Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

[Saunders]

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.

I see the point you are trying to make, but if you had considered what I put further into my post, you would have seen why I think you're wrong.

 

What I'm saying is that broadcasting games on television, in a generic definition, is broadcasting the news. Two teams play and whichever one wins and loses is the subject of the 'news'.

 

Furthermore, you're trying to apply a tag to broadcast television like the NCAA and specific television affiliates only take advantage of NCAA athletes. What about Scripps National Spelling Bee contestants? They're on television and they don't see any of the money Scripps or the convention center they hold it in are making from the television rights. Are they being taken advantage of?

 

Are little league world series participants being taken advantage of?

 

My point is there are SO many examples of people being on television (with television contracts being involved) and those people aren't making squat. This is the ways news has been for decades and it is an accepted part of the way things work.

 

This video game argument, although similar in ways, is still in a completely different ball park.

 

The problem with your argument, is in trying to classify broadcasting a sporting event as news. It's not news, it's entertainment. News agencies don't negotiate contracts to cover a disaster, a shooting, or discussing your local politician. They send their crews there, and just do it. Do you see that happening in CFB games? Not a chance. The schools and conferences negotiate with specific networks to allow them to broadcast the game, for entertainment. Hell, ESPN's name is "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network."

 

Watching sports is entertainment, just like listening to music or watching a movie. That's why they sell tickets, so people can come and enjoy the entertainment. Televising the event is another way of generating revenue.

[knapplc]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

So could ESPN's deal with the SEC and/or Texas. So could conference expansion. So could a lot of things. Bottom line is, there are billions of dollars available for putting live football on my TV. Televised football is not going to stop because one group wants a slice.

 

Likely video games aren't going to stop, either. In fact, an agreement could be reached whereby player likenesses are nearly spot-on in the games, meaning a win/win for everyone.

 

This doesn't have to be Armageddon. It could work out all right.

[Saunders]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

So could ESPN's deal with the SEC and/or Texas. So could conference expansion. So could a lot of things. Bottom line is, there are billions of dollars available for putting live football on my TV. Televised football is not going to stop because one group wants a slice.

 

Likely video games aren't going to stop, either. In fact, an agreement could be reached whereby player likenesses are nearly spot-on in the games, meaning a win/win for everyone.

 

This doesn't have to be Armageddon. It could work out all right.

 

It could work out, and I hope it does.

 

But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible.

 

From what I've heard by those that want to get the players compensation for the money they bring in (like Derrick Brooks), there's a large snag in the the Title IX rules that won't let the schools only pay one group, or sport.

 

Only 14 of the 120 D-1A schools Athletic Departments were in the black last year. If they have to start shelling out more money to every athlete on campus, they're gonna be ruined. So, they'll have to get more from the TV networks, sponsors, and licensees. Well, what are these companies going to do? I doubt they will just absorb these news costs, so this added cost will get passed on to the consumers (fans).

[knapplc]

But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible.

 

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school.

[Saunders]

But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible.

 

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school.

We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility.

[knapplc]

But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible.

 

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school.

We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility.

The glaring difference being those athletes are paid, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and have the ability to absorb the loss of income. These students do not have that luxury.

 

Although, I suppose, if these suits in some way lead to payment for NCAA players, we could see NFL-style labor disputes and the like. That would suck.

[Saunders]

But one group can definitely stop it, when that group is the players themselves. I'm not saying they will, because they have alot riding on playing football, but if they decided to, it could be huge. It wouldn't even take all of the players to make a statement either. Just a handful at each school or conference, and it could get ugly. It's a decent amount of speculation on my part, but it's not impossible.

 

Can you think of a scenario where the players would stop football? Even if they unionized, they would still likely lose out on their scholarships, meaning that many of them (most?) would have to leave school.

We've had MLB, NBA, and it looks like an NFL strike. It's not out of the question to assume it could happen in college athletics. I don't see it happening, but it definitely is a possibility.

The glaring difference being those athletes are paid, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and have the ability to absorb the loss of income. These students do not have that luxury.

 

Although, I suppose, if these suits in some way lead to payment for NCAA players, we could see NFL-style labor disputes and the like. That would suck.

 

And the last part is possible, but as I stated a few posts up, I'm not sure how the logistics would work with Title IX, or how the AD's could afford it.

[knapplc]

I don't know if it's even possible, considering the relationship between scholarship athletes and schools. I also don't know if student-athletes couldn't go on strike right now.

 

I'd like to hear from a current student-athlete, though. I presume they'd far rather play and get a few $$$ in their pocket than go through labor negotiations.

[Saunders]

Following up on this, there was an additional hearing today, but I haven't seen any relevant info. While searching, it became apparent that this case is larger than sam keller and college football. It's being closely watched by all of the media companies and Hollywood.

 

"The case will be reviewed tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit and may mean much, much more than just the liability of video game publishers and the economic foundation of collegiate sports in this country. The outcome of the case figures to impact how broadcasters and publishers can speak about or use real-life personalities in creative and commercial endeavors. For that reason, the dispute has attracted a wealth of amicus briefs from big media corporations like Viacom down to growing digital ventures like Gawker Media.

 

The case has also split Hollywood, with movie and television studios supporting EA and actors and writers siding with collegiate athletes.

 

Let's examine what each has to say.

 

The MPAA has submitted a amicus brief that looks to safeguard the marketplace of ideas.

 

In its brief, the movie industry points out that filmmakers often take the real world for inspiration to develop characters and scenes based on real-life individuals. Sometimes, it's literal, says the MPAA, such as when Forrest Gump employed archival newsreel footage of prominent public figures to create the backdrop for the title character's fictional encounters. Sometimes, it's representational, such as when Frost/Nixon dramatized journalist David Frost's famous televised interviews with Richard Nixon. And sometimes, it's allusive, such as when Citizen Kane modeled the title character after newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst."

 

Link

 

I had no idea that it was this big.

[knapplc]

I figured it could get into things like this, but didn't know if it would.

 

Like Keller or not, he's raised (or, allowed himself to be the face of) a tremendously relevant question in today's world.

 

If I had to predict how this will end up, I would presume it'll end well for the video game companies, broadcasters, movie producers and the like. This country was built on industry, and we will protect the industries which pay tax dollars. My guess is some concessions will be given to players, performers and personalities, but in the end the larger slice of the pie will remain in the hands of those who make the show, not the show people. Show persons. Whatever.

[Hercules]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

Not buying it. It might affect the way football video games are made, but it's not going to change the foundation of the movie-making business, nor is it going to change how we watch college sports on television.

 

Even if Keller wins (which he already has, and *gasp,* nothing has changed!), a judge in this case is never going to go so far as to rule that college athletes must be paid for appearances on television, or that Richard Nixon can't be alluded to in a movie script. That judge might as well put a bullet in their own career. They'll most likely keep their ruling limited to how video games are created. Then Keller and company can sue the television networks again using the EA case as ammunition if they really feel that strongly about it, but otherwise nothing is going to happen to television.

 

This case is not going to lead to the end of Hollywood using real-life figures in movies, and it's not going to lead to the end of video games doing so either. 99% of the of the time, cases like these result in minor adjustments, and not wholesale change to the way we experience anything.

[Malth]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

Not buying it. It might affect the way football video games are made, but it's not going to change the foundation of the movie-making business, nor is it going to change how we watch college sports on television.

 

Even if Keller wins (which he already has, and *gasp,* nothing has changed!), a judge in this case is never going to go so far as to rule that college athletes must be paid for appearances on television, or that Richard Nixon can't be alluded to in a movie script. That judge might as well put a bullet in their own career. They'll most likely keep their ruling limited to how video games are created. Then Keller and company can sue the television networks again using the EA case as ammunition if they really feel that strongly about it, but otherwise nothing is going to happen to television.

 

This case is not going to lead to the end of Hollywood using real-life figures in movies, and it's not going to lead to the end of video games doing so either. 99% of the of the time, cases like these result in minor adjustments, and not wholesale change to the way we experience anything.

 

Thank you.

[Saunders]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

Not buying it. It might affect the way football video games are made, but it's not going to change the foundation of the movie-making business, nor is it going to change how we watch college sports on television.

 

Even if Keller wins (which he already has, and *gasp,* nothing has changed!), a judge in this case is never going to go so far as to rule that college athletes must be paid for appearances on television, or that Richard Nixon can't be alluded to in a movie script. That judge might as well put a bullet in their own career. They'll most likely keep their ruling limited to how video games are created. Then Keller and company can sue the television networks again using the EA case as ammunition if they really feel that strongly about it, but otherwise nothing is going to happen to television.

 

This case is not going to lead to the end of Hollywood using real-life figures in movies, and it's not going to lead to the end of video games doing so either. 99% of the of the time, cases like these result in minor adjustments, and not wholesale change to the way we experience anything.

 

Then why do all the major media players feel that this case could lead to that exact possibility? I don't personally think it will go that far, but there are a boatload of media companies that feel it could happen.

 

"The case will be reviewed tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit and may mean much, much more than just the liability of video game publishers and the economic foundation of collegiate sports in this country. The outcome of the case figures to impact how broadcasters and publishers can speak about or use real-life personalities in creative and commercial endeavors. For that reason, the dispute has attracted a wealth of amicus briefs from big media corporations like Viacom down to growing digital ventures like Gawker Media."

 

Link

 

"Although the case has to do with a videogame, Hollywood's studio lobby says that it stands to have an impact on the ability of content creators to include real-life figures in their storylines.

 

In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for the Motion Picture Assn. of America wrote that the fear is that Wilken's decision "may be used by publicity rights plaintiffs to censor, prohibit or otherwise chill valid creative expression that utilizes names and/or likenesses of public persons."

 

Link

 

This isn't something I just pulled out of thin air. I'm just passing on the news.

[Hercules]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

 

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

It may not lead to the end, but it could heavily affect the way we view games.

 

Not buying it. It might affect the way football video games are made, but it's not going to change the foundation of the movie-making business, nor is it going to change how we watch college sports on television.

 

Even if Keller wins (which he already has, and *gasp,* nothing has changed!), a judge in this case is never going to go so far as to rule that college athletes must be paid for appearances on television, or that Richard Nixon can't be alluded to in a movie script. That judge might as well put a bullet in their own career. They'll most likely keep their ruling limited to how video games are created. Then Keller and company can sue the television networks again using the EA case as ammunition if they really feel that strongly about it, but otherwise nothing is going to happen to television.

 

This case is not going to lead to the end of Hollywood using real-life figures in movies, and it's not going to lead to the end of video games doing so either. 99% of the of the time, cases like these result in minor adjustments, and not wholesale change to the way we experience anything.

 

Then why do all the major media players feel that this case could lead to that exact possibility? I don't personally think it will go that far, but there are a boatload of media companies that feel it could happen.

 

"The case will be reviewed tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit and may mean much, much more than just the liability of video game publishers and the economic foundation of collegiate sports in this country. The outcome of the case figures to impact how broadcasters and publishers can speak about or use real-life personalities in creative and commercial endeavors. For that reason, the dispute has attracted a wealth of amicus briefs from big media corporations like Viacom down to growing digital ventures like Gawker Media."

 

Link

 

"Although the case has to do with a videogame, Hollywood's studio lobby says that it stands to have an impact on the ability of content creators to include real-life figures in their storylines.

 

In an amicus brief filed in the case, attorneys for the Motion Picture Assn. of America wrote that the fear is that Wilken's decision "may be used by publicity rights plaintiffs to censor, prohibit or otherwise chill valid creative expression that utilizes names and/or likenesses of public persons."

 

Link

 

This isn't something I just pulled out of thin air. I'm just passing on the news.

 

Fantastic. The Hollywood Reporter says that it may be about more than video games. I'm sold. I mean, I get all of my legal commentary from the Hollywood Reporter, so I think it's fair to go ahead and end the discussion right here right now.

 

Or we could take a minute to realize that there's a difference between a movie like "Forrest Gump," (which most people watch and appreciate because of the original, creative story, not because there are a couple of allusions to celebrities in it), and "NCAA Football 2011," (which most people only bought because "NCAA Football 2010," didn't have guys like Cam Newton and Taylor Martinez in it).