Sam Keller sues the NCAA

[Saunders]

You example was severely criticized because there were numerous instances of similar things happening over and over. It was a cash grab, and the panel didn't know the laws.

Wow, are you really that interested in arguing just for the sake of argument that you're going to cite a DISSENT that has almost no legal significance? Just because you and the dissent think "the panel didn't know the laws," IT IS THE LAW. Your legal opinion carries the same weight as the dissent's. Zero.

Regardless, I didn't reference the Vanna White case for its holding. I referenced the case because it identifies and distinguishes different causes of action including the Lanham Act and the Right of Publicity, so anyone interested in this issue could learn about it. Then, you go and try to crap on what I said with a dissent and quote a piece of it regarding the "parody" exception to copyright which has NO SIGNIFICANCE to the current facts at issue. Do you really think EA is trying to parody Sam Keller, or are you just trying to be argumentative? I'm trying to add something constructive to a conversation I actually know something about. You can take it for what it's worth, but please don't diminish it with irrelevant, argumentative replies.

I'm not "arguing for the sake of arguing" at all. It's a huuuuuuuuuge gray area, with multiple viewpoints, most of which aren't thought out. I'm sick of the BS and hypocritical stances being taken by the "fans" of college football.

The common theme is this: "How dare EA make money off the player images, shut them down!!!"

Cool, let's shut down the televising of games, because they're making money off of actual player images, not digital "likenesses."

"No..... uh.... that's different."

I've seen this same thing over, and over, and over. It's sickening. It's ok to "champion" for the players..... as long as it doesn't affect you.

 

[Saunders]

I just realized something on the way home. There's already a precedent for this case, and based on the past, I think EA realizes they won't have any problems.

Roster Guard.

For years, Michael Jordan wouldn't sign the contract to allow his image/name to be used in video games. How did the game companies work around that? With a generic player called Roster Guard. NBA Live, NBA Jam, and NBA Shootout (games that I remember playing) all did it. Generally "Roster Guard" was a 6' 5" or 6' 6" black player who played shooting guard for the Chicago Bulls. Sometimes he wore #23, sometimes he didn't. Sometimes he was left handed, and sometimes he was left handed. Either way, his skillset matched MJ's, and we would always tweak whatever changes we needed to make it the perfect MJ.

 

[sd'sker]

as for your second example, i do think students should be compensated for televised games, but they do benefit more from that because the school is paid, which in return funds scholarships and the athletic department. the nexus (shout-out) between student athletes and ea sports is much weaker.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least.

 

[knapplc]

The situation here is pretty simple, to me. The players are at the base of the inverted pyramid. Without the players there is no EA sports, no video games, no NCAA, no ESPN, no network football shows, no DB personalities wearing stupid hats on game days. The players are the keystone of the arch, yet they are the least compensated for what they do.

Lol.... you just described corporate America.

No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles.

 

[Saunders]

as for your second example, i do think students should be compensated for televised games, but they do benefit more from that because the school is paid, which in return funds scholarships and the athletic department. the nexus (shout-out) between student athletes and ea sports is much weaker.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least.

Um, what? The "benefits" you are describing are something circumstantial that can't be quantified. However, tangible benefits like money do matter. Unless you think millions are more than billions.

 

[Saunders]

The situation here is pretty simple, to me. The players are at the base of the inverted pyramid. Without the players there is no EA sports, no video games, no NCAA, no ESPN, no network football shows, no DB personalities wearing stupid hats on game days. The players are the keystone of the arch, yet they are the least compensated for what they do.

Lol.... you just described corporate America.

No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles.

Um, that's also corporate America. Your description perfectly aligns with large companies like Walmart, Nike, and Chevrolet. Individual workers do most of the actual work, and yet, compared to corporate officers, and the company's overall profits, their compensation pales in comparison.

 

[Matt634]

I'm sick of the BS and hypocritical stances being taken by the "fans" of college football.

I don't disagree at all. I wasn't taking a subject side; I was providing some objective information regarding the various legal causes of action involved.

It's a huuuuuuuuuge gray area, with multiple viewpoints, most of which aren't thought out.

Again, I don't disagree at all, and if this is your stance now we're completely on the same page. The entire area of intellectual property and privacy law is complex and getting more so as our society advances. I don't know that Keller will win, every plaintiff has an uphill battle, but he most definitely has a case. Gray is a good description. I'm glad you softened your previous black and white stance that EA is absolutely in the legal right.

There's your key word. A face is all that matters, period. It's the same reason why I can take a picture of people walking down the street to use in an advertisement, and as long as I don't show their faces, I owe them nothing. It's simply the way it is.

 

[NUpolo8]

In the year 2012...

A smug Sam Keller, clutching a red cup from the Rail, blames the failure of his suit on Corey McKeon and asks the person who asked such a stupid question if he'd like his a$$ kicked.

 

[RedDenver]

saunders,

You may have knowledge of this debate, but you're not a legal expert. And even if you were an expert, this case is breaking new ground and you'd only have an opinion, not the definitive answer. Also, a federal judge has heard the NCAA and EA Sports arguments to throw out the case and has rejected them, so that's pretty strong evidence that the claim has some merit.

As for your expanding circle argument that the EA case is somehow affected by or effects the TV rights money, the other part of the suit brought by O'Bannon contends that the NCAA owes money from players' likenesses to the players regardless of source (i.e. not just the EA money but also TV broadcast, merchandise, etc.).

 

[Malth]

lovin the armchair lawyers up in here

 

[sd'sker]

as for your second example, i do think students should be compensated for televised games, but they do benefit more from that because the school is paid, which in return funds scholarships and the athletic department. the nexus (shout-out) between student athletes and ea sports is much weaker.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least.

Um, what? The "benefits" you are describing are something circumstantial that can't be quantified. However, tangible benefits like money do matter. Unless you think millions are more than billions.

i do not think we are on the same page anymore, it is may fault, i was struggling to convey my thoughts. i just see ea sports as a third party. it is like when you are at the concert and people are selling unlicensed t-shirts. the band does not care about the licensed t-shirts because they consented. the players consent to being on tv and such much more than to being on a video game, and i know that the game is licensed, but how much say do the students have in that. it can be assumed they would be much more willing to forfeit their rights to television contracts, and important part of college football, than for a video game where a game developer makes a ton of money by using their image and they get little to no compensation. how much do you think ea pays each school? or does the money just go to the ncaa who sold off the rights?

 

[knapplc]

The situation here is pretty simple, to me. The players are at the base of the inverted pyramid. Without the players there is no EA sports, no video games, no NCAA, no ESPN, no network football shows, no DB personalities wearing stupid hats on game days. The players are the keystone of the arch, yet they are the least compensated for what they do.

Lol.... you just described corporate America.

No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles.

Um, that's also corporate America. Your description perfectly aligns with large companies like Walmart, Nike, and Chevrolet. Individual workers do most of the actual work, and yet, compared to corporate officers, and the company's overall profits, their compensation pales in comparison.

The funniest thing about all of your arguments is that you're not saying what EA sports is doing is right, you're just citing more and more examples of others doing wrong. You may not like the "two wrongs don't make a right" answer, but it's the correct answer.

 

[Saunders]

saunders,

You may have knowledge of this debate, but you're not a legal expert. And even if you were an expert, this case is breaking new ground and you'd only have an opinion, not the definitive answer. Also, a federal judge has heard the NCAA and EA Sports arguments to throw out the case and has rejected them, so that's pretty strong evidence that the claim has some merit.

As for your expanding circle argument that the EA case is somehow affected by or effects the TV rights money, the other part of the suit brought by O'Bannon contends that the NCAA owes money from players' likenesses to the players regardless of source (i.e. not just the EA money but also TV broadcast, merchandise, etc.).

I never said I was a legal expert, only that I dealt in these type of situations quite a bit. Does that make me an "expert" on the subject, no. Call me crazy, but I generally trust someone who has real world working knowledge in a related subject over someone who just google searched something.

I know about the O'Bannon part as well. That's why this lawsuit is so dangerous. It's not going to just affect some video games, because the players may see $5 if they're lucky. EA will just make the rosters even more generic, and the fans will continue to tweak them, just like always. The issue will be that we, the fans, are going to bear the brunt of any lawsuit damages. It may not happen overnight, but the cost will be passed down to us.

 

[Saunders]

The situation here is pretty simple, to me. The players are at the base of the inverted pyramid. Without the players there is no EA sports, no video games, no NCAA, no ESPN, no network football shows, no DB personalities wearing stupid hats on game days. The players are the keystone of the arch, yet they are the least compensated for what they do.

Lol.... you just described corporate America.

No, I just described the Feudal system. And when those Feudal lords oppressed their people enough, the people revolted and burned down their castles.

Um, that's also corporate America. Your description perfectly aligns with large companies like Walmart, Nike, and Chevrolet. Individual workers do most of the actual work, and yet, compared to corporate officers, and the company's overall profits, their compensation pales in comparison.

The funniest thing about all of your arguments is that you're not saying what EA sports is doing is right, you're just citing more and more examples of others doing wrong. You may not like the "two wrongs don't make a right" answer, but it's the correct answer.

That's the problem. I don't agree with the NCAA profit sharing, but most people don't realize how big this is. This will completely change the way that we as fans view college football. We will bear the increased costs, not the companies involved. And in the end, players may see $5 if they're lucky.

 

[Saunders]

as for your second example, i do think students should be compensated for televised games, but they do benefit more from that because the school is paid, which in return funds scholarships and the athletic department. the nexus (shout-out) between student athletes and ea sports is much weaker.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least.

Um, what? The "benefits" you are describing are something circumstantial that can't be quantified. However, tangible benefits like money do matter. Unless you think millions are more than billions.

i do not think we are on the same page anymore, it is may fault, i was struggling to convey my thoughts. i just see ea sports as a third party. it is like when you are at the concert and people are selling unlicensed t-shirts. the band does not care about the licensed t-shirts because they consented. the players consent to being on tv and such much more than to being on a video game, and i know that the game is licensed, but how much say do the students have in that. it can be assumed they would be much more willing to forfeit their rights to television contracts, and important part of college football, than for a video game where a game developer makes a ton of money by using their image and they get little to no compensation. how much do you think ea pays each school? or does the money just go to the ncaa who sold off the rights?

They have the same amount of say in both. When they choose to take a scholarship to play football, they've made their decision.