Sam Keller sues the NCAA

[knapplc]

The rosters that come ON the platform use the likeness of the student-athletes before 3rd parties ever touch them. They've got position, number, height, weight, build, skin color, physical attributes/skills, even hometown is set so that it resembles a "likeness" to the actual student athlete. Are you really going to tell me that, "QB #3" on Nebraska isn't really Taylor Martinez? Or that "DT #94" isn't Jared Crick? Just because their name isn't on it, or their real picture isn't there? Please.

 

And yes, EA Sports makes minor tweaks to the game each year. Really stupid, meaningless tweaks that don't improve the game whatsoever. They're like the professors who fix a couple typo's in a textbook, create a few new ones, and come out with a whole new edition so that their new students have to buy the new book, and the old students can't sell their old used one back. It's a scam.

 

Also, while you can customize and save rosters, you can't use those rosters in online play. And since right now, every hardcore Nebraska fan wants to use Taylor Martinez in the zone read in online play, the only way they can do that (to my knowledge) is if they have the new game. Rosters ARE the reason people buy the new game every year. Not because EA Sports decided to make the field goal net blow in the wind on kickoffs.

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.

[Hercules]

Sure, give the players compensation, but take away their athletic scholarships. If they can get an academic scholarship great - if not, I hope they can pay the tuition, board, meals, gear, and their weekly stipend with their compensation and not complain. They already get close to $80,000 a year in compensation. If they don't like it, they don't have to play.

 

I don't know where you're getting "$80,000" a year in compensation. I went to UNL, and it doesn't cost $80,000/year to go there. Not even close. I don't think it cost half of that for the whole 4 years. Not even a year at Harvard would cost $80,000.

 

And here's the thing - if they don't play, Nebraska doesn't have a football team. If they don't have a football team, they don't have an athletic department, since football is the sport that pays for all the other sports. Without the athletic department, that's $2 million less or so to the academic side of the university each year. Without the football team, the university doesn't get money for jersey sales, doesn't get TV money, doesn't sell every little blanket or pen or anything with their trademarked logo on it. In fact, the trademarked logo would be worth less than the UNO Mavericks logo.

[Saunders]

The rosters that come ON the platform use the likeness of the student-athletes before 3rd parties ever touch them. They've got position, number, height, weight, build, skin color, physical attributes/skills, even hometown is set so that it resembles a "likeness" to the actual student athlete. Are you really going to tell me that, "QB #3" on Nebraska isn't really Taylor Martinez? Or that "DT #94" isn't Jared Crick? Just because their name isn't on it, or their real picture isn't there? Please.

 

And yes, EA Sports makes minor tweaks to the game each year. Really stupid, meaningless tweaks that don't improve the game whatsoever. They're like the professors who fix a couple typo's in a textbook, create a few new ones, and come out with a whole new edition so that their new students have to buy the new book, and the old students can't sell their old used one back. It's a scam.

 

Also, while you can customize and save rosters, you can't use those rosters in online play. And since right now, every hardcore Nebraska fan wants to use Taylor Martinez in the zone read in online play, the only way they can do that (to my knowledge) is if they have the new game. Rosters ARE the reason people buy the new game every year. Not because EA Sports decided to make the field goal net blow in the wind on kickoffs.

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?

[Saunders]

If all that matters is whether their picture is being used, or their name, than the term we use to discuss it shouldn't be "likeness." A "likeness" refers to a resemblance, something that's very much like the real thing, but not actually it. That IS what EA Sports is using.

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.

[knapplc]

The rosters that come ON the platform use the likeness of the student-athletes before 3rd parties ever touch them. They've got position, number, height, weight, build, skin color, physical attributes/skills, even hometown is set so that it resembles a "likeness" to the actual student athlete. Are you really going to tell me that, "QB #3" on Nebraska isn't really Taylor Martinez? Or that "DT #94" isn't Jared Crick? Just because their name isn't on it, or their real picture isn't there? Please.

 

And yes, EA Sports makes minor tweaks to the game each year. Really stupid, meaningless tweaks that don't improve the game whatsoever. They're like the professors who fix a couple typo's in a textbook, create a few new ones, and come out with a whole new edition so that their new students have to buy the new book, and the old students can't sell their old used one back. It's a scam.

 

Also, while you can customize and save rosters, you can't use those rosters in online play. And since right now, every hardcore Nebraska fan wants to use Taylor Martinez in the zone read in online play, the only way they can do that (to my knowledge) is if they have the new game. Rosters ARE the reason people buy the new game every year. Not because EA Sports decided to make the field goal net blow in the wind on kickoffs.

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?

[th3r0m]

I have not seen the exact wording in the contracts that NCAA athletes sign, but signing the contract and allowing the NCAA and University to use their likeness in signage, promotions, etc is much different than allowing the NCAA to license your likeness to third-party companies for profit (for the the NCAA and EA in this case). I believe that this would be the area that Keller and his lawyers would likely target and build their case on. The judge who allowed the case to go forward obviously (at least I hope) looked over the contract and found the legalese governing player likenesses and their usage ambiguous enough that he felt Keller's case had sufficient merit to go to trial. Whether or not he'll win... who knows - I think that if the players likenesses are being used outside of what is NCAA is allowed to do according to their contract then the players should be compensated though, just like anyone else whose likeness is used to promote something. One thing is for sure though, you can bet the NCAA is reviewing/changing their contract to make sure this is a non-issue in the future.

[sd'sker]

i do not understand why they can not just create a trust for players and then pay them upon graduation? that way, they are not getting paid to play, but they will be fairly compensated upon graduation. bottom line, they deserve to be compensated by the universities, the conferences, television networks, apparel companies, and television networks.

[Never Skerd']

I'm with the players on this one. Colleges and the NCAA are out of control with their money and need to be sued. Overall, the NCAA needs to be dismantled.

What was the report I read a couple years back, a man audited 2% of UNL's spending and found that there was a 98% fraudulent spending? Wow! Take that into the entire 100% budget! and they have the tenacity to raise tuition? Someone needs to step in and put the PUBLIC back into PUBLIC universities.

there is no Accountability.

 

So then what? Stop making the games, maybe pay the players, hmm would like to see the outcome of that. Was it Rose who wanted a percent of the money from the sales of "his" jerseys to go into a fund that would be paid out once he graduated, good thing they were paying him on the side, pour thing must of almost starved to death.

 

Also what does the Athletic Department have to do with tuition? Last I checked the athletic department was independent from the rest of the college.

 

I would think many of these kids find it neat to have some "likeness" of theirs in a video game. This is there flash in the pan moment, before going on to a job outside the lime light.

 

98% fraudulent, please post a link.

First- I love how people flip out about these guys case.

yet when the school wants some more money for tickets or tuition, it is just pushed to the side.

Its just for the better cause, right guys?

 

 

Stop making the games in the likeness of the players, yes. Open the market up to other game developers-void any income with the NCAA or the colleges? Yes. Pay the players? I think it is fair. Is it fair to charge 85,000 fans $56 to watch a game vs WKU? If you think that is fair, well then I guess that is your opinion.

The athletic department is a department. See in the name?

You can think all you want, 9 of them do not think it is neat. If you invent something and I invent something in its likeness, am I in the wrong? how is it any different?

Oh and here are your links, these are just 2 of them, I read the actual article in the paper years ago.

http://www.kmtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=11410804

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/67083857.html

The bottom line- is my hard earned money is being wasted, and these guys think they need to raise tuition? Sorry- people need fired.

[sd'sker]

I'm with the players on this one. Colleges and the NCAA are out of control with their money and need to be sued. Overall, the NCAA needs to be dismantled.

What was the report I read a couple years back, a man audited 2% of UNL's spending and found that there was a 98% fraudulent spending? Wow! Take that into the entire 100% budget! and they have the tenacity to raise tuition? Someone needs to step in and put the PUBLIC back into PUBLIC universities.

there is no Accountability.

 

So then what? Stop making the games, maybe pay the players, hmm would like to see the outcome of that. Was it Rose who wanted a percent of the money from the sales of "his" jerseys to go into a fund that would be paid out once he graduated, good thing they were paying him on the side, pour thing must of almost starved to death.

 

Also what does the Athletic Department have to do with tuition? Last I checked the athletic department was independent from the rest of the college.

 

I would think many of these kids find it neat to have some "likeness" of theirs in a video game. This is there flash in the pan moment, before going on to a job outside the lime light.

 

98% fraudulent, please post a link.

First- I love how people flip out about these guys case.

yet when the school wants some more money for tickets or tuition, it is just pushed to the side.

Its just for the better cause, right guys?

 

 

Stop making the games in the likeness of the players, yes. Open the market up to other game developers-void any income with the NCAA or the colleges? Yes. Pay the players? I think it is fair. Is it fair to charge 85,000 fans $56 to watch a game vs WKU? If you think that is fair, well then I guess that is your opinion.

The athletic department is a department. See in the name?

You can think all you want, 9 of them do not think it is neat. If you invent something and I invent something in its likeness, am I in the wrong? how is it any different?

Oh and here are your links, these are just 2 of them, I read the actual article in the paper years ago.

http://www.kmtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=11410804

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/67083857.html

The bottom line- is my hard earned money is being wasted, and these guys think they need to raise tuition? Sorry- people need fired.

i do think football players should be paid. and doe not some students get paid beyond room, board, tuition, and books to go to school? they do, i have friends who received stipends to get to a school because of their academic excellence. well why not for athletic excellence? it is all the exploitation of student athletes; ea sports, espn, apparel companies, and universities. karl marx would be spinning in his grave if he was not sharing it with a dozen other communists.

[Hercules]

If all that matters is whether their picture is being used, or their name, than the term we use to discuss it shouldn't be "likeness." A "likeness" refers to a resemblance, something that's very much like the real thing, but not actually it. That IS what EA Sports is using.

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.

[Saunders]

If all that matters is whether their picture is being used, or their name, than the term we use to discuss it shouldn't be "likeness." A "likeness" refers to a resemblance, something that's very much like the real thing, but not actually it. That IS what EA Sports is using.

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.

[Saunders]

The rosters that come ON the platform use the likeness of the student-athletes before 3rd parties ever touch them. They've got position, number, height, weight, build, skin color, physical attributes/skills, even hometown is set so that it resembles a "likeness" to the actual student athlete. Are you really going to tell me that, "QB #3" on Nebraska isn't really Taylor Martinez? Or that "DT #94" isn't Jared Crick? Just because their name isn't on it, or their real picture isn't there? Please.

 

And yes, EA Sports makes minor tweaks to the game each year. Really stupid, meaningless tweaks that don't improve the game whatsoever. They're like the professors who fix a couple typo's in a textbook, create a few new ones, and come out with a whole new edition so that their new students have to buy the new book, and the old students can't sell their old used one back. It's a scam.

 

Also, while you can customize and save rosters, you can't use those rosters in online play. And since right now, every hardcore Nebraska fan wants to use Taylor Martinez in the zone read in online play, the only way they can do that (to my knowledge) is if they have the new game. Rosters ARE the reason people buy the new game every year. Not because EA Sports decided to make the field goal net blow in the wind on kickoffs.

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.

[Saunders]

I have not seen the exact wording in the contracts that NCAA athletes sign, but signing the contract and allowing the NCAA and University to use their likeness in signage, promotions, etc is much different than allowing the NCAA to license your likeness to third-party companies for profit (for the the NCAA and EA in this case). I believe that this would be the area that Keller and his lawyers would likely target and build their case on. The judge who allowed the case to go forward obviously (at least I hope) looked over the contract and found the legalese governing player likenesses and their usage ambiguous enough that he felt Keller's case had sufficient merit to go to trial. Whether or not he'll win... who knows - I think that if the players likenesses are being used outside of what is NCAA is allowed to do according to their contract then the players should be compensated though, just like anyone else whose likeness is used to promote something. One thing is for sure though, you can bet the NCAA is reviewing/changing their contract to make sure this is a non-issue in the future.

Like the television networks?

[knapplc]

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.

 

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.

[Saunders]

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.

 

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.