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

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kingdawgydawg

I played football on scholarship almost 10 years ago, it wasn't a major School yes I had a free education, I also got jobs "working" for the school getting paid to turn off lights in the weight room paid for knee and ankle surgery, so yes it is a free education with many perks, so the poor suffering scholarship player is a fallacy. Especially at a large school, it is not all created equal, but the sob stories are pathetic. Sent from Tapatalk

Show at any point in what I said did I reference a poor scholarship player. I simply said the phrase free education is rediculous. Anyone that plays at a Divison I program knows what goes in in exchange for that "free" education. You are right it's not all created equal, not all programs demand the same from its player nor do all reward its players the same.

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

where do you draw the line, then? doesn't ESPN and television networks use player likenesses as well? (for profit) when you watch a college football game on TV, you see the names of the players on the TV screen. ESPN has commercials that say "watch Johnny Manziel play this weekend, on ESPN". Then ESPN runs commercials during the games, makes money off of that, because people are tuning in to watch Johnny Manziel. Maybe ESPN should stop broadcasting college football games, since it is using player likenesses for their own profit. if you follow this rabbit hole all the way down to the bottom, it encompasses every aspect of college athletics, not just video games. that's why I believe that by the letter of the law, EA should be clear because it didn't use the actual player names. it gave you the ability to name the players, it had the same weight, height, player number, and ability of the actual player, but didn't actually provide the names of the player in the product. it's was basically nothing more then a generic create-a-player option with default values that loosely resembled the real players. jersey number, height, weight, attributes are generic things.

The television broadcast and revenue generation has already been ruled as coming as a result of displaying the "competition" not as a result of displaying the players. The court already ruled that on that issue, people pay to watch the game not the players.

You can say EA only provided this and EA only provided that and say nothing definitively states they are using a players likeness, but the O'Bannon team has emails explicitly stating they were to create players with the intention of using their likeness to generate revenue. Its in writing from EA, there is no ambiguity to the issue. The only question is if the NCAA has players likeness rights during and post college.

[JLoco11]

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

Do you mean NCAA Football 2005 or games released in the year 2005 (NCAA06)? NCAA 2005 was released on 07/15/04. NCAA 06 was released 07/11/05, 8 years ago yesterday. If they are still adding amendments to the suit, then it isn't official filed yet. If the statue of limitations is 8 years, then they may be limited to NCAA 07 and onward, ironically when the next-gen engine started. So if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck? I believe that EA has smoke and mirrors on their side. Tebow is just a name. What if Tebow's name was Smith, a more common last name? Could you have a formation with the name Smith in it? The issue is with player likenesses, not with a name of a formation. It could be argued that Tebow became a style of playing the QB position. when you say all EA NCAA games from 2005 will be eligible, do you mean from NCAA 06 on? it was released 8 years ago yesterday. Is the statue of limitations 8 years?

Sam Keller, former Nebraska & ASU QB was the first to sue in 2009, and he choose 2005 as the start of the lawsuit since that is when he was first accurately portrayed. O'Bannon's lawsuit has been combined with Keller because the statue of limitations is only 7 years and his case wouldn't have been heard.

But with the statue and should it end up being a class action suit, it will be a trickle down effect. Statue of limitations allows for 7 years, so anything released after May 9, 2002 would be eligible. However, with the class action, people who were in games in 2002 and BEFORE the statue of limitations open up litigation into prior years.... essentially, every NCAA game released would be eligible and expect 2K to eventually feel the brunt of the lawsuit as well if class action is applied. This is why O'Bannon is working with Keller, because its the only way he can become eligible on this lawsuit to get around the statue of limitations.

You mention the duck phrase that I mentioned in an earlier post. Legally, that's what laws go by. If the name on the formation were "Smith" or "Jones", EA would have an easy time dismissing that.

But let's be honest, how hard is to correlate that the name Tebow on a formation, is actually Tim Tebow. The formation was ONLY for the Gators. It ONLY referred to a QB, who happens to be #15, a left handed Senior from Florida and Tebow is the ONLY player who held that name in any level of collegiate football in the 2009 season (when the game was based on).

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.

[GisherJohn24]

Wow. Good info

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dogslax41

The television broadcast and revenue generation has already been ruled as coming as a result of displaying the "competition" not as a result of displaying the players. The court already ruled that on that issue, people pay to watch the game not the players.

Don't people pay to watch the player's play? The players are the one who play in the game. When you watch a college football game, you watch TDs scored by an actual player for a team. ESPN's telecasts actually display the player names. Whereas EA's games didn't ship with any player names. So if the court has already ruled on that issue, then I don't know how they could find EA guilty of doing less then TV networks do with the player names.

If it has been declared that people pay to watch the game, not the players, then why would it be any different for college football video games? I am not sure I agree with that, because I think a lot of people believe that college players are exploited by TV networks in terms of their likenesses more than ever. (more of a violation of the amateur athlete than anything in a video game)

Quote: Originally Posted by Dogslax41

You can say EA only provided this and EA only provided that and say nothing definitively states they are using a players likeness, but the O'Bannon team has emails explicitly stating they were to create players with the intention of using their likeness to generate revenue. Its in writing from EA, there is no ambiguity to the issue. The only question is if the NCAA has players likeness rights during and post college.

Let me just say that I'm split on who I want to win this suit. For various reasons. Firstly, with the direction that the NCAA series has gone on the 360/PS3, the future of college football video games is up in the air just based on gameplay and the engine alone.

It didn't use player likenesses because it didn't ship with the player names in it. The Tebow thing in NCAA '10, I guess that could be a possible issue, but even that is debatable since it wasn't a direct player likeness. it's not like it said Tim Tebow, and it's not like it had its picture next to it.

Although not mentioned, I'm pretty sure the player likeness comes down to how realistic the gameplay experience was. Like in the PS2 NCAA games, even like NCAA 2003, the game was so realistic that due to the quality of the engine and the create player editor, the user could actually make actual players look like the actual player would look in real life. And more importantly, play like the actual player actually played.

That is more of a compliment in how lifelike and realistic the NCAA games were on PS2 than anything else?

[Dogslax41]

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

Don't people pay to watch the player's play? The players are the one who play in the game. When you watch a college football game, you watch TDs scored by an actual player for a team. ESPN's telecasts actually display the player names. Whereas EA's games didn't ship with any player names. So if the court has already ruled on that issue, then I don't know how they could find EA guilty of doing less then TV networks do with the player names. If it has been declared that people pay to watch the game, not the players, then why would it be any different for college football video games? I am not sure I agree with that, because I think a lot of people believe that college players are exploited by TV networks in terms of their likenesses more than ever. (more of a violation of the amateur athlete than anything in a video game) Let me just say that I'm split on who I want to win this suit. For various reasons. Firstly, with the direction that the NCAA series has gone on the 360/PS3, the future of college football video games is up in the air just based on gameplay and the engine alone. It didn't use player likenesses because it didn't ship with the player names in it. The Tebow thing in NCAA '10, I guess that could be a possible issue, but even that is debatable since it wasn't a direct player likeness. it's not like it said Tim Tebow, and it's not like it had its picture next to it. Although not mentioned, I'm pretty sure the player likeness comes down to how realistic the gameplay experience was. Like in the PS2 NCAA games, even like NCAA 2003, the game was so realistic that due to the quality of the engine and the create player editor, the user could actually make actual players look like the actual player would look in real life. And more importantly, play like the actual player actually played. That is more of a compliment in how lifelike and realistic the NCAA games were on PS2 than anything else?

What part of this are you missing. EA has SAID (in emails and in court) they used player likeness. This is not a debate.


Jeremy Strauser, who worked at EA from 1995 until 2011, testified last December that computer-game avatars were linked to specific player identifying numbers and biographical information, such as team depth charts, was used to make the game realistic.

"We generally tried to make the players perform as their real life counterparts, short of their name and likeness," Strauser testified.

According to the email, which the plaintiffs' lawyers say references then-NCAA president Myles Brand and then-NCAA media and marketing executive Greg Shaheen, Linzner wrote, "Athlete name/likeness is still moving forward and the marketing teams are supplying material for Greg to use w/ a new committee of presidents and ADs.

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dogslax41

What part of this are you missing. EA has SAID (in emails and in court) they used player likeness. This is not a debate. Jeremy Strauser, who worked at EA from 1995 until 2011, testified last December that computer-game avatars were linked to specific player identifying numbers and biographical information, such as team depth charts, was used to make the game realistic. "We generally tried to make the players perform as their real life counterparts, short of their name and likeness," Strauser testified. According to the email, which the plaintiffs' lawyers say references then-NCAA president Myles Brand and then-NCAA media and marketing executive Greg Shaheen, Linzner wrote, "Athlete name/likeness is still moving forward and the marketing teams are supplying material for Greg to use w/ a new committee of presidents and ADs.

Didn't we all know this? wasn't this always obvious? when we buy an NCAA game, we know that the player attributes loosely resemble their real life counterpart. but EA always didn't put the player names in the game like they did in Madden for a reason, right? They couldn't release all the NCAA games with the actual player names, player pictures, player photos, like they did in Madden.

[Sublime12089]

Quote: Originally Posted by GisherJohn24

They have no case. They are not using player names, never have. Most of the faces look nearly identical to the next guy. Case closed. What the fans do with the players after we buy the game, name them, give them new hairstyles, what have you, that's our God given right. They have no right to sue what people do in the privacy of their own home. They don't have a case. It better be dropped. IF they win, we may never be able to share rosters again...

LOL. This reads as a caricature. Neither your "God-given rights" nor privacy issues have anything at all to do with this.

Just because you want to play your game, doesn't mean that there is not a legitimate case. EA has known for awhile it was in a legal gray area, and I am interested to see what the courts say.