Why do past players thinking Suing E.A. sports for their likenesses will do any good?

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by hazey

ncaa doent mke much money at all. the majority of their pot gets distributed back among their members (universities)

NCAA keeps 4% of all revenue. 15% of that revenue is made up of merchandise sales. Thats a large chunk of change.

[Jeff George]

Quote: Originally Posted by JLoco11

The law doesn't need a DNA test to prove that a duck is a duck. The law needs "reasonable inference of factual representation". It's a pretty reasonable inference that formation, referred to Tim Tebow.

Not to mention the fact that EA recorded Brad Nessler (and whoever does the PA voiceover) announcing uncommon names such as "Tebow" and "Zbikowski" for use in 2007, when the players were still active. The names weren't attached to those particular players, so it sort of skirts the likeness issue there. But it does demonstrate what a former EA employee admitted and what we all know: that the players in the game were modeled after real-life counterparts. Why else record Nessler saying those names? It was so people could faithfully recreate actual current rosters and players, complete with announced names.

As has been said multiple times already, this case isn't about EA, it's about the NCAA and its amateurism rules. It is not about former players who didn't make it in the pros trying to get rich. This is a class-action lawsuit; the more plaintiffs there are, the smaller each individual payout will be. And every single person who played Division I through III college football or basketball during the timeframe established in the case can sign on as a plaintiff. That's well into the tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs. No one is getting a big check at the end of this (well, except for the lawyers).

I know people don't want to lose NCAA Football (and I don't think the game is necessarily doomed, even if the case is lost), but this case has merit. You can't simplify it down to just "SAM KELLER WANTS MONEY BECAUSE HE SUCKED." It's way more complex than that, on both sides of the issue.

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jeff George

As has been said multiple times already, this case isn't about EA, it's about the NCAA and its amateurism rules.

But it is about EA, they are the ones being sued, right? The NCAA is getting sued plenty in other cases, and the moral argument of whether players are being exploited will likely continue, but in this case, it is about whether EA used player likenesses in their game.

[Lzydd]

Quote: Originally Posted by hazey

i dont think a jersey number is enough to warrant issues because the number doesnt belong one particular player (numbers are simply an ncaa requirement for every participating university). the concerning thing with video games is collectively, numbers match rosters, rosters match grade classes, individuLs match height/weight, etc. its a subjective argument of can the legal teams prove that ea is trying to pull out individuL likeness within games. who's legal team can make the most convincing argument.

If the number 10 Texas jersey didn't belong to Vince Young why did they stop selling them the second he left? If the #7 jersey wasn't Garret Gilbert's, but instead some walk-on, why'd they go on sale when he announced his transfer?

[mjavon]

I am by no means a legal expert, but couldn't they just avoid this whole process by paying student athletes a small royalty? I mean I get that they're supposed to be amateur athletes, but we all know that's not completely true. What would be the harm in providing them with a small stipend for books/food/transportation.

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

But it is about EA, they are the ones being sued, right? The NCAA is getting sued plenty in other cases, and the moral argument of whether players are being exploited will likely continue, but in this case, it is about whether EA used player likenesses in their game.

No. It's O'Bannon vs. the NCAA and Keller vs EA. Joint case so both NCAA and EA are the defendants.

The amateurism rules are what is the center of the debate. There are plenty of things that point to EA using the likeness. As I said earlier EA has admitted as much and the emails from NCAA execs showed they knew what they were selling. EA's new defense is stating we did nothing that the NCAA did not say was alright. The NCAA is saying we own these kids while they are here. The suit is to determine if the NCAA selling the likeness of the players and EA using it to generate revenue violated the spirit of their control over amateur athlete likeness and if it should be a class action and all athletes get a cut or if the judge is going to limit the NCAA and EAs exposure. The antitrust claims are the center of the issue. The video game is a means to the end not the target.

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjavon

I am by no means a legal expert, but couldn't they just avoid this whole process by paying student athletes a small royalty? I mean I get that they're supposed to be amateur athletes, but we all know that's not completely true. What would be the harm in providing them with a small stipend for books/food/transportation.

They could pay the royalty, but by this point if they admitted one was due then that royalty would likely be in the billions of dollars. Unrealistic for both EA and the NCAA without some kind of agreement that would cripple the current institution of the NCAA and cause EA to abandon the NCAA series completly. It's already a low revenue game for them.

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dogslax41

No. It's O'Bannon vs. the NCAA and Keller vs EA. Joint case so both NCAA and EA are the defendants.

Those are two different cases. The title of this thread is "Why do past players thinking Suing E.A. sports for their likenesses will do any good?".

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but even if both cases were tried concurrently, the result of one would affect the other. You have to ask yourself why were the cases supposedly "joined"? Given what has already been established in court regarding the TV networks ability to broadcast and profit off of player names, since people are paying to watch the game, not the players, which I am having a hard to believing. But if you accept that premise, then you could apply that same premise to EA, that people are buying the game and not buying it because of the players. Moreso since unlike TV networks, the names aren't in the actual product.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dogslax41

The amateurism rules are what is the center of the debate. There are plenty of things that point to EA using the likeness. As I said earlier EA has admitted as much and the emails from NCAA execs showed they knew what they were selling. EA's new defense is stating we did nothing that the NCAA did not say was alright. The NCAA is saying we own these kids while they are here. The suit is to determine if the NCAA selling the likeness of the players and EA using it to generate revenue violated the spirit of their control over amateur athlete likeness and if it should be a class action and all athletes get a cut or if the judge is going to limit the NCAA and EAs exposure. The antitrust claims are the center of the issue. The video game is a means to the end not the target.

But the emails don't change the fact that they didn't actually use any player names in the product. Obviously each team has their own style, and maybe a type of player for their team. Like Nebraska used to always run the option, that was represented in the game. EA made the game as realistic and as real as possible, without specifically crossing the red line and putting the names in.