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

[Goblowsoup]

Quote: Originally Posted by celticfang

Okay, so I returned from a long hiatus to read this. I have several questions about the way the law is actually worded. The way I see it, you can make an online gridiron game have a team in Indy, that has (say) a horse's hoof as their logo, their QB is a white guy, #18, who is out for the year with neck pains. You can even call him Pierre Manny, but as long as you don't use his actual name, that is all fair game? Same for a college, let's call it Tennenbaum, in TN, with an orange T that the players slap on the wall before a game, they have a retriever dog as the mascot roaming the sidelines and an orange and white endzone. Would both be permissible under the ruling, or would the two instutions (Tennesee in the second case as Tennebaum would be a fictional UT replacement in a non licensed college title.) be able to sue me, and i'd be able to counter using the EA ruling? If so, I may actually be able to use that to my advantage in writing to a few authors. If not, well, I'm screwed. EDIT: And does it apply to other media too? I know some authors are overprotective of their work, as a writer myself I can see their point, but to my way of thinking the law is vague, Citing the ruling, could I write a derivative of a famous book series, and change the names and locations, then protect myself in court? And what about other media such as TV, where does that leave them and movie makers?

According to this ruling, you could use any product/person/figure to gain profit without paying to use it, so long as you don't use a name. It should protect any form of media. However, copyright laws should cover most aspects of your questioning. Due to the fact that a famous author will most likely copyright their work, any replication regardless of names and locations would be seen as a copyright infringement. Kind of like how Coke has a copyright on the shape of their bottles. No one can replicate it and call it Cola.

The ruling only covered people, and their likeness. Meaning, unless your image or likeness is copyrighted, your likeness could be used to earn profit without reimbursement. Atleast that is how I understand the ruling, and understanding of how the law works. However, anyone with enough money could win due to the fact that money typically alters laws. If an NFL players likeness was used, and he were famous, then likely he'd win the lawsuit just as Jim Brown did against EA's Madden series forcing them to remove classic teams. This is also why 2k buys the rights to use classic players in their games so that they do not risk a lawsuit. 2k11 featured a lot of generic no-names for classic teams who didn't use anyones likeness. They were just players. It's also why MLB games always had a black left handed batter who was generic to be in the place of Barry Bonds. All they did was match the hand he used and skin tone, nothing else.

However, I'm no lawyer and I'm solely basing my opinion on a few law classes I took in college. I could be completely wrong, I'm just making an educated guess.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Goblowsoup

Very true bigdunks4eva, it is a strange precendence that could lead to a lot of things. 2k could easily make a game with similar players as the nfl and just call the starte QB "QB #18" for the Indianapolis Ponies. I do also think ones human rights are violated when someone profits off of their identity and livelihood. That would allow a company to place a picture of an individual on a product and say "approved by this guy ->" and never use their names and get away with it. But, by usiing their image, its no different than using their names. And that, is exactly what the ruling states. They could use the image of an individual and profit from it, and so long as they aren't using the persons name it's legal. And that is an invasion on your right to protect your personal identity and image.

That is where you are getting confused. They can not just use an "image" or write "endorsed by".

They can use a "likeness" in artistic freedom. Not an image itself. A likeness is something created in an artistic manner/rendition.

You can not copyright the human physique.

Again, movies, television, music, books, etc have been doing this within the guidelines of the law for decades. Games are now in the same category as art, which they rightfully should be. Thus they can now follow suit.

[BadAssHskr]

Im on my phone and not going to read this whole thread but the whole thing to me is bs.

As someone said keller can suck it.

Following some huskers on twitter, funny to read their tweets of "how Cool it was to be in the game!"

This law suit is bs, and now EA should go above and beyond the call of duty to do what they can to create likeness to the most extreme they legally can.