Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

I have a couple of opinions I'd like to throw into the mix.

 

1) I almost always side with players in these issues/debates. Why? Because they're the ones making their athletic departments, organizations, owners, etc., all of the millions of dollars in revenue every year. Similar to the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL, the players do the work and the owners reap the benefits. I have no problem with owners wanting to make money, because it's America and that's what we do here. However, I do have a problem with people making more money at the expense of others. Which, from my view point, both the collective bargaining agreement issues right now AND this lawsuit stink of people in position taking advantage of others.

 

2) That said, in relation back to just college football, these players are getting a free education to play a SPORT. Again, a SPORT. In the grand scheme of things, a sport is an extremely trivial subject. An education is far more important. As one poster already suggested, the easiest way to settle this debate is to have players give up the rights to their name, image and likeness while they are members of a NCAA team. I don't think this is how it currently is set up, but I could be wrong. They're already getting a free education and I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

 

3) Lastly, you are absolutely, positively, 100% kidding yourself if you honestly think the NCAA isn't taking advantage of their athletes through the EA sports games. They are. Whether or not the players have a right to earn profits from this is what is up for debate. Not anything else.

 

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?

[carlfense]

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.

So random generic similarities? If not, it's a likeness isn't it?

[Saunders]

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.

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.

[carlfense]

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.

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.

[Saunders]

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.

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.

[carlfense]

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.

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.

[Saunders]

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.

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.

[carlfense]

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.

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.

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

[Saunders]

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

 

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.

[carlfense]

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

 

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. 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?

[Saunders]

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

 

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.

[carlfense]

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

 

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.

Legally speaking, it is different. Painting a picture of someone and publishing it is different than taking their picture and publishing it. Those issues will come up at trial. I don't think I am fully qualified to explain the intricacies of electronic property law. You'd be more than welcome to sit in on lectures at the law school if you are interested. What I do know is that a California ruling on a single type of "likeness" will not result in a snowballing effect that kills college football.

 

People need not run around expecting the sky to fall. College Football, for good or bad, will look largely the same next year, the year after, and the year after...

[Pedro Guerrero]

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. 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?

 

Just think of the millions that Nike and The University of Michigan made off of the Fab Five with the jerseys, shorts, warm-ups, shoot around shirts, socks, shoes, t-shirts, tickets, etc. Sure those guys got free educations while they attended The University but does that equate to the money that was brought in because they attended that school?

[Malth]

Losers like Keller make the lives of everyone else harder. Had he had any talent that translated into a pro football contract, he would have never done this.

 

IMO...This is no different then slipping in a parking lot or spilling coffee on yourself.

 

These lawsuits are now why we have tiny print at the bottom of commercials, mortgage paperwork is 5,000 pages and at every comercial break I have to see something about Mesothelioma.

 

We'll be be paying $125 for Tecmo Bowl shortly. Thanks Sam...Good Luck.

 

This post is 100% bullsh#t. Personal attack, straw man, slippery slope, it has it all.

 

The price of NCAA XX isn't going to increase, and I suspect a big reason a lot of people have a problem with this lawsuit is because they don't want anything to happen to their precious videogame.

 

 

It should be pretty obvious that there's some level of exploitation going on in the NCAA. It's big business and they're making a ton of money, and while the players obviously aren't going to be paid directly for anything, they still have a right to benefit from the profits being made off of them.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I have a couple of opinions I'd like to throw into the mix.

 

1) I almost always side with players in these issues/debates. Why? Because they're the ones making their athletic departments, organizations, owners, etc., all of the millions of dollars in revenue every year. Similar to the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL, the players do the work and the owners reap the benefits. I have no problem with owners wanting to make money, because it's America and that's what we do here. However, I do have a problem with people making more money at the expense of others. Which, from my view point, both the collective bargaining agreement issues right now AND this lawsuit stink of people in position taking advantage of others.

 

2) That said, in relation back to just college football, these players are getting a free education to play a SPORT. Again, a SPORT. In the grand scheme of things, a sport is an extremely trivial subject. An education is far more important. As one poster already suggested, the easiest way to settle this debate is to have players give up the rights to their name, image and likeness while they are members of a NCAA team. I don't think this is how it currently is set up, but I could be wrong. They're already getting a free education and I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

 

3) Lastly, you are absolutely, positively, 100% kidding yourself if you honestly think the NCAA isn't taking advantage of their athletes through the EA sports games. They are. Whether or not the players have a right to earn profits from this is what is up for debate. Not anything else.

 

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 don't think they are taking advantages of the athletes through television. When they advertise games they advertise: Nebraska vs Oklahoma, not Roy Helu Jr vs. DeMarco Murray. They advertise the match-ups of the teams, and although there are star athletes on both sides of the ball for the teams being advertised, the athletes chose to go to the school.

 

 

I'm sure the defense will raise the issue. Then the court/jury will rule on it. If it's frivolous it will very likely get tossed.

 

It's how the judicial system works.

 

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.

 

Again, they advertise teams not players. This is why they won't be able to get to the TVs. The players chose the teams they were going to play for and should've known that if they chose a big time program, they were more than likely going to be advertised as a part of the team whenever a big matchup came around. If they don't want their names to be used, then they should've played for Northwestern Eastern State of Texas Western University