Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[carlfense]

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?

Yeah . . . it's big money for everyone except the person who actually performs.

[knapplc]

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've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda."

 

Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one.

[Hercules]

Remember, the judge already ruled that it's clear the games are using the players' likenesses. The judge said it's obvious what the games are doing, that they're imitating real people and that anybody with a brain knows it. That's why Nebraska's starting running back in the 2011 game was #10, and why the top 3 QBs were #5, #17, and #3. Everybody knows what's going on, stop pretending.

 

If you want to debate something actually relevant to the case now, since the judge already ruled in favor of the players with the "likenesses," than debate EA's claim that their games are works of art that use celebrity in the same way that the authors of novels and screenplay writers do.

 

That's total BS in my opinion, but that's where the case is now, that's why that article stated that Hollywood is behind EA and the NCAA.

 

Here's the thing with that argument: EA doesn't even believe it themselves. If they did, they wouldn't be paying player unions for the rights to their likenesses in the professional sports video games.

[Saunders]

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...

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really?

[Saunders]

Here's the thing with that argument: EA doesn't even believe it themselves. If they did, they wouldn't be paying player unions for the rights to their likenesses in the professional sports video games.

That's where you'd be mistaken. The reason the pay the player unions is because it's in the contract with those leagues. It allows them to use names, photographic images, and statistics.

[carlfense]

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...

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really?

Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly.

 

Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No.

 

Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not.

[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?

 

I've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda."

 

Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one.

 

I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN.

 

As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars.

 

But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting links to download past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right?

[Saunders]

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...

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really?

Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly.

 

Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No.

 

Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not.

 

If EA ends up having to pay all this money, and they have to pay extra every year, do you think they're gonna keep making something that is no longer profitable?

 

Also, I never said it was dangerous to College football. I said it will affect the way we enjoy the sport through television.

[knapplc]

I've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda."

 

Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one.

 

I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN.

 

As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars.

 

But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting torrents of past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right?

 

I knew I was using the wrong terminology. Thanks for that. Regardless of the term, it's still legally viewed differently than a video game. Some smart lawyer type would have to tell us why.

[The Dude]

Completely ridiculous. The real Sam Keller wasn't nearly as good a quarterback as the digital player on the video game.

 

Couldn't have been him.

[Saunders]

I've seen games hyped by who plays in them a brazillion times. When Tebow was still playing it was "Tim Tebow leads his Florida Gators against yadda yadda yadda."

 

Still, TV is different than a video game. While the similarities are profound, they are viewed differently than video games. Video games are considered a product, while televising games are viewed as "reporting news." I put that in quotes because that's not 100% accurate, but that's the gist of it. Someone else can do the legwork on that one.

 

I agree on the first part. Hell, last year for the 1st half of the season, it was "Taylor Martinez & The Cornhuskers" all over ESPN.

 

As for the second part, it's not viewed as reporting news, it's viewed as televising entertainment. Television networks purchase the rights to broadcast games with the intention of making money, not as a news reporting service. They also sell video copies of games, which is a product, yet that's ok? I've purchased copies of old games, and I guarantee the players get nothing from it. I own a copy of the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, and I'm sure Tommie Frazier got zero dollars.

 

But if it's just news, then Huskerboard would have no problem with me posting torrents of past games, or links to online broadcasts of live Nebraska sporting events that people stream from their TV's, right?

 

I knew I was using the wrong terminology. Thanks for that. Regardless of the term, it's still legally viewed differently than a video game. Some smart lawyer type would have to tell us why.

 

Which means that if you need some smart lawyer to tell you the supposed difference, they're going to be arguing semantics and BS. Logic shows that while the medium is different, the end result is the same. Making money. ESPN is broadcasting the games because they area charity. They're doing it for the cash, which is why they do things like sign billion dollar contracts to have BCS game rights.

[carlfense]

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...

You don't think it will set a dangerous precedent? Really?

Dangerous for EA's bottom line? Possibly.

 

Dangerous to the availability of football video games? No.

 

Dangerous to the future of college football? Absolutely not.

 

If EA ends up having to pay all this money, and they have to pay extra every year, do you think they're gonna keep making something that is no longer profitable?

 

Also, I never said it was dangerous to College football. I said it will affect the way we enjoy the sport through television.

You're making a large assumption that it would no longer be profitable. Less profitable doesn't necessarily equal not profitable.

 

You said this: "This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed." That seems to be a broader statement than the way we enjoy CFB through television, doesn't it? My apologies if I am misinterpreting it.

[RedNLeader]

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.

[Fuzzy]

At first i really didnt care about this at all.

 

But now, when i start reading it and thinking more about it, i tend to want to start siding with Sam Keller on this issue.

[knapplc]

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.

Sam's cut would amount to several hundred dollars, at best. He's not doing this to get rich.