Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[knapplc]

what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

I think Robertson has a case here. I don't see how the fact that he played basketball at an NCAA-sanctioned institution should give them the right to use his image in perpetuity. I think the NCAA is abusing that privilege, and their free use of student-athletes' images should end when their eligibility ends. If they want to use those images afterward, they should provide recompense.

 

[carlfense]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed.

Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling.

 

[Saunders]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed.

Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling.

It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know.

Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit?

 

[carlfense]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed.

Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling.

It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know.

Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit?

I think you missed my point. Would you like me to clarify or would you rather believe that CFB is doomed? You seem extremely attached to that idea so I'm starting to think it's a waste of my time to tell you otherwise.

 

[Saunders]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed.

Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling.

It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know.

Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit?

I think you missed my point. Would you like me to clarify or would you rather believe that CFB is doomed? You seem extremely attached to that idea so I'm starting to think it's a waste of my time to tell you otherwise.

Do I, at this point in time, believe CFB is doomed. No. I've never said that. What I have said, is that it is a real possibility. Believe that something can happen, and something will happen, are different things. BUT, if these cases win and are upheld, do you think that it won't negatively affect the sport, and set a precedent for other lawsuits? I do believe that if these cases win, it will start a landslide effect.

Again, do you think the above case has merit?

 

[carlfense]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.

You can file a complaint against nearly anyone with valid or bogus claims. It's more important to look at which cases are WON than which claims are filed.

Again, I stuck my head outside and the sky is still not falling.

It takes time for something like this. The case is new, unlike the Keller case which has been ongoing for 3 + years. You're a lawyer, you should know.

Let me ask you this. Do you think his case has merit?

I think you missed my point. Would you like me to clarify or would you rather believe that CFB is doomed? You seem extremely attached to that idea so I'm starting to think it's a waste of my time to tell you otherwise.

Do I, at this point in time, believe CFB is doomed. No. I've never said that. What I have said, is that it is a real possibility. Believe that something can happen, and something will happen, are different things. BUT, if these cases win and are upheld, do you think that it won't negatively affect the sport, and set a precedent for other lawsuits? I do believe that if these cases win, it will start a landslide effect.

Again, do you think the above case has merit?

Actually, you did say exactly that.. Then you later claimed that it was just hyperbole. I suppose you never have to worry about being wrong if you just rewrite history.

I haven't read the complaint in the above case. Without doing some serious investigation into the claims and the facts I can't venture a guess. Luckily we have a system in place that will give us an answer.

 

[Saunders]

Actually, you did say exactly that.. Then you later claimed that it was just hyperbole. I suppose you never have to worry about being wrong if you just rewrite history.

I haven't read the complaint in the above case. Without doing some serious investigation into the claims and the facts I can't venture a guess. Luckily we have a system in place that will give us an answer.

What were my exact words?

This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed.

IF this case wins, CFB is screwed. Did I say at this point in time it is screwed? Nope. In my clarification, I stated that while the wording may have been hyperbolic, the premise was not.

College football itself will continue, but if the way we enjoy it (through television) is affected, it will certainly have a negative effect on the sport. While I was a bit hyperbolic in my original statement, the premise remains.

You're claiming I'm "rewriting" history, when I actually never changed my stance, only clarified it. My statement hinges on the outcome of the case. So no, I did not "say exactly that," at all.

Here, read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

It also links to the case notes. In 5 minutes of reading, it appears this has more legs than the keller case based on perusing the case notes.

And hopefully the system in place gives us the right answer, but that's not always the case.

 

[knapplc]

What does this Robertson case have to do with the Keller case, other than you think it has more merit?

 

[carlfense]

Actually, you did say exactly that.. Then you later claimed that it was just hyperbole. I suppose you never have to worry about being wrong if you just rewrite history.

I haven't read the complaint in the above case. Without doing some serious investigation into the claims and the facts I can't venture a guess. Luckily we have a system in place that will give us an answer.

What were my exact words?

This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed.

IF this case wins, CFB is screwed. Did I say at this point in time it is screwed, nope. My statement hinges on the outcome of the case. So no, I did not "say exactly that," at all.

Here, read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

It also links to the case notes. In 5 minutes of reading, it appears this has more legs than the keller case based on perusing the case notes.

And hopefully the system in place gives us the right answer, but that's not always the case.

The Keller case has already been won. It's more likely to be upheld than tossed if for no other reason than judicial deference. Not sure where you are trying to go with that line of logic. It looks like backpedaling.

If I have time at the capitol this afternoon I'll check out the other case.

 

[Saunders]

Actually, you did say exactly that.. Then you later claimed that it was just hyperbole. I suppose you never have to worry about being wrong if you just rewrite history.

I haven't read the complaint in the above case. Without doing some serious investigation into the claims and the facts I can't venture a guess. Luckily we have a system in place that will give us an answer.

What were my exact words?

This better fail as bad as he did, or CFB is screwed.

IF this case wins, CFB is screwed. Did I say at this point in time it is screwed, nope. My statement hinges on the outcome of the case. So no, I did not "say exactly that," at all.

Here, read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

It also links to the case notes. In 5 minutes of reading, it appears this has more legs than the keller case based on perusing the case notes.

And hopefully the system in place gives us the right answer, but that's not always the case.

The Keller case has already been won. It's more likely to be upheld than tossed if for no other reason than judicial deference. Not sure where you are trying to go with that line of logic. It looks like backpedaling.

If I have time at the capitol this afternoon I'll check out the other case.

How is proving that you are incorrect "backpedaling?" Unless you are referring to my comments regarding the Roberts case having more legs, it's quite simple. If the Keller case is upheld, then I don't see how the Roberts case doesn't win. It's there in black and white as far as I can tell. It's quite fascinating, and even though I'm no lawyer, I can see how it can easily be applied to televising college athletics. However, what I am unfamiliar with is the verbage in the contract that the athletes sign with the schools. That's a crucial piece of info I can't find.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

What does this Robertson case have to do with the Keller case, other than you think it has more merit?

They might be 2 separate cases however they are totally intertwined with each other. The Keller case is referenced in the official complaint filed for Oscar Robertson lawyers. It also mentions Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in one of the sections. Did he already have a complaint going as well. The Robertson case is against the NCAA and EA Sports.

 

[Saunders]

What does this Robertson case have to do with the Keller case, other than you think it has more merit?

They might be 2 separate cases however they are totally intertwined with each other. The Keller case is referenced in the official complaint filed for Oscar Robertson lawyers. It also mentions Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in one of the sections. Did he already have a complaint going as well. The Robertson case is against the NCAA and EA Sports.

Bingo. Both suits happen to have some of the same athletes attached.

"The O’Bannon suit, which is progressing through the courts, argued the NCAA “has illegally deprived former student-athletes” from “myriad revenue streams” including “DVDs, video games, memorabilia, photographs, television rebroadcasts and use in advertising.” You can now add trading cards to the list."

Link

IIRC, Ed O'Bannon was one of the first, if not the first, to hop on the EA lawsuit. He's also involved with this case. You said it yourself Knappic, they aren't going to get much money. So then what? Go after bigger fish. It looks like they've already started the process.

 

[Saunders]

This part is also interesting:

"The lawsuit does not question the NCAA’s ability to market current players, but argues that the NCAA should not be able to maintain control over people forever."

Link

In the Keller case, they are arguing that EA uses current player likenesses to market their product, which the lawsuit states that the NCAA knowingly allows them to do.

In the Roberts/O'Bannon case, they are stating that the NCAA markets current player likenesses through media (TV, Web, Print), but it's ok. Yet, the same athletes are involved in both cases.

Um, what???

 

[knapplc]

The root of both cases is that the players are being exploited by Entity X, who is profiting from their activity/likeness unfairly. I don't see where they're wrong. If that leads to the end of video games... oh well.

It will not lead to the end of intercollegiate athletics, and that's what I'm a fan of. Nor will it lead to the end of televised athletics, which I watch when I can't attend games. Again... oh well.

 

[Enhance]

You could have stopped right there, because you just made my argument for me. ESPN, ABC, Athletic departments all receive benefits from broadcasting a entertainment sporting even on television. If we ignore all the tv shows, ads, and everything else and just focus the the game being broadcast itself, my point stands easily. The TV networks have to sign contracts with the schools to broadcast the games. Have to. If they just tried taking some cameras in, and sending the feed to ESPN, they would get sued immediately. Why? They aren't broadcasting a game as a news service, they're broadcasting it as entertainment for the purpose of selling a product, advertising space. Billions and billions of dollars in ad space.

The schools have licensing agreements with conferences and the NCAA that allows this. EA also has an agreement with the NCAA and schools. They all receive a cut of the revenues. Just like the do from TV money. The problem is, TV is considered a sacred cow, and many people don't want it to consider it as the same thing (which it absolutely is) and so they come up with bs reasoning why it isn't.

I've also seen the "a person has a right to their celebrity" as an argument for why EA is wrong. Ok, then the kids also have a right to their "celebrity" being used to sell ads for ESPN and the TV networks.

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

I see the point you are trying to make, but if you had considered what I put further into my post, you would have seen why I think you're wrong.

What I'm saying is that broadcasting games on television, in a generic definition, is broadcasting the news. Two teams play and whichever one wins and loses is the subject of the 'news'.

Furthermore, you're trying to apply a tag to broadcast television like the NCAA and specific television affiliates only take advantage of NCAA athletes. What about Scripps National Spelling Bee contestants? They're on television and they don't see any of the money Scripps or the convention center they hold it in are making from the television rights. Are they being taken advantage of?

Are little league world series participants being taken advantage of?

My point is there are SO many examples of people being on television (with television contracts being involved) and those people aren't making squat. This is the ways news has been for decades and it is an accepted part of the way things work.

This video game argument, although similar in ways, is still in a completely different ball park.