Jim Brown Receives $600K Settlement Against EA

[baconbits11]

This settlement and lawsuit are ridiculous. Back in the day when his so-called "likeness" was in the game, the player models were so primitive that it did not constitute a likeness. So any black player with the number of 32 could be considered a likeness? There was no face, no discerning marks, Jim Brown did not OWN the ratings that were given to him. The only mistake I see EA making was putting him on the Browns. They should have just put a #32 in the free agent pool.

Now if it was XBOX 360 or PS3 and EA had his face on a model without permission, then yeah sue for that. But this is just Mr Brown being a d***.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by baconbits11

This settlement and lawsuit are ridiculous. Back in the day when his so-called "likeness" was in the game, the player models were so primitive that it did not constitute a likeness. So any black player with the number of 32 could be considered a likeness? There was no face, no discerning marks, Jim Brown did not OWN the ratings that were given to him. The only mistake I see EA making was putting him on the Browns. They should have just put a #32 in the free agent pool. Now if it was XBOX 360 or PS3 and EA had his face on a model without permission, then yeah sue for that. But this is just Mr Brown being a d***.

I wish people knew the actual legal definition of a likeness before posting.

Likeness: The distinguishable aspects of a person identity.

So Madden had a RB on the classic Browns team that was Black, 6-2, 235 lbs, Black and wore #32.

Jim Brown was a RB on the Browns.
Jim Brown is 6-2.
Jim Brown was 235 lbs when he played.
Jim Brown wore #32.
Jim Brown is a black man.

That right there is enough to justify a right of publicity/likeness suit. Those are all distinguishable ways to identify Brown.

The fact that they asked Brown before they added him to the game and he said no just makes the case more of a slam dunk.

It doesnt matter that the graphics were primitive.
It doesnt matter that they didnt try to make his face resemble Brown.
It doesnt matter that they didnt use Brown's name.

Your solution of just putting a #32 in the FA pool wouldnt work for EA. They wanted people to know it was Brown without using his name. Adding a black RB with the #32 wouldntve been enough for people to know it was Brown. A black #32 RB could be Marcus Allen or OJ Simpson or Franco Harris. They wanted people to know it was Brown.

I honestly dont know why anyone would defend EA here.

[baconbits11]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I wish people knew the actual legal definition of a likeness before posting. Likeness: The distinguishable aspects of a person identity. So Madden had a RB on the classic Browns team that was Black, 6-2, 235 lbs, Black and wore #32. Jim Brown was a RB on the Browns. Jim Brown is 6-2. Jim Brown was 235 lbs when he played. Jim Brown wore #32. Jim Brown is a black man. That right there is enough to justify a right of publicity/likeness suit. Those are all distinguishable ways to identify Brown. The fact that they asked Brown before they added him to the game and he said no just makes the case more of a slam dunk. It doesnt matter that the graphics were primitive. It doesnt matter that they didnt try to make his face resemble Brown. It doesnt matter that they didnt use Brown's name. Your solution of just putting a #32 in the FA pool wouldnt work for EA. They wanted people to know it was Brown without using his name. Adding a black RB with the #32 wouldntve been enough for people to know it was Brown. A black #32 RB could be Marcus Allen or OJ Simpson or Franco Harris. They wanted people to know it was Brown. I honestly dont know why anyone would defend EA here.

I said EA's mistake was putting him on the Browns. My point is if they had changed just one of the identifying marks above, changed height, weight, put him in the free agent pool, made him white, etc. what then? Mr Brown would have lost his suit if there's any justice if any of that happened. I'm sure there are other black players #32 with the same height and weight as Brown in many other Madden games.

Sure EA Screwed up, I never questioned that, but Mr. Brown is being a jerk. It's a videogame! If it's clear EA wanted people to know it was Brown, then should have been honored by his legacy being explored by young kids who play games. Now this opens the door for every other player to sue also. If this continues, then we may not have any football games.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by baconbits11

I said EA's mistake was putting him on the Browns. My point is if they had changed just one of the identifying marks above, changed height, weight, put him in the free agent pool, made him white, etc. what then? Mr Brown would have lost his suit if there's any justice if any of that happened. I'm sure there are other black players #32 with the same height and weight as Brown in many other Madden games. Sure EA Screwed up, I never questioned that, but Mr. Brown is being a jerk. It's a videogame! If it's clear EA wanted people to know it was Brown, then should have been honored by his legacy being explored by young kids who play games. Now this opens the door for every other player to sue also. If this continues, then we may not have any football games.

What? How is he being a jerk? He has a right to control how his likeness is used. He has a right to demand money for the use of his likeness. He didnt come to a deal with EA, they went ahead and used his likeness and he sued. Thats exactly what he shouldve done.

Also Brown wouldnt have sued if they made the character white but EA wouldnt have done that because then people wouldnt have known it was Brown.

It doesnt open up any lawsuits other than those related to classic teams and players they didnt license....and Madden doesnt have classic teams anymore. EA has rights to every active NFL player because it has a LICENSE with the NFLPA. The classic players in MUT were paid by EA to LICENSE their likeness.

You gotta know the facts before spouting an opinion man.

[seasprite]

Quote: Originally Posted by baconbits11

I said EA's mistake was putting him on the Browns. My point is if they had changed just one of the identifying marks above, changed height, weight, put him in the free agent pool, made him white, etc. what then? Mr Brown would have lost his suit if there's any justice if any of that happened. I'm sure there are other black players #32 with the same height and weight as Brown in many other Madden games. Sure EA Screwed up, I never questioned that, but Mr. Brown is being a jerk. It's a videogame! If it's clear EA wanted people to know it was Brown, then should have been honored by his legacy being explored by young kids who play games. Now this opens the door for every other player to sue also. If this continues, then we may not have any football games.

That's a pretty big "what if"....would have made this thread non-existent seeing as Brown would have never sued. This action of litigation doesn't in any way, make Brown a jerk.........he has a ton of other actions that do though.

[mrprice33]

There's a whole lot of "I don't know what I'm talking about but let's push forward and hot take away!" going on in this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by baconbits11

I said EA's mistake was putting him on the Browns. My point is if they had changed just one of the identifying marks above, changed height, weight, put him in the free agent pool, made him white, etc. what then? Mr Brown would have lost his suit if there's any justice if any of that happened. I'm sure there are other black players #32 with the same height and weight as Brown in many other Madden games. Sure EA Screwed up, I never questioned that, but Mr. Brown is being a jerk. It's a videogame! If it's clear EA wanted people to know it was Brown, then should have been honored by his legacy being explored by young kids who play games. Now this opens the door for every other player to sue also. If this continues, then we may not have any football games.

All that supposed conceding that this is EA faults but then you round it off with the bold, so it's not really EA's fault. You actually have the nerve to say say that someone SHOULD be honored, for whatever reason, after EA would use their likeness after they told them they couldn't, as if it's only video games that EA makes for kids out of the kindness of their heart. I'm also curious how personal attacks against Jim Brown are ok ITT. I wonder how it would go in any thread if it was said "ok that's not EA's fault but they are jerks, they should just be honored that kids want to play their games and not charge $60, $5 is sufficient".

Then the whole thing about this could lead to no football games, which someone has already explained why that's doesn't apply earlier ITT when referring to NFL video games but even if it weren't the case and suing for player likeness could result in no football video games, again, EA's fault, not that of whatever athletes likenesses they used illegally.

To that other poster with that slick comment about my feelings towards EA, this has nothing to do with what I think of Madden and as passionate as I get about football video games, my contempt for this garbage being displayed in here against an individual in favor of a corporation violating their lawful right to decline being used, goes far beyond any opinion about a video game. Jim Brown has no fault in this situation yet people are being allowed to spew all manner of utter ignorance and logic twisting because.......I have no idea why.

[baconbits11]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

What? How is he being a jerk? He has a right to control how his likeness is used. He has a right to demand money for the use of his likeness. He didnt come to a deal with EA, they went ahead and used his likeness and he sued. Thats exactly what he shouldve done. Also Brown wouldnt have sued if they made the character white but EA wouldnt have done that because then people wouldnt have known it was Brown. It doesnt open up any lawsuits other than those related to classic teams and players they didnt license....and Madden doesnt have classic teams anymore. EA has rights to every active NFL player because it has a LICENSE with the NFLPA. The classic players in MUT were paid by EA to LICENSE their likeness. You gotta know the facts before spouting an opinion man.

None of this is fact, just expressing my opinion. But the fact is it could be a problem for those of us who like football games.

My last say on this is Mr Brown had the choice not to sue. There's a #34 on the 85 Bears. I don't see Walter Payton's family suing. There's a #22 on the 92 Cowboys, again I don't see Emmitt suing. You don't see any of his teammates listed here suing:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...965_roster.htm

and I'm sure a lot more of them could use the money or are struggling like a lot of oldtime NFL players.

YES, EA SCREWED UP! they shouldn't have asked Mr Brown and went and put a pixelated character with all those details (team, height, weight). We don't know who else they asked or didn't ask, but there are hundreds of players on these classic teams that could now get $600K each. This would put EA out of business. If they don't get $600K, then another question to ask is why Mr Brown would get this amount but no one else. This action by Mr Brown wasn't necessary or important. It's a videogame. Surely, Mr Brown has other good things he could be doing than suing a videogame company. Maybe he's upset his rushing record was broke twice and he is losing his status.

We could all lose Madden and football videogames because of this. Now that Mr Brown sued, why wouldn't everyone else who was on a classic roster sue also?

PS I also doubt Mr Brown will be donating his windfall to charity.