Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[ADS]

Maybe It's just me, but I would feel honored for my likness to be in a bideo game if I was a college athlete.

 

[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....

Ah, so. He wasn't a senior, he was a REDSHIRT senior. Wonderful.

I'd imagine you were one of those people who were disappointed that EA got his number wrong? I couldn't go over to the huskerboard gaming forum and find complaints about EA roster errors, could I?

LOL...

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?

I've already proven that the following things that you stated as evidence were wrong.

Jersey Number

Hometown

Hair (isn't even in the game)

Age

personal visor/arm band preference

So, because it's a generic white QB from California, Sam has a case?

And no, I wasn't mad. Why? Because I edited my own personal roster to be correct as it could, which is entirely legal.

Eh. I should have looked into it further. It's his state, not his hometown, etc.

The complaint itself is posted. Arguing against me doesn't do anything to diminish the merits or weaknesses of the suit.

Quote: "With rare exception, virtually every real-life Division I football or basketball player in the NCAA has a corresponding player in EA games with the same jersey number, and virtually identical height, weight, build, and home state. In addition, EA matches the player's skin tone, hair color, and often even a player's hair style, although this last characteristic is highly variable over even a single season."

Let's simplify this: do you argue that the Senior (REDSHIRT!) quarterback's similarities to Sam Keller are entirely coincidental? EA just assigned some random statistics to an entire roster . . . and by pure it happens to coincide with real athlete? Just curious. That's what you seem to be implying with your "that could be me!" argument.

Now we're getting somewhere. The document and allegations contained are full of outright lies.

"In reality, however, Electronic Arts with the knowledge, participation and approval of the NCAA and CLC extensively utilizes player names and likenesses."

THIS IS A LIE. EA has never used names in their games. NEVER. They don't even have coaches names. So right there, part of the suit is based on a lie.

In addition, EA matches the player's skin tone, hair color, and often even a player's hair style, although this last characteristic is highly variable over even a single season."

Another LIE. There is no hair color or styles. There isn't even a hair model. If by "matches skin tone" then the mean generic racial features, then yes, that is somewhat correct. Although, TE#81 for us was black, so no go there.

As for whether the similarities are coincidental, of course not. It's a ginormous grey area. BUT, in regards to model releases, and using someones likeness for commercial purposes, generic similarities don't matter.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

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.

I thought the player on the game was a redshirt senior that wore #5 and a black visor like Keller did in Spring ball when the game was being completed. The change to #9 and the clear visor happened after the game had already hit the shelves.

 

[knapplc]

This debate has passionate opinions on both sides. Let's all remember to argue the issue and not start attacking each other.

:cop:

 

[Saunders]

Because I'm sure ESPN has themselves covered legally, otherwise players from the NFL, NBA, MLB, EPL, La Liga, Serie A, MLS, PGA, any athletic association covered by ESPN would've sued them by now.

They have negotiated contracts with each league, just like they do the NCAA. EA also has a contract with the NCAA.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Maybe It's just me, but I would feel honored for my likness to be in a bideo game if I was a college athlete.

A really good friend of mine played and lettered 4 years down in Lincoln from 1997-2001. He is on 2 video games and I think him being on the games is a bigger deal then he does. He doesn’t even own copies of the games he is on.

He might be an isolated incident and not the norm but he is all that I have to go off of. :dunno

 

[huskertillIdie]

I think the point is that if you're basing your dislike of this lawsuit on your personal dislike for Sam Keller, then you're missing the point. Whether you like Sam Keller or not is irrelevant to this case.

First of all... "IMO...This is no different then slipping in a parking lot or spilling coffee on yourself." uh...what? :dunno :wacko: :blink:

I think you're both missing my point. It really has nothing to do with Sam Keller. I am basing my dislike of this lawsuit on the fact it is another person looking to get paid. I wish that people could understand that lawsuits like this only cost consumers.

The loss that a company incurs for some moron spilling coffee on them self, or someone falling in the parking lot translates into one thing....higher prices for the consumer. Another ridiculous lawsuit payout that needs to be funded somehow. No different then what EA would have to do.

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?

Maybe not a fix, but certainly a good first step......that is unless you're a lawyer looking to make money off of some insurance companies.

 

[ADS]

Maybe It's just me, but I would feel honored for my likness to be in a bideo game if I was a college athlete.

A really good friend of mine played and lettered 4 years down in Lincoln from 1997-2001. He is on 2 video games and I think him being on the games is a bigger deal then he does. He doesn’t even own copies of the games he is on.

He might be an isolated incident and not the norm but he is all that I have to go off of. :dunno

My buddy plays for Nebraska right now, and doesnt own any of NCAA Football games. I think most of the players honestly dont care, IMO.

 

[Saunders]

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.

I thought the player on the game was a redshirt senior that wore #5 and a black visor like Keller did in Spring ball when the game was being completed. The change to #9 and the clear visor happened after the game had already hit the shelves.

Keller never wore a dark visor at NU.

EA also normally completes the final touches and sends the GM to press in the beginning of June.

 

[Saunders]

This debate has passionate opinions on both sides. Let's all remember to argue the issue and not start attacking each other.

:cop:

NO U..... :lol:

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Keller never wore a dark visor at NU.

EA also normally completes the final touches and sends the GM to press in the beginning of June.

I was just going by what was stated in the complaint paperwork. I do know he wore #5 in the Spring though and switched at the beginning of fall camp. So that explains why he was #5 on the game that year and not #9

 

[Saunders]

Keller never wore a dark visor at NU.

EA also normally completes the final touches and sends the GM to press in the beginning of June.

I was just going by what was stated in the complaint paperwork. I do know he wore #5 in the Spring though and switched at the beginning of fall camp. So that explains why he was #5 on the game that year and not #9

Ah, I understand. I've been re-reading through the docs (I glanced at them a while back), and I can't believe how much BS is in here. There's so much stuff that's incorrect, or just plain lies. If a jury actually agrees with this case.... they need their heads examined.

 

[scarletNcream]

I find this "argument" humorous. I have had discussions about this with a wide variety of age groups and it seems the younger the person is, the more likely they are to side with Sam Keller. My personal opinion is that this is a frivolous lawsuit and will only end up costing the people who buy games more money. I have to admit that I am a 53 year old gamer. I have 3 boys, 2 now men and one teen left at home. All of them enjoy gaming, even my grand children. You're right, do the players want to associated the character with their favorite player? Yes. Do you really think the character is that person? They are loosely based on them so you can relate to your favorite team. Should this lawsuit go on shouldn't the universities be able to sue, or the NCAA, for more money based on the popularity of the teams played? Florida gets more money than South Carolina for example because more people play as the Gators than the Gamecocks?. When does the entitlement stop?

 

[carlfense]

I think the point is that if you're basing your dislike of this lawsuit on your personal dislike for Sam Keller, then you're missing the point. Whether you like Sam Keller or not is irrelevant to this case.

First of all... "IMO...This is no different then slipping in a parking lot or spilling coffee on yourself." uh...what? :dunno :wacko: :blink:

I think you're both missing my point. It really has nothing to do with Sam Keller. I am basing my dislike of this lawsuit on the fact it is another person looking to get paid. I wish that people could understand that lawsuits like this only cost consumers.

The loss that a company incurs for some moron spilling coffee on them self, or someone falling in the parking lot translates into one thing....higher prices for the consumer. Another ridiculous lawsuit payout that needs to be funded somehow. No different then what EA would have to do.

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?

Maybe not a fix, but certainly a good first step......that is unless you're a lawyer looking to make money off of some insurance companies.

Or . . . unless you are a patient who had a doctor re-use needles and infected you with hepatitis and couldn't even recover the costs of your treatment.

I've never dealt with medical malpractice law other than when my grandmother was infected with hepatitis by gross malpractice at the FAMC.

Tort reform has worked so well in Texas, hasn't it? Oh . . . they have some of the highest medical costs in the country (see Mcallen Texas. )

Tort reform is designed to delude people from looking into the real problems of medicine. Much like abortion/illegal immigration/homosexual issues are designed to distract and energize the American public.

 

[Enhance]

I have a couple of opinions I'd like to throw into the mix.

1) I almost always side with players in these issues/debates. Why? Because they're the ones making their athletic departments, organizations, owners, etc., all of the millions of dollars in revenue every year. Similar to the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL, the players do the work and the owners reap the benefits. I have no problem with owners wanting to make money, because it's America and that's what we do here. However, I do have a problem with people making more money at the expense of others. Which, from my view point, both the collective bargaining agreement issues right now AND this lawsuit stink of people in position taking advantage of others.

2) That said, in relation back to just college football, these players are getting a free education to play a SPORT. Again, a SPORT. In the grand scheme of things, a sport is an extremely trivial subject. An education is far more important. As one poster already suggested, the easiest way to settle this debate is to have players give up the rights to their name, image and likeness while they are members of a NCAA team. I don't think this is how it currently is set up, but I could be wrong. They're already getting a free education and I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

3) Lastly, you are absolutely, positively, 100% kidding yourself if you honestly think the NCAA isn't taking advantage of their athletes through the EA sports games. They are. Whether or not the players have a right to earn profits from this is what is up for debate. Not anything else.