Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

No, a large majority of my "expertise" is the fact that I work in marketing and advertising. I've negotiated model releases, and done commercial and print work.

But no, I'm just a crazy internet person.

In regards to me calling people naive (not you specifically) I meant it in regards to the thinking that this will only affect a video game.

OK, fair enough. You may just be a crazy internet person, but so am I. There's no shame in that.

I also don't think you and Carlfense are that far off, even though a lot of words will be exchanged before that becomes clear. From what I gather you both think this situation goes beyond just EA Sports' game - it's just the level of beyond and the ramifications you're apart on. And I don't think you're all that far apart.

Aren't internet discussions fun? So little gray area, so much black-and-white.

Lol... sorry if I'm coming across brash. I just get extremely passionate about things sometimes. I love CFB, and I love video games. I'm just afraid that this could be a very slippery slope if for some crazy reason, this case goes forward.

From my experience, "likeness" is such a gray area when it comes to commercial advertising, that I just don't see how this case has true merit...

 

[carlfense]

Here is the actual complaint.

Keller v. EA

I think it makes some excellent points and apparently the judge and jury agreed. We'll see if it stands on appeal.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U

 

[Saunders]

Here is the actual complaint.

Keller v. EA

I think it makes some excellent points and apparently the judge and jury agreed. We'll see if it stands on appeal.

3rd sentence in, and they jump the shark.

"Electronic Arts also intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing sudden athletes' names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds."

This is entirely legal. You cannot prohibit a consumer from making changes to a product for personal use, especially software and video games. Every sports game that I can remember has had a create a player feature, and if a consumer chooses to create a real life player, they are entitled to do so. Perhaps they should have read on up video game modding.

Before they had the locker share, people were emailing the roster files and uploading them to websites. It was extremely easy to do, and all EA did was centralize it.

It's quite fascinating to see how much BS this is based on.

I do have a question for you though. Have you ever played any of the NCAA video games?

 

[carlfense]

Here is the actual complaint.

Keller v. EA

I think it makes some excellent points and apparently the judge and jury agreed. We'll see if it stands on appeal.

3rd sentence in, and they jump the shark.

"Electronic Arts also intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing sudden athletes' names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds."

This is entirely legal. You cannot prohibit a consumer from making changes to a product for personal use, especially software and video games. Every sports game that I can remember has had a create a player feature, and if a consumer chooses to create a real life player, they are entitled to do so. Perhaps they should have read on up video game modding.

Before they had the locker share, people were emailing the roster files and uploading them to websites. It was extremely easy to do, and all EA did was centralize it.

It's quite fascinating to see how much BS this is based on.

I do have a question for you though. Have you ever played any of the NCAA video games?

Yes. I own and occasionally play NCAA 2011.

I don't think the issue is the ability for the player to modify a product that he purchased (although this issue is hardly clearcut, ask Sony, Apple, etc.) but rather the ability to upload entire rosters with the names preloaded. I believe this is too far removed from EA for them to be liable but we shall see how the court decides on the issue.

Do you think the video game Nebraska quarterback wearing Sam Keller's number, hailing from his home town, sharing the same age, hair color, height, and weight, personal visor/arm brand preference, is an entirely hypothetical person? Or is it just walking as close to the line of being a "likeness" without going over?

 

[carlfense]

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U

We all pay, one way or another. What exactly would you suggest? Perhaps we should appoint you to decide whether each suit is meritorious before letting the courts have a go at it.

These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious.

 

[Saunders]

Here is the actual complaint.

Keller v. EA

I think it makes some excellent points and apparently the judge and jury agreed. We'll see if it stands on appeal.

3rd sentence in, and they jump the shark.

"Electronic Arts also intentionally circumvents the prohibitions on utilizing sudden athletes' names in commercial ventures by allowing gamers to upload entire rosters, which include players names and other information, directly into the game in a matter of seconds."

This is entirely legal. You cannot prohibit a consumer from making changes to a product for personal use, especially software and video games. Every sports game that I can remember has had a create a player feature, and if a consumer chooses to create a real life player, they are entitled to do so. Perhaps they should have read on up video game modding.

Before they had the locker share, people were emailing the roster files and uploading them to websites. It was extremely easy to do, and all EA did was centralize it.

It's quite fascinating to see how much BS this is based on.

I do have a question for you though. Have you ever played any of the NCAA video games?

Yes. I own and occasionally play NCAA 2011.

I don't think the issue is the ability for the player to modify a product that he purchased (although this issue is hardly clearcut, ask Sony, Apple, etc.) but rather the ability to upload entire rosters with the names preloaded. I believe this is too far removed from EA for them to be liable but we shall see how the court decides on the issue.

Do you think the video game Nebraska quarterback wearing Sam Keller's number, hailing from his home town, sharing the same age, hair color, height, and weight, personal visor/arm brand preference, is an entirely hypothetical person? Or is it just walking as close to the line of being a "likeness" without going over?

As for product modification, ask Valve, Bungie, 2K, Blizzard, IW, ID, Bethesda and any of the other major video game makers. It's a losing battle. In fact, they encourage it with MOD tools. All that the big boys can do is send a cease and desist (like Apple and Sony do) and hope the guy doesn't care that much to take it to court.

As for the sam keller modelLOL. First, it wasn't the same hometown, they never are. Second, age isn't a tracked stat, nor is hair color. In fact, there isn't even modeled hair, as the generic faces are part of the helmet model (which is why there are no dreadlocks in the game). Third, there was no option for arm bands, and the visor was a black nike one. We are an adidas school.

The game.

Real life.

No armband, no sleeve, wrong number, wrong visor.

That looks as much like Keller as it does me. I'm not aruging that it's not a huge grey area, but to say that's a copy of Sam is a stretch.

 

[knapplc]

That's not a "jump the shark" moment, that's the crux of the argument. The suit is alleging that EA Sports intentionally designed the game so that users would upload actual players. That's little more than a wink and a nod from the intent of the law, and it is something that bears looking into legally.

There's a lot of talk of this going to the Supreme Court. Just because the name on the case is distasteful doesn't mean that the merits aren't worthy of legal scrutiny. Anna Nicole Smith was the plaintiff in a case that went before the Supremes. Legal merit can come from anywhere.

Personally, I'd rather they look into it and define the legalities of it than have the shadow of exploitation hanging over it. And while I understand that there are a large number of people who think there is no exploitation, there are many who do, which makes it a question worthy of an answer.

Raking Keller over the coals on this, whether he wins the suit or not, is incorrect. This is what our constitution is set up for.

 

[houseofspears]

I want my money too. There was a guy in that game that looked exactly like me and he had my name too!.......oh wait, thats bc I created him, but don't tell EA Sports!

I had a guy who looked just like me foo! Except he was 3 inches taller, 30 pounds skinnier and athletic.. Other than that we were identical!!

 

[Saunders]

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

All I can say is that it is absolutely ignorant to think that lawsuits, legislation and layers of lawyers just pay for themselves. It's like that old episode of Seinfeld....'They just right it off'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BurZnaBas6U

We all pay, one way or another. What exactly would you suggest? Perhaps we should appoint you to decide whether each suit is meritorious before letting the courts have a go at it.

These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious.

So a woman suing McDonalds for millions because she is dumb and spilled hot coffee on herself is meritorious?

 

[gobiggergoredder]

These complaints about our judicial system often come from people who passionately claim that they love the Constitution. That contradiction is hilarious.

Really has nothing to do with the constitution. Don't recall anyone in this forum questioning constitutionality. He and others have every right to do what they are doing. I also have every right to question it.

 

[carlfense]

***snip***

That looks as much like Keller as it does me. I'm not aruging that it's not a huge grey area, but to say that's a copy of Sam is a stretch.

Ah. You were a senior quarterback for Nebraska wearing number 9 in 2007?

 

[Saunders]

That's not a "jump the shark" moment, that's the crux of the argument. The suit is alleging that EA Sports intentionally designed the game so that users would upload actual players. That's little more than a wink and a nod from the intent of the law, and it is something that bears looking into legally.

There's a lot of talk of this going to the Supreme Court. Just because the name on the case is distasteful doesn't mean that the merits aren't worthy of legal scrutiny. Anna Nicole Smith was the plaintiff in a case that went before the Supremes. Legal merit can come from anywhere.

Personally, I'd rather they look into it and define the legalities of it than have the shadow of exploitation hanging over it. And while I understand that there are a large number of people who think there is no exploitation, there are many who do, which makes it a question worthy of an answer.

Raking Keller over the coals on this, whether he wins the suit or not, is incorrect. This is what our constitution is set up for.

Which is entirely incorrect. There has been a create a player mode in every sports game for the last 15+ years. They were put in their so you could make the perfect player, yourself, or bozo the clown. They can put it in there, and if a consumer chooses to re-create a real player, they are within their legal right to do so. As a consumer, I can use it how I see fit. If I choose to create a team of OJ Simpson clones, and call them the slashers, so be it. It's my choice, and right as a consumer.

It's no different than the record companies raising hell in the early part of the decade when people ripped CD's to play in their MP3 players.

 

[houseofspears]

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....

bald and not as good as his brother Charles??

 

[Saunders]

***snip***

That looks as much like Keller as it does me. I'm not aruging that it's not a huge grey area, but to say that's a copy of Sam is a stretch.

Ah. You were a senior quarterback for Nebraska wearing number 9 in 2007?

Nope. Neither was Sam Keller.

Sam was a (RS) Senior who wore number 5. The player in the game was a Senior who wore #9.

In fact, I'd say it looks more like Beau Davis or Joe Ganz than Keller....