Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Hercules]

the guy is a idiot...he's just trying to get millions out of a lawsuit since he couldnt make it in the nfl. Well let alone make a team.

 

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case.

 

Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system?

 

It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case.

 

I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it.

 

It depends, do you consider movies art?

 

I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art.

 

art1    

[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

 

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

 

According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

 

I don't care what shallow, one-sentence dictionary definition you throw out there - it's a video game, not art. There's no more art to "NCAA 2011," than to football itself (which is a sport, not art). "NCAA 2011" is a game, just like "Monopoly" or "Yahtzee," or "Hungry Hippos." It is not art.

[carlfense]

Im far from a legal expert, but I think their is gonna be appeals after appeals on both sides this thing is gonna go on for awhile.

Time wise, it may very well go on for awhile. However, after this appeal they can only appeal to one more court.

[Saunders]

the guy is a idiot...he's just trying to get millions out of a lawsuit since he couldnt make it in the nfl. Well let alone make a team.

 

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case.

 

Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system?

 

It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case.

 

I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it.

 

It depends, do you consider movies art?

 

I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art.

 

art1    

[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

 

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

 

According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

 

I don't care what shallow, one-sentence dictionary definition you throw out there - it's a video game, not art. There's no more art to "NCAA 2011," than to football itself (which is a sport, not art). "NCAA 2011" is a game, just like "Monopoly" or "Yahtzee," or "Hungry Hippos." It is not art.

 

I'm not arguing that it is artistic, but it can definitely be classified as art. There are definitely games that I would consider a work of art. The problem is, it's new medium, and people are stubborn. 80 years ago, you'd be considered nuts for thinking movies were art, and a large majority of sculptures and paintings that pass as art today would be considering trash.

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

[Hercules]

Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system?

 

It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case.

 

I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it.

 

It depends, do you consider movies art?

 

I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art.

 

art1    

[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

 

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

 

According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

 

I don't care what shallow, one-sentence dictionary definition you throw out there - it's a video game, not art. There's no more art to "NCAA 2011," than to football itself (which is a sport, not art). "NCAA 2011" is a game, just like "Monopoly" or "Yahtzee," or "Hungry Hippos." It is not art.

 

I'm not arguing that it is artistic, but it can definitely be classified as art. There are definitely games that I would consider a work of art. The problem is, it's new medium, and people are stubborn. 80 years ago, you'd be considered nuts for thinking movies were art, and a large majority of sculptures and paintings that pass as art today would be considering trash.

 

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I'm not trying to argue that all games are not art. I think some video games are works of art. But NCAA 2011 is not one of them. For example, while I believe films are a legitimate artistic medium, not all films are art. There's a huge artistic gap between, "The Godfather," and "Hannah Montana: The Movie," and that gap is sufficient enough for us to say, "This one is art, and this one is merely an attempt to cash in on a teenager's temporary fame."

 

Is it easy to articulate what is art and what isn't art? No, it's hard, just like it's difficult to define "good music," and "bad music." But that doesn't mean that bad music doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that everything that wants to be considered art can be considered art. Just because it's hard to draw the line doesn't mean that the line can't or shouldn't be drawn. It's just a never-ending debate about where that line should be drawn, and that's a good thing.

[Enhance]

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?

Going off of current legalities in broadcast television, no they're not.

 

News media has investigation freedom and freedoms from the first amendment in order to report information. Universities COULD ban the news media from broadcasting a sport, but why would they? ESPN, ABC, athletic departments, etc., all receive benefits from having games broadcast on television. To me, this is completely different than making a video game out of them.

 

Athletes don't see a dime of that revenue of course because they're athletes. No student athlete can receive 'blah blah blah'...well, you know how that goes.

 

From a broadcasting and news stand point, the press is well within their rights to put these kids on television in any light they want. And how can you argue they're not, to be honest. This would open a can of worms like:

 

1) Should people interviewed on television for basic news reports seek compensation?

2) Does anybody seen on television deserve compensation?

3) Do photographers owe the people they photograph money if said photographer makes thousands off of an image? (The Migrant Mother photograph is the perfect example in this situation.)

 

All of these are ethical issues that people have different opinions on. But, it's too outlandish to suggest broadcast television is taking advantage of athletes when broadcast television does far more than sports.

 

I'm sorry if that sounded a lot like jargon but basically my answer is no, I don't think they are. Then again, I'm a broadcasting student so you can naturally assume where my allegiances lie.

[jsneb83]

the guy is a idiot...he's just trying to get millions out of a lawsuit since he couldnt make it in the nfl. Well let alone make a team.

 

Actually from what i heard, he is trying to setup a trust fund that would be made available for all college players. So its not just about him. Plus there is a good 30 - 60 athletes who have backed him up in this case.

 

Right. They're basically trying to force the NCAA to use the money they make on these games to help the student-athletes that make these games profitable... which in my opinion at least, is what the NCAA should be doing in the first place. Isn't their role to oversee college athletics, and to protect the student athlete? Isn't the reason we don't have a playoff because they think it would exploit student-athletes too much? Isn't this the same NCAA that looked the other way with the Cam Newton controversy because they didn't want TV ratings to plummet and they didn't want TCU threatening the very foundation of their BC$ system?

 

It's ridiculous how much hypocrisy is at play within this case.

 

I still haven't had anyone explain to me how EA's video games are works of art, either, and since that seems to be their main argument right now, I'm looking forward to hearing it.

 

It depends, do you consider movies art?

 

I consider "Forrest Gump" to be a work of art. I don't consider NCAA Football 11 to be a work of art, much like I don't consider a video recap of Nebraska's 1995 National Championship season to be a work of art.

[Blaze1up]

I was looking at the list of players in on this and you'll notice all were hyped thru out college even some were champions but none of them made it in the big leagues.

[Pedro Guerrero]

I was looking at the list of players in on this and you'll notice all were hyped thru out college even some were champions but none of them made it in the big leagues.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

 

I don’t know if it is the same lawsuit but it is basically the same thing. If I’m not mistaken Oscar Robertson “made it” in the big leagues.

 

Where did you find a list of former players listed?

[knapplc]

art1    

[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

 

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

 

According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

 

Wikipedia isn't exactly the best resource for a legal definition of art. For that you'll have to go back through case law where "art" has been defined.

[Saunders]

I agree one 1 and 2. However, on point 3 I will simply ask you this. Do you think that the NCAA is taking advantage of the athletes through television?

Going off of current legalities in broadcast television, no they're not.

 

News media has investigation freedom and freedoms from the first amendment in order to report information. Universities COULD ban the news media from broadcasting a sport, but why would they? ESPN, ABC, athletic departments, etc., all receive benefits from having games broadcast on television. To me, this is completely different than making a video game out of them.

 

You could have stopped right there, because you just made my argument for me. ESPN, ABC, Athletic departments all receive benefits from broadcasting a entertainment sporting even on television. If we ignore all the tv shows, ads, and everything else and just focus the the game being broadcast itself, my point stands easily. The TV networks have to sign contracts with the schools to broadcast the games. Have to. If they just tried taking some cameras in, and sending the feed to ESPN, they would get sued immediately. Why? They aren't broadcasting a game as a news service, they're broadcasting it as entertainment for the purpose of selling a product, advertising space. Billions and billions of dollars in ad space.

 

The schools have licensing agreements with conferences and the NCAA that allows this. EA also has an agreement with the NCAA and schools. They all receive a cut of the revenues. Just like the do from TV money. The problem is, TV is considered a sacred cow, and many people don't want it to consider it as the same thing (which it absolutely is) and so they come up with bs reasoning why it isn't.

 

I've also seen the "a person has a right to their celebrity" as an argument for why EA is wrong. Ok, then the kids also have a right to their "celebrity" being used to sell ads for ESPN and the TV networks.

 

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

[Saunders]

art1    

[ahrt] Show IPA

–noun

 

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

 

According the the definition, it is. Whether or not you ar I agree is if it is "good" art or not is irrelevant.

 

Wikipedia isn't exactly the best resource for a legal definition of art. For that you'll have to go back through case law where "art" has been defined.

 

 

Websters:

 

a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

 

Same concept, the source.

[Saunders]

I was looking at the list of players in on this and you'll notice all were hyped thru out college even some were champions but none of them made it in the big leagues.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

 

I don’t know if it is the same lawsuit but it is basically the same thing. If I’m not mistaken Oscar Robertson “made it” in the big leagues.

 

Where did you find a list of former players listed?

 

Different case.

 

Edit: But look at this juicy section.

 

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

 

 

Told you it would happen.

[knapplc]

Which part of "case law" did you not understand? Websters is not a legal definition.

[Saunders]

Which part of "case law" did you not understand? Websters is not a legal definition.

 

I'm not going to spend 4 hours reading through legal garbage to find some person's interpretation (what your definition of "is" is"). I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history. And FYI, I was simply stating that art is in the eye of the beholder, which is certainly the case.

 

Edit: But.....

 

Definition of art from Webster's New World Law Dictionary.

 

art law definition

v

To utilize knowledge or skill according to rules and principles to create something.

n

A business, occupation, or pursuit that depends upon a skill.

n

In patent law, the method, process, or technique for creating something or for achieving a useful result.

[okaive]

A lot of talk about TV deals going on and us going PPV. The key word in the article was "Unauthorized". Games on the tele are authorized through tv deals and the only way the players might have a case if they are on commercials that they didn't give the go ahead. Other then that, the players wouldn't be able to sue the tv station but would have to sue the conference for signing the deal in the 1st place. Which I am sure there are legal papers somewhere stating if that school is in the conference, then the students give up that right to be on tv while playing a game.