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

[Goblowsoup]

You called my slavery comment asinine, so what you're saying is that when you sign up for playing college sports that you give up your human rights? That it was your choice? That makes no sense. And, EA IS profiting off of them. As I've said before, within Denard Robinson's likeness, or without your favorite college players existence, many people wouldn't buy the game. Just ask 2k what happened with All Pro 2k8. When you take out someone's favorite players or teams you just get average sales. The Blitz series was at one time a highly selling franchise, take away the NFL license and it went into oblivion.

I just don't think it's right that the NCAA, EA, or anyone makes millions off of someones likeness. The top selling NCAA jerseys aren't just Joe Blow #12...it's that college's star player. And that, is where I feel the line is crossed. Most college football players get partial scholarships. The argument of them making $40,000 a year through scholarships is a joke. Few, if any get that much each year. I'd guess the average scholarship is between $5,000-$10,000 (if that). A full-time employee at McDonalds will make more than that each year. Do you honestly believe that it's proper compensation for a star player?

[knighthawksfan]

glad too hear he lost the suit **** sam keller

[EnigmaNemesis]

Yes, comparing it to slavery is asinine. And I will stick to that. Their "human rights" are not given up.

To think they morally deserve compensation is one thing, but to compare to slavery is a whole other level.

I am not continuing this discussion. It is just ignorant.

[Old School SD Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

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.

If Hollywood does a true story they buy the rights to the story. Or they get their butts sued such as the Tyson tatoo ripoff in the Hangover II. Believe me, this will be appealed if that guy has the money to do so, but I suspect that that individual wasn't as well represented as Keller. We'll see how the Keller case shakes out.

And don't get me wrong, I live for valid rosters, but that doesn't affect my view of what's right or legal.

[bigdunks4eva]

The interesting thing about this is this precedent (if it is one) can be used against EA. 2k or another company could make a pro football game with the "likenesses" of nfl players and use this case as a reference point if sued. Ea could be opening the door for their competition... Now I'm no expert but that's what Im thinking

Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

If Hollywood does a true story they buy the rights to the story. Or they get their butts sued such as the Tyson tatoo ripoff in the Hangover II. Believe me, this will be appealed if that guy has the money to do so, but I suspect that that individual wasn't as well represented as Keller. We'll see how the Keller case shakes out. And don't get me wrong, I live for valid rosters, but that doesn't affect my view of what's right or legal.

Only if real names are used. They can use likenesses, since it is considered artistic rendition (and have been doing this for longer than you or I were on this planet). But they can not use the names unless rights are purchased (your name is considered a legal contract in this country).

Why are people not getting this? You have to separate your moral beliefs with what the law is.

The tattoo is a different story, because they are using another artist's original work (though they may be protected as parody act). Their problem was they copied it to the "T". They could have used it with some variations and been okay.

Making a 6-7, 275lb black man with brown eyes with similar build is not the same as using an artist's original work. That is a form of copyright infringement.

[Goblowsoup]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigdunks4eva

The interesting thing about this is this precedent (if it is one) can be used against EA. 2k or another company could make a pro football game with the "likenesses" of nfl players and use this case as a reference point if sued. Ea could be opening the door for their competition... Now I'm no expert but that's what Im thinking Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk

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.

[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?