I disagree. The players agreement to being recruited at that school (basically a contract) is a free ride. Some of these schools are $40K a year. They can choose whatever major they want, and get a nice education. If they do not make the Pros, which chances are more that you wont, they can get a nice job with a the proper education, and not worry about paying back student loans for the rest of their lives.
40K times 4 years on average?
And they are "more than taken care of" as an athlete for the school as well. More so than your average student.
And if they use Kim Kardashian's likeness she will sue and lose. As long as the name is not used. Hell even pictures are used and celebrities lose in court. All these trashy magazines would not exist then. But used in a form of art like a video game or TV show, a likeness can be used down to the T, as long as the name (which your name is a legal contract under the Constitution) is not used.
TV shows, music, books, and movies have been doing this longer than you or I were on this planet.
Negative... the judge waited till after the Supreme Court ruling of games being protected under the same First Amendment as are movies, books, music, etc. So her decision was just and sound.
A company is owned by the public. Hence stocks and bonds, private companies are a different story. And Hollywood has been doing this for over 50 years. See what I wrote above. You do not "own" your likeness (since it is visual and anyone can look upon you in public), you "own" your name since it is considered a "contract".
As a note: Gamers want games protected under the First Amendment, and clamor to have their precious hobby "free speech" just like every other form of media. This GOES with the territory. Other forms of media are allowed to do this very thing. And have been doing it for over 50 years now. You people can not pick and choose what you want to be protected in parts. It does not work that way. I can bet if this was not EA, and was a more "beloved" game company, people would not be so hard pressed to want those very rights diminished.
This is great news as a sports gamer. And roster makers!
"This isn't "corporation vs individual". This is "commercial speech or artistic expression". The judge made that explicitly clear.
If the SCOTUS had ruled against ESRB in the ruling against California the case would have went the other way. She waited to rule specifically until after that case was decided. But games were ruled to be artistic expressions. That allows ARTISTS, or *ahem* "Corporations", far more leeway than they'd otherwise have when making a commercial product.
We don't get to have it both ways. Either games are art or they're not. You don't get to have them protected as art on the retail side but not considered art on what they choose to depict."