[SECElit3]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

See I hate this kind of attitude. I get paid good money to do my job. I'm thankful for the amount I get paid. But if I found out my job was selling T-shirts with my face on them, charging 20 bucks a pop for them and my job was making millions off of them.....I would want my damn cut. Its the same with college athletes. One, you are wrong about most of them getting merchandise money. There are 10,000 Division 1-A football players each year. Maybe 200-300 tops sign memorabilia deals or merchandise deals when their college career is over. Two, they didnt "rape the system". They held up their end of the bargain. They played college football. The school gave them a scholarship. That was the extent of the deal. There was no likeness deal. Three, if any top football player agreed to that ridiculous suggestion that in exchange for a 50k scholarship they give up their likeness rights for life....that player is dumbest person on earth.

AHolbert, I fully understand your argument and to some extent agree with it. Where do you draw the line in regards to likeness? How far does one go with his or her interpretation of likeness in regards to a football game? Some might make the argument that replicating a uniform which thousands of other players have worn, putting a number on it which thousands of other players have worn, and putting that player at the same postion which thousands of others have played, would not necessarily represent a true likeness.

Maybe my perspective is skewed a little here and maybe it is not, but your example of your company pasting your face on a shirt and selling it for profit is not appropriate for this scenario. EA is not putting these players faces in the game. The faces in the game are generics. They are not putting names on the jerseys. As obvious as it might seem to some that a player or players in a game represent real life counterparts, I believe this case is going to be determined by interpretation