Saunders

Lol.... you just described corporate America. No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles. Um, that's also corporate America. Your description perfectly aligns with large companies like Walmart, Nike, and Chevrolet. Individual workers do most of the actual work, and yet, compared to corporate officers, and the company's overall profits, their compensation pales in comparison. The funniest thing about all of your arguments is that you're not saying what EA sports is doing is right, you're just citing more and more examples of others doing wrong. You may not like the "two wrongs don't make a right" answer, but it's the correct answer. That's the problem. I don't agree with the NCAA profit sharing, but most people don't realize how big this is. This will completely change the way that we as fans view college football. We will bear the increased costs, not the companies involved. And in the end, players may see $5 if they're lucky.

I never said I was a legal expert, only that I dealt in these type of situations quite a bit. Does that make me an "expert" on the subject, no. Call me crazy, but I generally trust someone who has real world working knowledge in a related subject over someone who just google searched something. I know about the O'Bannon part as well. That's why this lawsuit is so dangerous. It's not going to just affect some video games, because the players may see $5 if they're lucky. EA will just make the rosters even more generic, and the fans will continue to tweak them, just like always. The issue will be that we, the fans, are going to bear the brunt of any lawsuit damages. It may not happen overnight, but the cost will be passed down to us.

Lol.... you just described corporate America. No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles. Um, that's also corporate America. Your description perfectly aligns with large companies like Walmart, Nike, and Chevrolet. Individual workers do most of the actual work, and yet, compared to corporate officers, and the company's overall profits, their compensation pales in comparison.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible. yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least. Um, what? The "benefits" you are describing are something circumstantial that can't be quantified. However, tangible benefits like money do matter. Unless you think millions are more than billions.

I just realized something on the way home. There's already a precedent for this case, and based on the past, I think EA realizes they won't have any problems. Roster Guard. For years, Michael Jordan wouldn't sign the contract to allow his image/name to be used in video games. How did the game companies work around that? With a generic player called Roster Guard. NBA Live, NBA Jam, and NBA Shootout (games that I remember playing) all did it. Generally "Roster Guard" was a 6' 5" or 6' 6" black player who played shooting guard for the Chicago Bulls. Sometimes he wore #23, sometimes he didn't. Sometimes he was left handed, and sometimes he was left handed. Either way, his skillset matched MJ's, and we would always tweak whatever changes we needed to make it the perfect MJ.

Wow, are you really that interested in arguing just for the sake of argument that you're going to cite a DISSENT that has almost no legal significance? Just because you and the dissent think "the panel didn't know the laws," IT IS THE LAW. Your legal opinion carries the same weight as the dissent's. Zero. Regardless, I didn't reference the Vanna White case for its holding. I referenced the case because it identifies and distinguishes different causes of action including the Lanham Act and the Right of Publicity, so anyone interested in this issue could learn about it. Then, you go and try to crap on what I said with a dissent and quote a piece of it regarding the "parody" exception to copyright which has NO SIGNIFICANCE to the current facts at issue. Do you really think EA is trying to parody Sam Keller, or are you just trying to be argumentative? I'm trying to add something constructive to a conversation I actually know something about. You can take it for what it's worth, but please don't diminish it with irrelevant, argumentative replies. I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing" at all. It's a huuuuuuuuuge gray area, with multiple viewpoints, most of which aren't thought out. I'm sick of the BS and hypocritical stances being taken by the "fans" of college football. The common theme is this: "How dare EA make money off the player images, shut them down!!!" Cool, let's shut down the televising of games, because they're making money off of actual player images, not digital "likenesses." "No..... uh.... that's different." I've seen this same thing over, and over, and over. It's sickening. It's ok to "champion" for the players..... as long as it doesn't affect you.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

Lol.... you just described corporate America.

This is only true for misappropriation. Unfortunately for EA, and you if you ever happen to take the wrong person's picture, there are other causes of action that DO NOT require a face. Most applicable here are the Right of Publicity and the Lanham Act. All three causes of action are explained and distinguished in the case of White v Samsung Electronics America, where an advertisement used a robotic Vanna White without her permission. Anyone interested should read it. I especially like this bit of reasoning offered by Judge Goodwin: "Consider a hypothetical advertisement which depicts a mechanical robot with male features, an African-American complexion, and a bald head. The robot is wearing black hightop Air Jordan basketball sneakers, and a red basketball uniform with black trim, baggy shorts, and the number 23 (though not revealing "Bulls" or "Jordan" lettering). The ad depicts the robot dunking a basketball one-handed, stiff-armed, legs extended like open scissors, and tongue hanging out. Now envision that this ad is run on television during professional basketball games. Considered individually, the robot’s physical attributes, its dress, and its stance tell us little. Taken together, they lead to the only conclusion that any sports viewer who has registered a discernible pulse in the past five years would reach: the ad is about Michael Jordan." "The panel, however, does more than misinterpret California law: By refusing to recognize a parody exception to the right of publicity, the panel directly contradicts the federal Copyright Act. Samsung didn't merely parody Vanna White. It parodied Vanna White appearing in "Wheel of Fortune," a copyrighted television show, and parodies of copyrighted works are governed by federal copyright law. Copyright law specifically gives the world at large the right to make "fair use" parodies, parodies that don't borrow too much of the original. Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 435 (9th Cir. 1986). Federal copyright law also gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to create (or license the creation of) derivative works, which include parodies that borrow too much to qualify as "fair use." SeeAcuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell, 972 F.2d 1429, 1434-35 (6th Cir. 1992). n24 When Mel Brooks, for instance, decided to parodyStar Wars, he  [*1518] had two options: He could have stuck with his fair use rights under 17 U.S.C. 107, or he could have gotten a license to make a derivative work [**20] under 17 U.S.C. 106(B) from the holder of the Star Wars copyright. To be safe, he probably did the latter, but once he did, he was guaranteed a perfect right to make his movie. n25 The majority's decision decimates this federal scheme. It's impossible to parody a movie or a TV show without at the same time "evoking" the "identities" of the actors. n26 You can't have a mock Star Wars without a mock Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia, which in turn means a mock Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and [**21] Carrie Fisher. You can't have a mock Batmancommercial without a mock Batman, which means someone emulating the mannerisms of Adam West or Michael Keaton. See Carlos V. Lozano, West Loses Lawsuit over Batman TV Commercial, L.A. Times, Jan. 18, 1990, at B3 (describing Adam West's right of publicity lawsuit over a commercial produced under license from DC Comics, owner of the Batman copyright). n27 The public's right to make a fair use parody and the copyright owner's right to license a derivative work are useless if the parodist is held hostage by every actor whose "identity" he might need to "appropriate."" Link tl;dr : You example was severely criticized because there were numerous instances of similar things happening over and over. It was a cash grab, and the panel didn't know the laws.

Yeah - they really didn't question Nebraska selling the jerseys, it really was more should AJ Green been punished andeven a little talk in there about paying players. They make a good point, kinda. Honestly don't see an issue with AJ Green selling his jersey for a Spring Break trip. It was his jersey wasn't it? Yeah. But he sold it to an agent. That was the rub. According to NCAA rules, it doesn't matter if he sold it to his brother. He can't sell it at all.

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter. that is absolutely not true. they are misappropriating their image and likeness, it is a defamation issue. and the general public knows who they are referencing. It absolutely is true. I work in marketing as a graphic designer and I also do quite a bit of video work. Needless to say, I deal with these type of issues on a weekly basis. This is not "defamation" issue here, at all. If you were to present a lineup of the digital player models next to a group of the represented players, and have a group of people try to match who is who, I would be none get it right. Why? Because the faces are never close. If you want to talk real exploitation though, let's talk about the TV networks. but their numbers, positions, and other representative factors are quite similar. defamation is a broad tort, involving misappropriation. here is a little outline of misappropriation: MISAPPROPRIATION FOR COMMERCIAL BENEFIT • APPROPRIATING • THE NAME OR LIKENESS OF PLAINTIFF • P must demonstrate that there is a unique quality or value in his likeness that if appropriated, would result in commercial profit to the defendant. • FOR DEFENDANT’S OWN USE OR BENEFIT • WITHOUT PERMISSION • CAUSING INJURY (P could benefit from this, but D has taken the opportunity away from him) Defenses to misappropriation • no injury • consent • P already completely publicized his own name and pictures • legitimate public interest (a/k/a newsworthy privilege) There's your key word. A face is all that matters, period. It's the same reason why I can take a picture of people walking down the street to use in an advertisement, and as long as I don't show their faces, I owe them nothing. It's simply the way it is. Again, I ask. If the games were to stop being made, in order to prevent EA from making money off of a digital "likeness" of the players, would you also be ok with not watching College Football on TV?

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter. that is absolutely not true. they are misappropriating their image and likeness, it is a defamation issue. and the general public knows who they are referencing. It absolutely is true. I work in marketing as a graphic designer and I also do quite a bit of video work. Needless to say, I deal with these type of issues on a weekly basis. This is not "defamation" issue here, at all. If you were to present a lineup of the digital player models next to a group of the represented players, and have a group of people try to match who is who, I would bet none get it right. Why? Because the faces are never close to the real thing. If you want to talk real exploitation though, let's talk about the TV networks.

Luckily for this conversation, my reaction is not knee-jerk. It is a well-reasoned, dispassionate conclusion that a gaming company has less right to profit off the hard work of these players than these players do. And I have long held the belief that these guys are getting screwed, and not just by the games people. So you have no problem with going after EA and the TV networks then, correct? Because that's the whole point. To say one is bad, and the other is ok (which is quite often what people say) is severely hypocritical. And I do think that the players deserve a stipend, but figuring out how much is a whole different issue.

Like the television networks?

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences. The simple answer to that is "two wrongs don't make a right." The players are still exploited, you're just citing examples of other ways they're being exploited. So, you would be ok with not watching Nebraska football on TV, as long as the athletes weren't being "exploited" in a video game? I appreciate the melodramatic humor, but it's far simpler to allow the players a stipend than to nuke the entire college football system, no? And I completely agree. I'm not arguing for or against whether the players get money, at all. What I'm arguing against is the knee jerk reaction people make in regards to this issue. Reaction: "ZOMG, EA IS PROFITING FROM THE PLAYERS IMAGES!!!!!" My Response: "So what? It pales in comparison to the billions and billions made by the TV networks. If you're going to go after EA, then you have to go after ABC/ESPN/FSN, because they're making waaaaaaaay more money. They're also using actual photo and video footage of players, not generic digital representations." Nobody seems to think that part through.

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter. If what I'm arguing wouldn't hold up in the court of law, then the law is written poorly. EA Sports is using the likeness of student athletes, whether their name/picture is there or not. What EA sports is doing in terms of claiming that their rosters aren't subject to copyright issues or whatever in regards to player likenesses, is roughly the music equivalent of taking a song, word for word and note for note, transposing it up a half step, changing the title, and then claiming that it is a different song not subject to copyright lawsuits. It's BS. Welcome to business 101.

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter.

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences. The simple answer to that is "two wrongs don't make a right." The players are still exploited, you're just citing examples of other ways they're being exploited. So, you would be ok with not watching Nebraska football on TV, as long as the athletes weren't being "exploited" in a video game?

AJ Green got suspended for selling his jersey and we are auctioning off game-worn jerseys without the names on them, and they were probably whining about it. They weren't whining about it. They asked if it was hypocritical.

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences.

BINGO. They (wrong) argument I hear all the time in support of Sam (get a job) Keller, is that these are digital "likeness" representations. The problem is, the people making this argument haven't even played, or seen the game. Sure some of the statistics may be close, but facial features aren't even close, and quite often, they aren't even the correct skin color. Last year, HB #19 (Quentin Castille) was white, and TE #81 (Ben Cotton) was black. The more pertinent question is "Does the game try to match the players actually on the team?" I have and do play the game, and the players are usually the correct listed height, weight, number, and skin color of the actual players. Using a couple examples, which could easily be mistakes by the programmers, does not refute the argument. And arguing the facial features is pretty weak in a game where the players wear helmets and facemasks. You do realize that in getting things like image releases signed (You know, contractions that allow someone to make a profit using your image), the only thing that matters is if you see someones face, right? Facial recognition is the difference in getting sued or not.

BINGO. They (wrong) argument I hear all the time in support of Sam (get a job) Keller, is that these are digital "likeness" representations. The problem is, the people making this argument haven't even played, or seen the game. Sure some of the statistics may be close, but facial features aren't even close, and quite often, they aren't even the correct skin color. Last year, HB #19 (Quentin Castille) was white, and TE #81 (Ben Cotton) was black.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/46743-blackshirt-sighting/

Will Compton will also receive one when he gets back.

Miami of Ohio hasn't played VT. They played the gaytors in week 1. http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks