Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[huskerscott]

Boo hoo! What a cry baby. Seriously, he did not mind having is 'image' on the game when he was somebody at ASU/NU (not that he was ever anybody here). Now that he could not even make the Raiders team he is trying to get money without working. Are they going to go back to the beginning of video games. How are the former players suppose to say who was who in Tecmo Bowl. How about former military personnel who may think they are portrayed on Call of Duty?

 

There is no way this is won....I am really surprised how far this circus has gone!

Its funny how these stories all involve former college players who are not making it in the pros.

 

To me if you hold a "digital" version of Sam and real version of Sam, they do not even look close to being right. This is the same in all the college football games, no one looks like the same in digital version. If I remember right you have to change his number from 5 to 9, add the sleeves, you couldnt add one arm sleeves in that game. Then after that put the visor on his helmet and bump up his elusiveness. Then you have Sam Keller the Nebraska QB, barely.

 

If you ask most current players........ they love the fact that they are in the game. In fact some actually complain about some attributes not being right.

 

When current college players step up and say its not right, then someone has a case. Until then Sam get a job with that marketing degree you got.

[Hercules]

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.

 

Good points. This lawsuit isn't going to be, "the end of college football," or whatever people are saying. Talk about an overreaction.

[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.

 

Good points. This lawsuit isn't going to be, "the end of college football," or whatever people are saying. Talk about an overreaction.

 

Then why are schools, conferences and the NCAA spending time and money to ensure that this case fails? Don't kid yourself, it is certainly a real possibility. My point is that if for some crazy reason this case wins (and some fans actually want it to for some dumb reason) then all bets are off at that point.

[gobiggergoredder]

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.

[AR Husker Fan]

I think there's some short sightedness here.

 

So if he wins, what about all the kids that played college ball? Don't you think that they'll want a cut too?? I mean there are over 300 D-1 college basketball programs. I'm willing to bet good money that they'll want a cut too, because not all of them are in the "Association".

Most former players won't qualify - the Statute of Limitations will limit that. Most Statutes of Limitations are three years - meaning, if the kid didn't file within three years of their likeness first being used by EA, they're barred from doing so.

[druski_2k5]

Don't athletes sign waivers to accept their scholarship accepting the fact/clause that they sign away any likeness that will be used in promos/video games/DVDs/etc? Because then they could go after anyone else that promoted their "image" that the did not see a "cut of money" from.

 

Here's another thing: In a court of law, if you bring in a Nebraska #10 jersey, that is all it is. A Nebraska #10 jersey. No name, no nothing.

 

Now if you see a Nebraska #10 jersey on game day to the stadium, again with no name, everyone knows it's a Roy Helu Jr., replica jersey, but there is no name associating it, yet everyone knows who jersey it represents, and players don't get a certain cut from THOSE jersies.

 

In a court of law, it's just a piece of clothing, just like in the game, it's just a character that looks nothing like them in real life and some of the attributes aren't 100% accurate one way or the other, not that I think attributes are a huge thing, but appearance and what not certainly aren't.

 

Besides, no one ever complains while they are IN college. Heck, Sam said they even went out and bought the game, as do I and my friends as well. I would be thrilled to have a "character" that is "like myself" in a video game like that, and most college athletes do.

 

This is all moot though if they sign a waiver in their scholarship to waive the clause about likeness and what not.

[Saunders]

I think there's some short sightedness here.

 

So if he wins, what about all the kids that played college ball? Don't you think that they'll want a cut too?? I mean there are over 300 D-1 college basketball programs. I'm willing to bet good money that they'll want a cut too, because not all of them are in the "Association".

Most former players won't qualify - the Statute of Limitations will limit that. Most Statutes of Limitations are three years - meaning, if the kid didn't file within three years of their likeness first being used by EA, they're barred from doing so.

 

Ed O'bannon is a plaintiff in the case, and his "likeness" was back in the 8-bit days....

[walksalone]

I think there's some short sightedness here.

 

So if he wins, what about all the kids that played college ball? Don't you think that they'll want a cut too?? I mean there are over 300 D-1 college basketball programs. I'm willing to bet good money that they'll want a cut too, because not all of them are in the "Association".

Most former players won't qualify - the Statute of Limitations will limit that. Most Statutes of Limitations are three years - meaning, if the kid didn't file within three years of their likeness first being used by EA, they're barred from doing so.

 

You would hope that the statutes of limitations are three years, but then again, the French did build the Maginot Line.

 

This isn't going to be a huge deal, but entirely too much bitching and whining going on for my taste.

[AR Husker Fan]

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.

 

Good points. This lawsuit isn't going to be, "the end of college football," or whatever people are saying. Talk about an overreaction.

 

Then why are schools, conferences and the NCAA spending time and money to ensure that this case fails? Don't kid yourself, it is certainly a real possibility. My point is that if for some crazy reason this case wins (and some fans actually want it to for some dumb reason) then all bets are off at that point.

I'd surmise two reasons, primarily. First, even if it is limited in the manner I mentioned, we're still talking millions and millions of dollars being shelled out by EA Sports and, more importantly, the NCAA and the conferences and universities to a lesser extent.

 

Second, general principles. Open the door here (albeit in a limited way that can be precluded for future recruits), and it opens up other concerns - including Congress trying to regulate college sports. Every session of Congress seems to have some bonehead who wants to change something about the NCAA, including the idea of a playoff. Same thing here.

[walksalone]

I think there's some short sightedness here.

 

So if he wins, what about all the kids that played college ball? Don't you think that they'll want a cut too?? I mean there are over 300 D-1 college basketball programs. I'm willing to bet good money that they'll want a cut too, because not all of them are in the "Association".

Most former players won't qualify - the Statute of Limitations will limit that. Most Statutes of Limitations are three years - meaning, if the kid didn't file within three years of their likeness first being used by EA, they're barred from doing so.

 

Ed O'bannon is a plaintiff in the case, and his "likeness" was back in the 8-bit days....

 

Ed O'Bannon is a used car salesman too....

[huskerscott]

People like Sam Keller really grind my gears.

[Hercules]

 

Here's another thing: In a court of law, if you bring in a Nebraska #10 jersey, that is all it is. A Nebraska #10 jersey. No name, no nothing.

 

Now if you see a Nebraska #10 jersey on game day to the stadium, again with no name, everyone knows it's a Roy Helu Jr., replica jersey, but there is no name associating it, yet everyone knows who jersey it represents, and players don't get a certain cut from THOSE jersies.

 

In a court of law, it's just a piece of clothing, just like in the game, it's just a character that looks nothing like them in real life and some of the attributes aren't 100% accurate one way or the other, not that I think attributes are a huge thing, but appearance and what not certainly aren't.

 

 

The court of law doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that, because judges aren't robots. They're people, and they understand deception, and they can see exploitation through a loophole.

[Hercules]

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.

 

Good points. This lawsuit isn't going to be, "the end of college football," or whatever people are saying. Talk about an overreaction.

 

Then why are schools, conferences and the NCAA spending time and money to ensure that this case fails? Don't kid yourself, it is certainly a real possibility. My point is that if for some crazy reason this case wins (and some fans actually want it to for some dumb reason) then all bets are off at that point.

I'd surmise two reasons, primarily. First, even if it is limited in the manner I mentioned, we're still talking millions and millions of dollars being shelled out by EA Sports and, more importantly, the NCAA and the conferences and universities to a lesser extent.

 

Second, general principles. Open the door here (albeit in a limited way that can be precluded for future recruits), and it opens up other concerns - including Congress trying to regulate college sports. Every session of Congress seems to have some bonehead who wants to change something about the NCAA, including the idea of a playoff. Same thing here.

 

Right. The NCAA stands to lose money on this, as do schools and conferences, but it's not going to be the end of college sports.

[AR Husker Fan]

Don't athletes sign waivers to accept their scholarship accepting the fact/clause that they sign away any likeness that will be used in promos/video games/DVDs/etc? Because then they could go after anyone else that promoted their "image" that the did not see a "cut of money" from.

To some degree, yes. I don't know the extent of it, though. And I suspect that whatever the provision is, it didn't anticipate this kind of thing. Similar, I'd guess to videos of old television shows that used popular music as background, such as WKRP or Northern Exposure. In both cases, the original music was replaced on DVDs, even though when they are rebroadcast on television the original music is in there. Why? Because when the rights to the music were negotiated, DVDs didn't exist. The music folks signed away rebroadcast rights, but the digatal rights for DVD weren't mentioned.

 

Here's another thing: In a court of law, if you bring in a Nebraska #10 jersey, that is all it is. A Nebraska #10 jersey. No name, no nothing.

 

Now if you see a Nebraska #10 jersey on game day to the stadium, again with no name, everyone knows it's a Roy Helu Jr., replica jersey, but there is no name associating it, yet everyone knows who jersey it represents, and players don't get a certain cut from THOSE jersies.

 

In a court of law, it's just a piece of clothing, just like in the game, it's just a character that looks nothing like them in real life and some of the attributes aren't 100% accurate one way or the other, not that I think attributes are a huge thing, but appearance and what not certainly aren't.

 

***SNIP***

Exactly. Universities claim trademark on their logos and any items bearing it. Regardless who wore it, the appareal bearing the logo is the university's. In the mind of the fan, they buy particular jerseys because they associate the number with specific players, in most cases, as you noted.

[AR Husker Fan]

I think there's some short sightedness here.

 

So if he wins, what about all the kids that played college ball? Don't you think that they'll want a cut too?? I mean there are over 300 D-1 college basketball programs. I'm willing to bet good money that they'll want a cut too, because not all of them are in the "Association".

Most former players won't qualify - the Statute of Limitations will limit that. Most Statutes of Limitations are three years - meaning, if the kid didn't file within three years of their likeness first being used by EA, they're barred from doing so.

 

Ed O'bannon is a plaintiff in the case, and his "likeness" was back in the 8-bit days....

True - but we don't know whether the case will eventually exclude people in that situation. I honestly don't know, but almost all Statutes of Limitations begin running from the date that the person discovered, or should have discovered, the act that would lead to a lawsuit.