[lord_mike]

O'Bannon just amended his lawsuit. Read this article and weep:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...ns-ea/2567367/

All the allegations seem really, really bad, especially since the NCAA is exclusively using the "We didn't license player likenesses" defense, which is a pretty hard sell considering the players in the game look exactly like their real life counterparts. The real killer is this:

Quote:

In August 2007, when licensing of video games was being negotiated, EA allegedly "offered to establish a 'players' fund' for the use of the (student-athletes') names, images, and likenesses. CLC, negotiating on the NCAA's behalf, instead suggested that the money should go to the NCAA. EA agreed to pay a kicker to the NCAA in order 'to align interests and incentivize all parties to help build the category with new rights.' EA made this offer contingent on 'no royalties . . . to a player fund.' "

It doesn't look good. The only positive note here is that EA was willing to make allowances for the players, which means that they'd be OK with that in the future.... assuming they don't get killed in the present with damages. The NCAA better come up with something better than, "I know that the players in the game look exactly like who the real players are, but it's completely a coincidence" defense, which is a sure loser. At the very least, EA should be arguing first amendment. A lawsuit by Jim Brown against a gaming company was successfully defended that way. Of course, they'd look silly now, but this current defense isn't going to fly one bit.