Lawyers Never Wanted to Sack the EA Sports College Football Series

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by reyes the roof

They wouldn't have even needed to go that far, just completely randomize the players sort of like The Show does with all the minor leaguers. The thing about NCAA that is different from other sports games is that once you are five seasons in, all of the players are fake anyway, so I'd have no problem playing with fake players from day 1. And with the roster share feature I'm sure the community could put together fully named accurate rosters within a month of the game being released like with The Show

The Show doesn't randomize minor leaguers, nor does 2K, nor did MVP.

The minor league players, especially the top 100, are made to represent known prospects, not a whole lot different from what EA was doing with NCAA Football.

The biggest differences here are those likenesses aren't the ones selling the baseball games, those guys are getting paid, those guys are going to get paid even more when they get called up, and none of them have sought to file suit over it.

[Iceman87GT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Awesome2103

What are the chances that another college video game, weather it be football, basketball, etc. be made in the future? Maybe even by another company such as 2K Sports.

0 chance, not until the NCAA adjusts their policies. The best we can hope for is that EA will resume the game in 2015, but a lot will have to happen between now and then.

No other company could pull it off, as there is no existing contract and any contracts that would be drawn up would be missing a lot of schools and conferences (the only reason why only 1 school was going to be missing from CFB 15 was because of an existing contract prevented others from pulling their IPs).

[BizDevConglomerate]

Also, for everyon to bow down to Visual Concepts, is the same man. They coukdce made a game just to appease their faithful, but they haven't. It's best the community come together through kickstarter, get a lawyer, trust account and build a dev team and defeat the big boys like that.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

This laterally makes no sense. Why in the world would EA agree to a settlement of any kind if they are 100% in the right? They have million dollar lawyers as well. Clearly those million dollar lawyers thought the settlement was the best option for a reason. And it's not because EA just love giving money away.

I am not so sure what is so hard to understand?

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

You might want to read up on the law yourself. EA, the CLC, and the NCAA have been using intellectual property without permission for years. The players absolutely did not sign away the rights to their own image when they accepted their scholarships. The NCAA's prohibition against players earning money is in no way even remotely equivalent to the players granting the NCAA the rights to profit from their likenesses.

What IPs?

Actually they do sign a waiver allowing the NCAA to use their likeness unfettered, that's the point of the case as I understand. The case being made against the NCAA is actually an anti-trust argument. Their argument is that the NCAA forcing them to sign away their likeness rights while playing college athletics is a violation of the Sherman Act because it artificially drives down the value of their likeness to $0. At least thats how I read the O'Bannon case.

Not sure what likeness rights have to do with Intellectual Properties.

[xandermole25]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

What IPs? Actually they do sign a waiver allowing the NCAA to use their likeness unfettered, that's the point of the case as I understand. The case being made against the NCAA is actually an anti-trust argument. Their argument is that the NCAA forcing them to sign away their likeness rights while playing college athletics is a violation of the Sherman Act because it artificially drives down the value of their likeness to $0. At least thats how I read the O'Bannon case. Not sure what likeness rights have to do with Intellectual Properties.

they don't sign a waiver saying that the ncaa can use their likeness, they sign an agreement that will not use their likeness to make a financial gain. If they did sign a waiver for the NCAA to use their likeness why would this quote exist?
“The simple, straightforward truth is that the NCAA has never licensed student-athlete likeness or interfered with their ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses. Discovery has revealed what the NCAA has maintained throughout: those claims simply are not true. Plaintiffs themselves have admitted the NCAA has never interfered with former student-athletes’ ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses.”- Donald Remy (If you don't know who this is he is the vice president of the NCAA)

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

What IPs? Actually they do sign a waiver allowing the NCAA to use their likeness unfettered, that's the point of the case as I understand. The case being made against the NCAA is actually an anti-trust argument. Their argument is that the NCAA forcing them to sign away their likeness rights while playing college athletics is a violation of the Sherman Act because it artificially drives down the value of their likeness to $0. At least thats how I read the O'Bannon case. Not sure what likeness rights have to do with Intellectual Properties.

Likeness rights are a form of intellectual property.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by xandermole25

they don't sign a waiver saying that the ncaa can use their likeness, they sign an agreement that will not use their likeness to make a financial gain. If they did sign a waiver for the NCAA to use their likeness why would this quote exist? “The simple, straightforward truth is that the NCAA has never licensed student-athlete likeness or interfered with their ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses. Discovery has revealed what the NCAA has maintained throughout: those claims simply are not true. Plaintiffs themselves have admitted the NCAA has never interfered with former student-athletes’ ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses.”- Donald Remy (If you don't know who this is he is the vice president of the NCAA)

Prior to playing an Athlete has to sign From 08-3a.

Quote:

NCAA Bylaws As any college-bound athlete knows, before you can suit up at a Division 1 school, you have to sign a few documents. Most notably among them is the Form 08-3a Student Athlete Statement. By signing, students affirm that they understand that they are prohibited from profiting from the commercial use of their names, pictures or likenesses while in school. In addition, at Part IV of the form, the students expressly authorize the NCAA and the CLC to use the student-athlete’s names or pictures in accordance with Bylaw 12.5, including promoting NCAA championships or other NCAA events, activities or programs. Bylaw 12.5 expressly limits the NCAA’s right to use the names or pictures of enrolled students. However, this bylaw does not place a time limit on the NCAA’s right to use names or pictures. It follows then, that likenesses captured during college are probably subject to NCAA rules, which expressly permit the NCAA to license the use of likenesses to entertainment outlets…like Electronic Arts (among others).

So not sure you're entirely correct.