[RaychelSnr]

Quote: Originally Posted by prowler

That's not going to happen, there's a reason he decided to go after EA and not the NCAA. As we're witnessing he has a legitimate chance of winning against EA, the same can't be said against an educational institution. Against EA he can (and will) make the argument that a publicly traded company is profiting off his likeness without his permission, the same can't be said for the NCAA. He was offered a chance at a free education from two major universities, something that costs the average person tens of thousands of dollars. If he were to go after the NCAA, all they'd do is show him the bill for what he would've paid in tuition, books and housing adjusted for inflation with interest (since I doubt he was smart enough to get academic scholarships and would've taken out loans) and his lawsuit goes away quietly.

That's actually a false point of view on this lawsuit. First, Keller is simply the defendant named in the lawsuit, but it has support from many former NCAA athletes who didn't make the big time. There are actually a couple of other suits out there that are pretty much the same as Keller's. This won't go away anytime soon. Also, the scholarships do not matter whatsoever when discussing this. It'd be like trying to argue whether the light was on or off during a robbery, it's really irrelevant to the entire case of "Did person z rob person y of item x".

What is in question is should EA and the NCAA be allowed to use strikingly similar player likenesses in video games which both profit off of without the players permission or without any of those licensing fees going back to the player. It is, in a lot of ways, the same thing as the Ed O'Bannon case. Unless the NCAA has players sign their likenesses away when they play college sports, both EA and the NCAA could be in serious hot water here.