EA Wins Dismissal In NCAA Player Likeness Suit, Puts Dent in Sam Keller Case

[balcobomber25]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

While the video game fan in me is happy about this, i still gotta side with the players on this one. If it were us we'd be pissed too that schools and corporations cash in from using the likeness of players. Because think about it, if someone uses, lets say Kim Kardashian's image without her permission, she'd sue and win. But if Oregon sells LaMichael James posters with his image on it, he can't do anything about it.

I can see you argument but part of that full scholarship that players like LaMichael James signed says the school has full permission to use their likeliness. I hate hearing this argument about college players not getting paid, the majority of them receive scholarships valued on average at $100,000 for 4 years. The fact that many of them decide to skip class and not take advantage of that is their own fault considering most college players will never make it to the NFL and the ones who do are lucky to be in the league 3 years which is the league average. Even less for QB's.

[RedZoneD25]

Ryan Hart should be honored a video game would even attempt to re-create his likeness.

-A lifelong Rutgers fan

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Goblowsoup

What the ruling essentially says is that NCAA and the respective school owns the rights of the people who play for them...which is what slaves were to plantation owners.

This is the only thing I am pulling out because this is one of the most asinine things I have read.

Everything else is not worth touching on because the ruling is the ruling, and came in effect after games are now viewed in the same medium as music, books and movies. Art. Protected under the FA, thus likenesses can be use in the expression of art.

And some is also your moral opinion which you are rightfully entitled to, whether I agree or not.

But to compare college athletes, where most of which get a free ride in some high cost schools, is laughable. They are playing sports in return of an all expense paid education to whatever major they so choose. And then there is the ones that are not on scholarship, but nobody is forcing them to play, since it is "optional".

Slavery was not "optional".

Good grief. SMH

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

And playing sports in school is a choice for a non-scholarship athlete. You go to school to learn to get and education to make a career for yourself to make money. You do not go to "get paid". That is where "student athletes" are losing touch with. I would have been proud if my likeness was used in an NCAA Baseball game. But man has our society gotten greedy. But that is a different debate than what this topic is about. Which was the proper ruling under the protection of the Constitution.

so its greedy of the players to want a piece but not greedy for EA another companies to cash in as much off these kids?

[Old School SD Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

Never claimed I was :: But the fact remains they (EA/"artists") are protected under the First Amendment. Movies and books and music have using it commercially for decades. Profiting off of likenesses. And it is accepted. Games are now put in the same category, and rightfully so. Whatever the moral quandary people have with this is a whole different story however.

It's not good law, plaintiff's attorneys completely blew a VERY winnable case that is almost certain to be appealed. Anyone REALLY believe EA is an 'artistic' rather than 'commercial' enterprise? Denny Crane on his worst day would have won that case.

[mirrored32]

on where the efforts of these college athletes, why are they wasting their time trying to hurt a game that allows people to appreciate them, when they should be concentrating on getting a good degree, a job, or perhaps practicing to get in the NFL. What a wasted misdirection of efforts IMO. NCAA IMO has never violated the players. I personally see it as a respect to them. I wouldn't even know any of there players in college football without EA's game. I wouldn't even care about College football. So for those like me, this brings people into College football. So for players to sue, IMO is hurting not just EA but College Football.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

It's not good law, plaintiff's attorneys completely blew a VERY winnable case that is almost certain to be appealed. Anyone REALLY believe EA is an 'artistic' rather than 'commercial' enterprise? Denny Crane on his worst day would have won that case.

How is EA any less artistic that NBC or any other movie studio?

The judge ruled on the work itself being artistic rendition. And it is a right rule, since games are now protected under the First Amendment.

Gamers clamored to have games protected as "art" for decades on the retail level. Much like books, music, and movies. Now that it is, they want to crucify cause they see EA as a big company? But not music companies, book publishers or movie studios?

You can not pick and choose. That is not how it works.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

so its greedy of the players to want a piece but not greedy for EA another companies to cash in as much off these kids?

EA is not profiting off of them. EA is allowed to use their likeness under the FA now, and with consent from the NCAA.

EA is profiting from having the NCAA license, nothing more. The NCAA is making money off the players playing, and they are rewarded with much better benefits than your average college student... most of them with a free ride in some pretty prestigious schools for without their athletic talents, would not even be close to getting into.

They agree to it when they sign the scholarship papers.