch up. EDIT: and I have researched the case. It was retarded. It's like suing Mazda because I drive my car too fast, lose control, and crash.

Ah. You were a senior quarterback for Nebraska wearing number 9 in 2007? Nope. Neither was Sam Keller. Sam was a (RS) Senior who wore number 5. The player in the game was a Senior who wore #9. In fact, I'd say it looks more like Beau Davis or Joe Ganz than Keller.... Ah, so. He wasn't a senior, he was a REDSHIRT senior. Wonderful. I'd imagine you were one of those people who were disappointed that EA got his number wrong? I couldn't go over to the huskerboard gaming forum and find complaints about EA roster errors, could I? LOL... I've already proven that the following things that you stated as evidence were wrong. Jersey Number Hometown Hair (isn't even in the game) Age personal visor/arm band preference So, because it's a generic white QB from California, Sam has a case? And no, I wasn't mad. Why? Because I edited my own personal roster to be correct as it could, which is entirely legal.

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U We all pay, one way or another. What exactly would you suggest? Perhaps we should appoint you to decide whether each suit is meritorious before letting the courts have a go at it. These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious. So a woman suing McDonalds for millions because she is dumb and spilled hot coffee on herself is meritorious? Search this forum. There is a lengthy thread about this very topic. I seriously doubt that you know all the facts. Also, the fact that this single case is repeatedly cited as showing the failures of the judicial system is an excellent example of the exceptions proving the rule. (keep in mind that I believe it wasn't an exception. I happen to agree with the jury. knapplc, and many others, disagree.) Of course you do.... aren't you a lawyer?

Ah. You were a senior quarterback for Nebraska wearing number 9 in 2007? Nope. Neither was Sam Keller. Sam was a (RS) Senior who wore number 5. The player in the game was a Senior who wore #9. In fact, I'd say it looks more like Beau Davis or Joe Ganz than Keller....

Which is entirely incorrect. There has been a create a player mode in every sports game for the last 15+ years. They were put in their so you could make the perfect player, yourself, or bozo the clown. They can put it in there, and if a consumer chooses to re-create a real player, they are within their legal right to do so. As a consumer, I can use it how I see fit. If I choose to create a team of OJ Simpson clones, and call them the slashers, so be it. It's my choice, and right as a consumer. It's no different than the record companies raising hell in the early part of the decade when people ripped CD's to play in their MP3 players.

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U We all pay, one way or another. What exactly would you suggest? Perhaps we should appoint you to decide whether each suit is meritorious before letting the courts have a go at it. These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious. So a woman suing McDonalds for millions because she is dumb and spilled hot coffee on herself is meritorious?

3rd sentence in, and they jump the shark. "Electronic Arts also intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing sudden athletes' names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds." This is entirely legal. You cannot prohibit a consumer from making changes to a product for personal use, especially software and video games. Every sports game that I can remember has had a create a player feature, and if a consumer chooses to create a real life player, they are entitled to do so. Perhaps they should have read on up video game modding. Before they had the locker share, people were emailing the roster files and uploading them to websites. It was extremely easy to do, and all EA did was centralize it. It's quite fascinating to see how much BS this is based on. I do have a question for you though. Have you ever played any of the NCAA video games? Yes. I own and occasionally play NCAA 2011. I don't think the issue is the ability for the player to modify a product that he purchased (although this issue is hardly clearcut, ask Sony, Apple, etc.) but rather the ability to upload entire rosters with the names preloaded. I believe this is too far removed from EA for them to be liable but we shall see how the court decides on the issue. Do you think the video game Nebraska quarterback wearing Sam Keller's number, hailing from his home town, sharing the same age, hair color, height, and weight, personal visor/arm brand preference, is an entirely hypothetical person? Or is it just walking as close to the line of being a "likeness" without going over? As for product modification, ask Valve, Bungie, 2K, Blizzard, IW, ID, Bethesda and any of the other major video game makers. It's a losing battle. In fact, they encourage it with MOD tools. All that the big boys can do is send a cease and desist (like Apple and Sony do) and hope the guy doesn't care that much to take it to court. As for the sam keller modelLOL. First, it wasn't the same hometown, they never are. Second, age isn't a tracked stat, nor is hair color. In fact, there isn't even modeled hair, as the generic faces are part of the helmet model (which is why there are no dreadlocks in the game). Third, there was no option for arm bands, and the visor was a black nike one. We are an adidas school. The game. Real life. No armband, no sleeve, wrong number, wrong visor. That looks as much like Keller as it does me. I'm not aruging that it's not a huge grey area, but to say that's a copy of Sam is a stretch.

3rd sentence in, and they jump the shark. "Electronic Arts also intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing sudden athletes' names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds." This is entirely legal. You cannot prohibit a consumer from making changes to a product for personal use, especially software and video games. Every sports game that I can remember has had a create a player feature, and if a consumer chooses to create a real life player, they are entitled to do so. Perhaps they should have read on up video game modding. Before they had the locker share, people were emailing the roster files and uploading them to websites. It was extremely easy to do, and all EA did was centralize it. It's quite fascinating to see how much BS this is based on. I do have a question for you though. Have you ever played any of the NCAA video games?

OK, fair enough. You may just be a crazy internet person, but so am I. There's no shame in that. I also don't think you and Carlfense are that far off, even though a lot of words will be exchanged before that becomes clear. From what I gather you both think this situation goes beyond just EA Sports' game - it's just the level of beyond and the ramifications you're apart on. And I don't think you're all that far apart. Aren't internet discussions fun? So little gray area, so much black-and-white. Lol... sorry if I'm coming across brash. I just get extremely passionate about things sometimes. I love CFB, and I love video games. I'm just afraid that this could be a very slippery slope if for some crazy reason, this case goes forward. From my experience, "likeness" is such a gray area when it comes to commercial advertising, that I just don't see how this case has true merit...

So being involved in one aspect of the legal world automatically means that you know all aspects of the law? I'll make sure to ask my auto mechanic why the company plane has weird AC issues... We were taught to think like lawyers. Given that mindset, the idea that a video game lawsuit will end in the demise of college football doesn't pass the laugh test. And yes, I do know a few things about property and entertainment law as well as a few other fields. Ok, then you would know that this isn't just a "video game lawsuit" then. You would see that it's a lawsuit against EA and the NCAA for profiting from these athletes "likeness" (which is bogus, because I could pick any random 6' 3" guy, and he looks just as much like me as the supposed real life person). Am i correct? This is what could certainly happen. Step 1: This case wins. You then have the other publishers getting tagged (such as 2k) and every NCAA athlete that's competed in Football, basketball, and baseball over the last 18 years is now eligible to sue the NCAA. That's easily 50,000+ athletes. They aren't going to get more than $100 tops. Step 2: Seeing the $$$ in front of their faces, some law firm approaches a group of players (just like they did keller) about filing a suit in regards to the billions and billions made from televising college athletics. What about the boatloads made from jersey sales? I hope that this case gets tossed, but I'm not holding my breath. This is a very slippery slope, and to just dismiss it as a lawsuit about some video game is just plain dumb. I believe you meant your question to be rhetorical but in short, no, you are not correct. The suit was against the video game producer (EA) and the NCAA licensing of that producer for producing a video game image that replicates the college player. It may not seem to you like much of a leap to go from that video game image to a live game broadcast or jersey sales but they are quite different things. It is exactly "just a lawsuit about some video game." It's a lawsuit about the use the names (which aren't in any of the games, and never have been) and likeness for commercial purposes. "Rob Carey of Phoenix, Keller's attorney, contends EA Sports profits from using the names and likenesses of players. The lawsuit would bar EA Sports from using the names and likenesses and seeks undetermined compensation for athletes who have been portrayed in the video games. Keller was Nebraska's starting quarterback in 2007. He transferred from Arizona State in 2006. NCAA bylaws prohibit the use of the names and likenesses of athletes for commercial purposes. NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said in a statement Thursday that the NCAA is confident it will be dismissed from the case." They are suing EA for using "names and likeness" and suing the NCAA for allowing EA to do it.

So being involved in one aspect of the legal world automatically means that you know all aspects of the law? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but please don't be so naive people... Ah, yes. Naive. That would describe me to a T. You've stated that your "expertise" in this field comes from conversations with someone who works for sports media, and another guy in college athletics. I've talked to people in both fields within the past 24 hours. I also work in the legal field. Does that make me more knowledgeable than you, and you the naive one? Or am I still naive because I don't think the sky is falling? Here's a tip - people who don't agree with your assessment aren't automatically naive. They just have a differing opinion. "Naive" is an oft-incorrectly used word. Using it does not bolster your argument. No, a large majority of my "expertise" is the fact that I work in marketing and advertising. I've negotiated model releases, and done commercial and print work. But no, I'm just a crazy internet person. In regards to me calling people naive (not you specifically) I meant it in regards to the thinking that this will only affect a video game.

So being involved in one aspect of the legal world automatically means that you know all aspects of the law? I'll make sure to ask my auto mechanic why the company plane has weird AC issues... We were taught to think like lawyers. Given that mindset, the idea that a video game lawsuit will end in the demise of college football doesn't pass the laugh test. And yes, I do know a few things about property and entertainment law as well as a few other fields. Ok, then you would know that this isn't just a "video game lawsuit" then. You would see that it's a lawsuit against EA and the NCAA for profiting from these athletes "likeness" (which is bogus, because I could pick any random 6' 3" guy, and he looks just as much like me as the supposed real life person). Am i correct? This is what could certainly happen. Step 1: This case wins. You then have the other publishers getting tagged (such as 2k) and every NCAA athlete that's competed in Football, basketball, and baseball over the last 18 years is now eligible to sue the NCAA. That's easily 50,000+ athletes. They aren't going to get more than $100 tops. Step 2: Seeing the $$$ in front of their faces, some law firm approaches a group of players (just like they did keller) about filing a suit in regards to the billions and billions made from televising college athletics. What about the boatloads made from jersey sales? I hope that this case gets tossed, but I'm not holding my breath. This is a very slippery slope, and to just dismiss it as a lawsuit about some video game is just plain dumb.

So being involved in one aspect of the legal world automatically means that you know all aspects of the law? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but please don't be so naive people...

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness. And that's where you would be incorrect. If you can sue a company and file a class action suit for a supposed digital likeness that looks nothing like a the real person, then what do you think is going to happen when someone goes after the billions of dollars made from televising games that show the actual person? The law is not as transitive as you assume. I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by info told to me by someone who works for sports media, and someone heavily who is involved in college athletics. Perhaps you should talk to some entertainment law practitioners rather than media employees. I'll take the word of people who have actual experience in media and business dealings with college athletics than an internet tough guy. Also, while I may not be a lawyer, I work in advertising and marketing media, so I have quite a bit of experience with image releases, and what counts as a likeness. I sure as hell hope I don't have to say I told you so. Just make sure you don't bitch when you end up having to pay out the nose to watch CFB. Good day.

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness. And that's where you would be incorrect. If you can sue a company and file a class action suit for a supposed digital likeness that looks nothing like a the real person, then what do you think is going to happen when someone goes after the billions of dollars made from televising games that show the actual person? The law is not as transitive as you assume. I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by info told to me by someone who works for sports media, and someone heavily who is involved in college athletics.

Sam Keller is a conservative. Oops. Uh, where does it say that? He says it himself. Facebook friends from back when we were partners in Spanish class. His profile is linked above. Ok. I'm not a facebook fan, and you linked to a generic profile page.

3. They aren't burying their head in the sand, and they actually realize that this is so much larger than a "video game." I've had conversations will people heavily involved in college athletics, and in sports media, and make no mistake, this is a very big deal.