Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[carlfense]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

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.

[Saunders]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

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.

[knapplc]

Ed O’Bannon if I’m not mistaken saved and was responsible with a lot of the money he made playing pro basketball so I believe he is alright financially. He also took the job as a car salesman because if he didn’t do something he was going to lose his family (he started drinking to make up for the loss of basketball).

 

Oscar Robertson is one of the 10 greatest basketball players of all time and he has put his name on this lawsuit as well. Does that throw out the stupid “this is what happens when players don’t make it professionally” argument?

 

People’s panties are in a bunch for two reasons:

 

1. It is Sam Keller and they dislike Same Keller

B. They play the games and are scared that the games will be taken away

Two words: Bing. Go.

[knapplc]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

[carlfense]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

I dabble. I'm far from an expert, that would be AR.

[carlfense]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

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.

Internet tough guy?

[Saunders]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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...

[carlfense]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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.

[knapplc]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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.

[Saunders]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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.

[Husker NoNo]

[carlfense]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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."

[Saunders]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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.

[knapplc]

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.

 

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.

[Saunders]

Huh. The way Carlfense talks, you'd think the guy was a lawyer or involved directly in the legal world or something. Go figure.

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.