PDA

View Full Version : Lawsuit against EA/NCAA over player likeness



CLW
10-01-2010, 12:25 PM
Jay Bilas has posted a blog about the "likeness" lawsuit by Keller/O'Bannon against EA and the NCAA.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5636365

Jay Bilas is a a Duke J.D. so its actually a pretty good read and makes the case for Keller/O'Bannon and against EA/NCAA.

Note, as a fellow J.D. I disagree with Bilas on his application of the law (which he admits he hasn't read the pleadings). However, I do NOT disagree that the likely result in this case is going to be bad for EA/NCAA and ultimately us as consumers.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bilas isn't called as a witness (arguably he could even be a defendant in the case). He did voice over work. Hmmm.... maybe if Bilas was on the other side of the "v." his legal view would change. Unfortunately, that's generally how it works in this world.

I've really wanted to do an article on these cases for some time now. I even have a stack of research just sitting in a pile at home with all kinds of funny/interesting cases on the subject.

JeffHCross
10-01-2010, 06:09 PM
CLW, your link has two http:// in it.

CLW
10-01-2010, 06:39 PM
CLW, your link has two http:// in it.

D'Oh. Fixed.

Rudy
10-08-2010, 05:11 AM
It would really suck if the NCAA rosters had to be done completely from scratch. It's hard enough for the roster guys just to edit the names. If this happens EA needs to provide a fully customizable PC interface where people could edit rosters months before the game is released and let people work on them.

CD guys - how worried are the folks at EA over this lawsuit?

gschwendt
10-08-2010, 09:14 AM
CD guys - how worried are the folks at EA over this lawsuit?
Even if we knew, we couldn't comment on it.

CLW
10-08-2010, 11:32 AM
It would really suck if the NCAA rosters had to be done completely from scratch. It's hard enough for the roster guys just to edit the names. If this happens EA needs to provide a fully customizable PC interface where people could edit rosters months before the game is released and let people work on them.

CD guys - how worried are the folks at EA over this lawsuit?

I have ZERO inside knowledge from EA.

However, they should be very concerned. If O'Bannon and Keller win it will forever change college sports video games as we know it.

IF they win EA will be forced back into GENERIC ROSTERS THAT CANNOT BE EDITED.

The only work around (assuming they win) would be to go to each team and have each player on each team sign a waiver. This of course assumes the NCAA would allow it (which I doubt they would).

This topic is very interesting legally IMO.

Again, I completely disagree with Bilas and the Plaintiffs in this case. However, it looks like they are more likely than not going to win (unless EA is willing take the case up on appeal).

In the end, we could be stuck with NOONE manufacturing a college sports game. I just don't see a market for a NCAA game with bad/inaccurate/generic rosters that cannot be edited. EA could just say F it its not worth the hassle and drop the series.

Rudy
10-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Why wouldn't EA be allowed to customize the rosters? Doesn't the PES soccer game allow complete customization without all the licenses? The real problem is that the players are resembling their real life counterparts in every way except their name and picture. Tim Tebow had his correct height, weight, school, throwing hand and rushing and throwing abilities. That's what they are suing EA over. EA would still be able to release an NCAA game with full customization imo. The biggest difference is that all the teams would have truly random players and abilities that would require complete edits which would be a pain in the ass.

Plus, even if the lawsuit wins, those players aren't upset about their likeness being used, they just want a cut of the pie. A union could or a trust fund could be set up for the players potentially. I'm not sure about their amateur status and how that gets affected.

JeffHCross
10-08-2010, 06:25 PM
Rudy's right CLW ... unless it was part of the judgement, there's no reason for EA to not allow editing the rosters.

That said, I agree ... if the NCAA loses this lawsuit, it's more likely that we'd see college games get dropped from the major publishers.

CLW
10-08-2010, 06:30 PM
Rudy's right CLW ... unless it was part of the judgement, there's no reason for EA to not allow editing the rosters.

That said, I agree ... if the NCAA loses this lawsuit, it's more likely that we'd see college games get dropped from the major publishers.

No b/c any disgruntled former college athlete could still sue EA/NCAA for putting out a game that allows for their "likeness" to be used without their permission.

It's like Napster. They didn't technically violate any copyright laws themselves but their program allowed others to do so.

JeffHCross
10-08-2010, 06:32 PM
Right, but there's a lot of "prior art" which allows editing rosters and using legitimate likenesses. Yes, they'd still leave themselves open, and they'd be likely to go to the other extreme in their effort to assume the fetal position ... but there's nothing really that would prevent them from allowing that.

CLW
10-10-2010, 06:53 AM
Right, but there's a lot of "prior art" which allows editing rosters and using legitimate likenesses. Yes, they'd still leave themselves open, and they'd be likely to go to the other extreme in their effort to assume the fetal position ... but there's nothing really that would prevent them from allowing that.

Exactly, if EA/NCAA loses this they aren't going to push the envelope any more. Rather, they will just make generic teams/rosters for each school and never have to edit them. The game sales will undoubtedly drop and eventually there are ZERO NCAA video games on the market.

My "solution" is to settle with O'Bannon/Keller and try to keep it quiet so that past athletes do not get word of "free money". Then in the future with NCAA permission send them a contract to sign essentially saying you get paid nothing but if you want your "likeness" in a video game sign here. The athletes that sign get in the game and the ones that don't do not.

Quest4Gold
10-26-2010, 08:04 AM
Honestly, this whole thing is a crock. How about all the jerseys these schools sell and they don't get a penny. This is just a way to make some money. Just because their pro careers didn't make them millions, they are looking for a quick buck. When I go to the midnight madness. I have Akron Zips guys lining up with me excited to see themselves in the game.

Rudy
10-26-2010, 04:41 PM
Georgia can sell AJ Green's jersey WITH his name on it (they sell 6 different versions apparently) and that's OK. But he sells his game jersey for some money and gets a 4 game suspension. This ESPN article shows that athletes still end up paying thousands of dollars despite a full ride.
http://es.pn/aHIADW

JeffHCross
10-26-2010, 07:49 PM
Georgia can sell AJ Green's jersey WITH his name on it (they sell 6 different versions apparently)FWIW, I have never, never seen a jersey on sale with a player's name on it. I saw something on Sportscenter or elsewhere going over all the different versions of the AJ Green jersey that are on sale ... but I don't recall his name being on them being part of the discussion.

Rudy
10-27-2010, 07:14 AM
I could have sworn Tony Barnhardt wrote that they were selling some jersey with a name on it. Either I was mistaken (I refuse to admit this :) ) or Tony edited after it was released.

http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/09/09/why-i-cant-be-mad-at-a-j-green/

JeffHCross
10-27-2010, 10:13 PM
It does say this ... maybe this is what you were thinking of

But when some schools–and I am told that Georgia is not one of them–start putting name on the back on the jersey then you have crossed an ethical line. What the kid did on the field made that jersey more valuable than a generic one. He created that extra value and cannot share in it. So the school shouldn’t share in it either.
I guess it's feasible that someone's doing it, but I have never seen a jersey on sale with a name on it. That violates every part of the NCAA's rules on likenesses.

If you scout around the online websites, there are a lot of sites that will let you put a name on the back of a jersey. But every one of those sites that I've come across specifically states you cannot put the name of a current player, per NCAA rules.

Rudy
10-28-2010, 05:51 PM
That's the part that I think he edited. I follow Tony on twitter and read that article when he first posted it. I could have sworn he wrote they were selling 6 different jerseys of his and some had his name on the back. He made a specific point about his name. Maybe my memory is off but the number of jerseys and that he specifically mentioned his name being on the jersey stuck with me because I didn't think colleges put names on jerseys.

CLW
12-17-2010, 09:21 AM
Another lawsuit by a former college athlete. I'm telling you every loser that played sports is going to use this as a free check. EA needs a big win here in the courts or NCAA Football may be an endangered species.

http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/dec/15/former-vol-bobby-maze-sues-ea-ncaa-sec/

JeffHCross
12-17-2010, 07:19 PM
The suit says college athletes’ likenesses and even their jersey numbers are used in video games Ooh, even their jersey numbers? Seriously, the emphasis was put on the wrong part of that. Jersey numbers are easily the most generic of the college athletes' likeness.

At the very least, I think the part about scholarships will be thrown out (or laughed out) of the building. The likeness/video game argument could have some legs, and the repercussions are huge for the entirety of the NCAA, not just NCAA Football.

CLW
12-18-2010, 06:08 AM
Ooh, even their jersey numbers? Seriously, the emphasis was put on the wrong part of that. Jersey numbers are easily the most generic of the college athletes' likeness.

At the very least, I think the part about scholarships will be thrown out (or laughed out) of the building. The likeness/video game argument could have some legs, and the repercussions are huge for the entirety of the NCAA, not just NCAA Football.

Meh, if the NCAA/EA lose this 1st round of lawsuits, I believe the NCAA will just ditch NCAA video games.

JeffHCross
12-18-2010, 11:24 AM
Meh, if the NCAA/EA lose this 1st round of lawsuits, I believe the NCAA will just ditch NCAA video games.Well, I certainly agree, but the repercussions are a little broader than that, imo. If this lawsuit is right that the players sign away their likeness every year (which I've seen debated but never confirmed), then there could be some major repercussions about how NCAA merchandising is handled.

CLW
12-18-2010, 01:19 PM
Well, I certainly agree, but the repercussions are a little broader than that, imo. If this lawsuit is right that the players sign away their likeness every year (which I've seen debated but never confirmed), then there could be some major repercussions about how NCAA merchandising is handled.

The argument that a player's "likeness" includes a number has no merit. If that were the case then a player would also be subject to a lawsuit from former players and former players' estates for the new player using a former player's likeness without their permission.

JeffHCross
12-18-2010, 01:31 PM
The argument that a player's "likeness" includes a number has no merit. If that were the case then a player would also be subject to a lawsuit from former players and former players' estates for the new player using a former player's likeness without their permission.I said nothing about a number ??? Unless you're connecting that with my previous post, in which I completely agree with you. I don't know why the link put emphasis on the jersey number. Whoop-dee-doo.

I'm just saying that the lawsuit claims, according to that link, that the players "sign a form each year giving up the right to their likeness that continues even after they graduate." That has widespread reprecussions for the NCAA if that was found to be unfair / illegal / what have you. I make no assumptions about whether or not it is ... but it would be a lot bigger than just video games. Nearly the entire NCAA marketing arm is predicated on using the likeness of players after they have graduated.

CLW
12-18-2010, 04:26 PM
I said nothing about a number ??? Unless you're connecting that with my previous post, in which I completely agree with you. I don't know why the link put emphasis on the jersey number. Whoop-dee-doo.

I'm just saying that the lawsuit claims, according to that link, that the players "sign a form each year giving up the right to their likeness that continues even after they graduate." That has widespread reprecussions for the NCAA if that was found to be unfair / illegal / what have you. I make no assumptions about whether or not it is ... but it would be a lot bigger than just video games. Nearly the entire NCAA marketing arm is predicated on using the likeness of players after they have graduated.

If these players all sign waivers then ALL of these claims have zero merit. An individual has ZERO right to play for/on a NCAA affiliated team. As such, if part of the conditions to accepting a scholarship/playing for a team is waiving a right to the use of one's "likeness" then the NCAA/EA can do whatever the hell they want to in a video game.

No reputable court (translation outside of California/9th Circuit) would rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. The question becomes is EA/NCAA willing to fight up to the Supreme Court. If not, then the NCAA will lose its current right to show highlights etc... Moreover, ESPN could be sued for using players' "likeness" when they show video highlights. Etc...

cdj
02-13-2011, 07:09 PM
An update. Tuesday will be worth watching. I was not aware of the other organizations throwing their support behind (and against) EA & the NCAA.

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110213/ap_on_sp_ot/us_ncaa_lawsuits)


SAN FRANCISCO – There was a time when Sam Keller and his teammates couldn't wait to get their hands on Electronic Arts Inc.'s latest edition of NCAA Football, which included their team and images down to Keller's distinctive visor he wore while playing quarterback for the University of Nebraska in 2007.
EA shares undisclosed royalties with the NCAA for use of college stadiums, team names and uniforms and the players' images in a game that racks up hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales. Because they are amateur athletes, the players don't receive any direct benefit from the appearances of their nameless images in the game.

But Keller and an increasing number of players, such as former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, think they should and have filed at least nine federal lawsuits against the NCAA and EA over the last two years.

On Tuesday, Keller will be in Pasadena to watch his team of lawyers urge the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a trial judge's decision that EA and the NCAA appear to owe the former Cornhusker and — by the extension — thousands of other former players millions of dollars for using their images in the video game.

"When you are playing, you are kind of naive to the idea that you are being taken advantage of because you are so caught up in playing college football," said Keller of his decision to sue long after his college career ended and he failed to make the Oakland Raiders 2008 regular season roster. "They are making billions off of our images."

A Keller victory could dramatically reshape the commercial relationship between the NCAA and its athletes, which are prohibited from receiving compensation tied to their performances. Keller's attorney and his supporters are floating the idea of setting up a trust fund of sorts with any proceeds from the lawsuits to benefit the athletes. They envision the NCAA continuing to fund the trust fund with the billions in dollars it receives from television networks, apparel sales and other sources.

Keller was a highly sought recruit when he graduated from the Bay Area's San Ramon Valley High School in 2003. He played for three years at Arizona St., garnering MVP honors for his performance as a sophomore in the Sun Bowl. After losing the starting job, he transferred to Nebraska in 2006 and sat out that season because of NCAA transfer rules. Keller started for the Cornhuskers in 2007 as a red-shirt senior before breaking his collar bone against Texas in the ninth game of the season.

Keller's lawsuit has also unexpectedly ballooned into a major First Amendment challenge, prompting Hollywood's largest movie studios and dozens of other interests — from the estates of reggae legend Bob Marley and Nobel laureate John Steinbeck to ESPN and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund — to weigh in on the case.

The hearing Tuesday in the historic Spanish Colonial Revival courthouse in Pasadena will focus on a February 2010 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken refusing to grant EA free speech protection and dismiss the lawsuit. EA argues that it uses the players' images to create works of art much in the same way authors, filmmakers and songwriters insert real people in novels, movies and songs.

Wilken ruled against EA, saying the company didn't sufficiently "transform" the players' images to qualify for First Amendment protection. She said EA's argument that it removed the names of the players from the game wasn't enough because it was obvious who the nameless images represented real people.

For example, the virtual player wears the same jersey number, is the same height and weight and hails from the same state, Wilken said.

EA and the NCAA appealed and are joined by the Hollywood studios, media companies and other organizations such as the Comic Book Defense Fund who fear that Wilken's ruling, if allowed to stand, will severely stifle artistic expression.

EA's lawyers, for instance, predict the demise of movies such as "Forest Gump" that rely heavily on the free use of celebrity images to further a narrative.

"Documentarians, biographers, filmmakers, novelists, photographers, songwriters, and many others do exactly what the district court said is not protected: they create expressive works that realistically depict individuals and/or refer to them by their actual names," EA's lawyers wrote in their appeal.

Allowing the players' lawsuit to go forward will threaten future movie productions, Motion Picture Association of America wrote in support of EA.

"For example, an unauthorized biography of Keller, which included photographs of him wearing his college football uniform or playing college football, would be strictly prohibited," the MPAA's attorneys wrote the appeals court. "So too would a motion picture about a fictional college football player that incorporated historical footage of actual college football games and named actual college football players."

Keller's attorney dismisses the threats of an artistic Armegeddon if EA ends up owing the players for using their images.

"There is a big difference between those examples and a video game based in realism," said Steve Berman, one of Keller's attorneys. "They're whole game is realism. Realism is the opposite of creative expression."

Keller has his share of supporters, too. Players unions of all major professional sports leagues in the United States back Keller as do the estates of Marley and Steinbeck

"EA's infringing use of the athletes' personas is tantamount to stealing, and opens the door for others to freely circumvent the statutory and common law right of publicity of any individual in the future," wrote lawyers for the Steinbeck estate, the Screen Actors Guild and several other organizations representing authors and actors. "The result can be ruinous to a performers' career and financial interests, as well as to their families'."

If Keller prevails, many of the myriad lawyers involved in the case and legal scholars following it closely say the case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Keller said in an interview Thursday from Scottsdale, Ariz. where he lives and manages a hotel bar that he never envisioned his complaint becoming so far reaching.

"The goal wasn't for it to get so big," Keller said. "The goal was to change what's going on in college sports, to change the behavior of the NCAA."

gschwendt
02-13-2011, 07:28 PM
Wow... that's gotten quite a bit bigger than I ever expected. I can see the stretch of the argument both ways, though EA is stretching it abit far saying that would start limiting/preventing movies like Forrest Gump from developing the way they did. Will definitely be interesting to see how all of this develops. IMO the whole matter needs to come down to including players' likeness into their scholarship contract somehow.

ram29jackson
02-13-2011, 07:39 PM
long story, short...

EA has never used these players names and they dont update roster ratings each year to emulate the player. Keller cant say- thats me in the game, because it isnt. Having the same jersey number is vague.

JeffHCross
02-13-2011, 07:44 PM
I think something will definitely change. It has to. Yes, that seems like an overwhelming amount of support being EA and the NCAA, but something's going to have to give. And the reason I think something's going to have to give is stories like this, which I guess I didn't post here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611


Oscar Robertson is asked to affix his autograph to various items every day and he recently discovered a new one being pushed in front of him by fans – trading cards featuring him as a player at the University of Cincinnati. Some come with a swath of his “game jersey” attached. Others have him in his freshman number, 22.

This was not a product he recalled approving for his likeness to be used. He tried calling the trading card companies (Upper Deck, Donruss) for an explanation yet couldn’t get a response.

The answer was the NCAA had signed licensing deals with the companies without Robertson’s direct consent. The association maintains it has the right to control a player’s likeness in perpetuity.

In the case of the 72-year-old Big O, that means 51 years and counting. He left UC in 1960.

Robertson's name recognition alone is enough to give this suit some new, and important, legs. And Tate George's case is certainly interesting, though upon looking at the shot on YouTube, I can't honestly say I remember seeing it in any recent ads.Say what you will ... Sam Kellar is not The Big O.

Having the same jersey number is vague.Yes, but, having the same jersey number, skin tone, height, weight, and home state becomes considerably less vague. Thank goodness dreads aren't in the game, then it could be really obvious.

I think any stance of "those aren't real players" EA might take was torpedoed when ESPN used EA's highlights in their own broadcast, and showed guys like Auburn QB #2 (with names on the back of the jersey, IIRC) in the game, while talking about the real player.

steelerfan
02-14-2011, 07:16 AM
Playing sports with a $50,000 education as compensation is not "getting used". I'm really tired of athletes saying that. How many of us would love to have such an opportunity? If you don't graduate, or you end up running a hotel bar, it's your fault. Keller is a failed athlete trying to capitalize off of what he used to be. STFU and get me a Rolling Rock, Sammy.

psusnoop
02-14-2011, 07:41 AM
Playing sports with a $50,000 education as compensation is not "getting used". I'm really tired of athletes saying that. How many of us would love to have such an opportunity? If you don't graduate, or you end up running a hotel bar, it's your fault. Keller is a failed athlete trying to capitalize off of what he used to be. STFU and get me a Rolling Rock, Sammy.

I'll agree with this statement. I'm tired of these players feeling like they are owed something.


Wow... that's gotten quite a bit bigger than I ever expected

I never realized it had so much traction either.

Boucher
02-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Some one give Keller some money and tell him to stfu

CLW
02-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Wow... that's gotten quite a bit bigger than I ever expected. I can see the stretch of the argument both ways, though EA is stretching it abit far saying that would start limiting/preventing movies like Forrest Gump from developing the way they did. Will definitely be interesting to see how all of this develops. IMO the whole matter needs to come down to including players' likeness into their scholarship contract somehow.

I'm not surprised this case has garnered the attention it has. It has SIGNIFICANT legal ramifications and it involves "celebrity" (or at least former celebs in athletes that didn't pan out).

This is how liberals/progressives (and most importantly attorneys) want you to think. EA (big bad company) is lieing about the possible ramifcations of Plaintiffs' argument/case. There is NOTHING different (legally speaking) from what EA currently does and some movie maker or an author does when writing/filming a documentary/biography without the subject's express permission. If Keller et al. are successful in their suit it literally can change a ton of industries and lead to a ton of new litigation (which is really what Keller's whores/attorneys want - a new type of case to bring in "billions"). I mean seriously think of the shere number of all of the athletes/people that have ever been "portrayed" in a video game w/o their permission.

In NCAA Football alone its 8,400 potential plaintiffs/clients every year. FYI - that is over FOUR TIMES as many plaintiffs/clients that are generated from mesothelioma. I can guarantee you every single one of you has seen 1000s of plaintiffs' law firm commercials re: mesothelioma. This has 4 times the potential "rain making" as that and lawyers will be running around the country trying to find each and every has been to sue EA/2K for using their "likeness" w/o their permission.

I've said this from Day 1. IF EA cannot prevail on appeal (which given the area of the country they are in is unlikely w/o going to the Supreme Court) they should pay Keller and the rest of the losers and then have every NCAA athlete sign a waiver. If you don't sign you are not in the game. If you do sign your name/#/height/weight/etc... will be in the game. I'd imagine 90% of the athletes would happily sign and never think twice about the "injury" they are "suffering" from having their "likeness" portrayed in a video game.

JBHuskers
02-14-2011, 11:20 AM
I'd imagine 90% of the athletes would happily sign and never think twice about the "injury" they are "suffering" from having their "likeness" portrayed in a video game.

Exactly.

CLW
02-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Playing sports with a $50,000 education as compensation is not "getting used". I'm really tired of athletes saying that. How many of us would love to have such an opportunity? If you don't graduate, or you end up running a hotel bar, it's your fault. Keller is a failed athlete trying to capitalize off of what he used to be. STFU and get me a Rolling Rock, Sammy.

LMAO post of the day.


LOL this "silly" lawsuit got my legal creative juices flowing to think of some crazy potential future plaintiffs best one I have thought of so far:

"Little Johnny" v. ESPN - you know how ESPN sometimes shows a highlight from some little kid's game where a kid makes a half court shot at the buzzer?

Well I betcha ESPN et al. did NOT get every single player in the shot's permission to put their "likeness" on TV. Even better for the plaintiffs lawyers the statute of limitations won't even start running until those little tikes turn 18. So that's a decade + of hunting/searching for new clients that have suffered "unimaginable" "pain" "suffering" "emotional distress" etc... for being humiliated in front of millions on t.v.

Paakaa10
02-14-2011, 12:10 PM
The inherent flaw in how NCAA athletes are treated is that there is this archaic view of them being "unpaid amateurs;" I'm sorry, but once you get a full-ride scholarship to go to a school--in my opinion--you have been paid.

As somebody with a crapload of student loan debt from getting two degrees, I would rather that scholarship money be kept aside for students who legitimately wish to get educated and earn degrees instead of paying athletes to attend schools and do barely enough in the classroom to stay on the football field and eventually make millions of dollars per year in the NFL.

EDIT
Forget where I saw/heard this, but there was a sports commentator calling for the NFL to change their practice of listing where a player comes from, school-wise. Something like 60-70% of NFL players never followed through and earned degrees from their schools, yet still get listed as coming from that school in official NFL materials and in telecasts. Maybe the "shame" of being listed as only getting a high school diploma for these players who used college as a means to make the NFL would convince them to stick around and make the educational process matter.

CLW
02-14-2011, 01:37 PM
The inherent flaw in how NCAA athletes are treated is that there is this archaic view of them being "unpaid amateurs;" I'm sorry, but once you get a full-ride scholarship to go to a school--in my opinion--you have been paid.

As somebody with a crapload of student loan debt from getting two degrees, I would rather that scholarship money be kept aside for students who legitimately wish to get educated and earn degrees instead of paying athletes to attend schools and do barely enough in the classroom to stay on the football field and eventually make millions of dollars per year in the NFL.

EDIT
Forget where I saw/heard this, but there was a sports commentator calling for the NFL to change their practice of listing where a player comes from, school-wise. Something like 60-70% of NFL players never followed through and earned degrees from their schools, yet still get listed as coming from that school in official NFL materials and in telecasts. Maybe the "shame" of being listed as only getting a high school diploma for these players who used college as a means to make the NFL would convince them to stick around and make the educational process matter.

It's a sound idea in theory but I don't think many of the felons int he National Felons League care. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you will see a guy or two on MNF say they are from some high school or some Fictional place when they say their "school". Unfortunately, the problem here is really a societal one. Far too often we praise and even borderline worship people who are nothing more than a thug with a God given althetic/physical ability.

Paakaa10
02-14-2011, 03:02 PM
It's a sound idea in theory but I don't think many of the felons int he National Felons League care. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you will see a guy or two on MNF say they are from some high school or some Fictional place when they say their "school". Unfortunately, the problem here is really a societal one. Far too often we praise and even borderline worship people who are nothing more than a thug with a God given althetic/physical ability.

Sad but true. I think that more should be made about football programs in the NCAA who graduate high percentages of their athletes. I know that there is some distinction given to the programs with the highest graduation rate, but you never really hear them talked about as much as somebody like Cam Newton who dashed from college-to-college to play football and then forego his senior season to declare for the NFL Draft.

JeffHCross
02-14-2011, 08:06 PM
I've said this from Day 1. IF EA cannot prevail on appeal (which given the area of the country they are in is unlikely w/o going to the Supreme Court) they should pay Keller and the rest of the losers and then have every NCAA athlete sign a waiver. If you don't sign you are not in the game. If you do sign your name/#/height/weight/etc... will be in the game. I'd imagine 90% of the athletes would happily sign and never think twice about the "injury" they are "suffering" from having their "likeness" portrayed in a video game.And, I believe, I've agreed with you on this since Day 1. :nod:

Kwizzy
02-15-2011, 08:00 AM
I'm in the middle on this...

Is Keller a douche? Yup.
Is he a washed up player trying to cash in on his past? Damn straight!
Was he already paid to play football? Absolutely! I'm with you steelerfan, a scholarship is a pretty big damn deal.
Does he have a case? He sure as hell does!

If I was in a game in every way shape and form minus my name I would probably be a little pissed as well and want compensation. What this speaks to is a much larger issue here. At some point, the NCAA is going to have to deal with the fact that the amount of money involved in college football makes it professional in everything but name. It's no longer small potatoes we're talking about here. EA and the NCAA are making Billions of dollars using these players likenesses and then adopt a "who me?" attitude when someone calls them on it. Definitely not saying I want the players to be paid or anything but I think it's ridiculous of them to expect the players to watch them deposit money by the truckload and not want a cut.

Again, before anyone jumps on me here, I'm not taking either side. I think it could be looked at it similarly to an internship program with a stipend & if you do well you get a full-time job (NFL). I'm simply saying I understand the player's side as well (even the douchey ones like Keller).

steelerfan
02-15-2011, 08:39 AM
If you don't want your perceived "likeness" used, decline the scholarship and pay for school yourself. Maybe that's a good way to resolve this. Athletes who aren't on scholarship get $500 a year if their "likeness" is used. Take the scholly, take the $500, or don't play. Your choice.

It's funny that these athletes all want to change the system from the outside. If they were passionate about the "injustices" and not just about "where's my payday", they'd be lining up to use that education to get themselves inside the system to change it for the betterment of future generations of players. I mean, they are given an education. With that comes the opportunity to accomplish anything. They don't feel screwed until they've pissed it away. I have no sympathy.

Maybe the NCAA should go after tuition fees for any player who ever used that free education to earn a living. Lol. Players have to realize that the education is their payment. If they take advantage of it, it will pay them for the rest of their lives. If not, they will end up tending bar in a hotel.

cdj
02-15-2011, 09:03 AM
I'm not so sure schools, the NCAA, or EA are making the money that we think they are.


A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.

Researchers blame the sagging economy and suggested that next year's numbers could be even worse. - Link (http://www.mrsec.com/2010/08/ncaa-only-14-of-120-fbs-schools-made-money-from-sports/)


California-based EA Sports has announced a workforce reduction that will cut approximately 1,500 positions across the company. The layoffs will include 51 employees in Maitland, home to EA Tiburon, the second largest studio among Electronic Arts' World Wide Studio facilities.

"EA Sports plans to narrow its product portfolio to provide greater focus on titles with higher margin opportunities," read a statement sent to FOX 35.

The company anticipates annual savings of $100 million with restructuring charges ranging from $130 to $150 million.

Most of the job cuts are expected to be completed by March of next year. - Link (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/111009-EA-Sports-announces-layoffs-in-Maitland)


It is though that all of these job cuts will save the company $100 million annually, following a recent report of a $391 million loss it is no huge surprise. - Link (http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/11/electronic-arts-ea-job-cuts-and-games-being-dropped/)


Now, the NCAA is sitting on a lot of money - but they realize they may need it to help bail schools out. (I wish some of our elected officials in DC knew how to sit on and save money like this, but that discussion is for a different time and place.


The NCAA is discussing the future of a nearly $180 million endowment fund, including the possibility of distributing some of the money to member schools as athletic departments continue struggling with the economic downturn.

The NCAA had $705.5 million in revenue and $649 million in expenses during its fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2009, according to its recently filed tax return.

It is projecting $710 million in revenue and $672 million in expenses for fiscal 2010, according to a revised budget posted on the NCAA's website, but it is on track for a greater surplus, spokesman Erik Christianson said via e-mail. - Link (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-06-28-ncaa-endowment_N.htm)

In all three situations, I'm not seeing the windfall profits that people keep talking about. In fact, if they now had to pay out something for a perceived use of likeness (which I do not believe is happening according to legal precedence, if I read it correctly), get ready for many, many sports to be cut, more job losses at EA, and the NCAA to go belly-up. (I know people dislike the NCAA, but without them college athletics as we know it have no chance of surviving.)

Kwizzy
02-15-2011, 09:57 AM
Steelerfan I tend to agree with your line of thinking there & if there is something in their scholarship agreement that gives the university unlimited use of their likeness then I think it should be an open an shut case. If there isn't however, I would think that these former players have a case to some extent at least.

CDJ, is that athletic departments as a whole or specifically football? If football profits are being used to "float" the rest of the athletic department in most cases then I think that skews the numbers quite a bit. And as far as EA not making as much, I don't think they would still be in business if they weren't making plenty of money. Which, in the case of NCAA Football 'XX, is closely related with having accurate teams and rosters.

cdj
02-15-2011, 10:25 AM
CDJ, is that athletic departments as a whole or specifically football? If football profits are being used to "float" the rest of the athletic department in most cases then I think that skews the numbers quite a bit. And as far as EA not making as much, I don't think they would still be in business if they weren't making plenty of money. Which, in the case of NCAA Football 'XX, is closely related with having accurate teams and rosters.

- I believe that's for athletic departments as a whole. I think the point still stands. If schools have to funnel (football) profits into a fund to reimburse players, smaller sports (starting with men's programs) are going to get the ax. If it ends up that the NCAA has to distribute money on their side, does that mean championships or other NCAA-sponsored events go by the wayside?

- EA doesn't release detailed profits, but I've always thought from articles that a lot of the EA SPORTS titles benefited from the success of Madden NFL and FIFA. By themselves, I'm not sure how profitable any title any of the other titles are. Based on what happened with EA & 2K's basketball titles, I'm sure the cost of dealing with the CLC is pretty expensive.


Though, the case should really be about 'is the NCAA allowing licensees to develop items/products with the likenesses of student-athletes'? Instead, they've done a good job of turning it into the NCAA and licensees making profits off of player likenesses, when in reality the profit (or loss) shouldn't even be an issue. (It's worked as we're talking about it here. :P) The plaintiffs know that Americans (particularly as of late) generally seem to not care for perceived large profitable organizations.

Kwizzy
02-15-2011, 11:36 AM
- I believe that's for athletic departments as a whole. I think the point still stands. If schools have to funnel (football) profits into a fund to reimburse players, smaller sports (starting with men's programs) are going to get the ax. If it ends up that the NCAA has to distribute money on their side, does that mean championships or other NCAA-sponsored events go by the wayside?

- EA doesn't release detailed profits, but I've always thought from articles that a lot of the EA SPORTS titles benefited from the success of Madden NFL and FIFA. By themselves, I'm not sure how profitable any title any of the other titles are. Based on what happened with EA & 2K's basketball titles, I'm sure the cost of dealing with the CLC is pretty expensive.


Though, the case should really be about 'is the NCAA allowing licensees to develop items/products with the likenesses of student-athletes'? Instead, they've done a good job of turning it into the NCAA and licensees making profits off of player likenesses, when in reality the profit (or loss) shouldn't even be an issue. (It's worked as we're talking about it here. :P) The plaintiffs know that Americans (particularly as of late) generally seem to not care for perceived large profitable organizations.

It's not really the football players problems that these schools have chosen to fund sports that do not make money though is it? I don't think that a judge would care. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the plaintiffs here. I'm simply saying what they (and their lawyers) may say. They will argue that their sport, an by extension they, brought in millions of dollars to the university.

That very well may be the case with EA however the incorporation of the players likenesses definitely brings something to the table for EA otherwise they wouldn't produce the game. Keller & the rest of them will be able to argue for a percentage of whatever those profits may be.

Again, if there is somethig in the scholarship paperwork that entitles the university & ncaa to use their likenesses in this manner then I don't think this is even an issue. IMO if there isn't then it should be added & the scholarship is more than enough compensation. Past players would still, legally, have some sort of recourse & may very well win some money.

You are absolutely right on about what this case should be about.

steelerfan
02-15-2011, 11:46 AM
I would think that these former players have a case to some extent at least.


They absolutely have a case, no question. I'd just like to see common sense prevail here. I'd love to see scholarships re-written to include an endorsement of the use of "likenesses" going forward, and for all players who were affected previously, a small amount ($500 per year) be awarded to them with the stipulation that accepting the money makes them liable for their tuition. I know it won't happen that way (it makes too much sense), but that's the way I'd like to see it.

One day, when I am King.... :P

steelerfan
02-15-2011, 11:50 AM
It's not really the football players problems that these schools have chosen to fund sports that do not make money though is it?

No. It's not their problem, or their fault. That belongs solely to Women's Lib.

cdj
02-15-2011, 12:00 PM
No, you're right, Kwizzy. I should have clarified that my thoughts on financial ramifications were meant more for the court of public opinion (those who want the blood of the NCAA) and not the actual court case.

CLW
02-15-2011, 02:32 PM
I can see me now on t.v.

"Has your likeness been used without your permission?" "Are you a has been athlete that never paid attention in school and when your pro career didn't pan out it forced you to work at Mc Donald's?" "Call me you may be entitled to compensation....."

Sometimes I wonder why I even bothered graduating with honors from college and law school to join such a sleezy "profession". :smh:

Kwizzy
02-15-2011, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I think we all agree on what we'd like to see happen. I was really just looking at more what I think will happen.

cdj
02-15-2011, 05:11 PM
The closest thing we have to an update so far, from Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33030/First_Amendment_Protections_For_Games_At_Issue_In_ EA_Player_Likeness_Appeals.php):


First Amendment arguments once again took center stage during an appeals court discussion of two related lawsuits regarding the unauthorized use of player likenesses in EA Sports games.

Electronic Arts today asked a federal appeals court to throw out a lawsuit brought by former Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller and other NCAA players regarding use of their images in the company's NCAA sports games.

The company reprised First Amendment arguments that were overruled by a lower court judge roughly one year ago in arguing games are being held to a different standard than works in other media.

“As applied by the district court, the test arguably would not protect any expressive work that uses a person’s actual name or realistic likeness, including films like Forest Gump, The Aviator, and Boys Don’t Cry,” the company told a three-judge panel today, as reported by Bloomberg.

The court also heard an appeal in a related case brought by former Cleveland Browns player Jim Brown over use of his likeness in the Madden NFL series.

A lower court judge dismissed Brown's case in 2009, arguing that the Madden games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment."

But Brown argues that ruling relied on an improper precedent set by a film based on the lives of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, with facts significantly different from those in his case.

Video games are also at the center of a case involving proposed restrictions on the sale of violent games in California, which is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel from the federal ninth circuit court of appeals will rule on both EA cases.

JeffHCross
02-15-2011, 08:01 PM
I don't have much problem with the "video games are art" argument ... but putting Madden akin to an expressive painting (which, last I checked, you can't reasonably make a painting of Jim Brown without his permission) is a stretch.

gschwendt
02-15-2011, 08:42 PM
Listening to ChrisS from OS on the Lavar Arrington Show (radio) and an excellent point was brought up... the movie W. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/) Guaranteed that George W. Bush did not allow his likeness yet that movie was made and as far as I'm aware, nothing ever came of it.

You can listen to his segment of the show here:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d0/dW/dU/dJ/dT/WUJT_4.MP3%3Fauthtok%3D5561380198797418687_XDsHRYS 5biwlOsGOFBbqz7OQSp4&podcast_name=Chris+Sanner+from+OperationSports.com&podcast_artist=LaVar+and+Dukes&station_id=114&tag=pages&dcid=CBS.WASHINGTON

No real news coming out of it but just a summation and a discussion about it.

JeffHCross
02-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Listening to ChrisS from OS on the Lavar Arrington ShowChris S being on a local radio show here is very surreal to me.

Rudy
02-16-2011, 05:38 AM
If you don't want your perceived "likeness" used, decline the scholarship and pay for school yourself. Maybe that's a good way to resolve this. Athletes who aren't on scholarship get $500 a year if their "likeness" is used. Take the scholly, take the $500, or don't play. Your choice.

If you want to play college football 99% of athletes don't have a choice. How many of those kids could afford to go to those schools without the scholarship? Saying a kid has a choice in this matter is really unfair. They don't.

Now many of you make the point that a scholarship is worth a lot of money. It is but that same scholarship has been the standard for years despite the phenomenal growth in revenues. I think it's completely fair for a college football athlete to wonder if they deserve more, especially since the average player still has to cough up an extra $4000 per year because it's not a true full ride.

Cdj, I don't care if a report comes out and says only 14 schools made money last year with their athletic department. If that's true then why does every BCS school pay their head coach close to $1 million with the average SEC school paying about $2.5 million? If schools aren't making enough money then it's time to cut the salaries of these overpaid coaches rather than say we can't give any more to the athletes or cut other programs. It's an extremely hypocritical stance, especially when football is making so much money and everyone else from coaches to ADs have seen their share go up at an incredible rate, more than the student's scholarship value.

I hope these guys lose but this is

steelerfan
02-16-2011, 06:08 AM
If you want to play college football 99% of athletes don't have a choice. How many of those kids could afford to go to those schools without the scholarship?

Exactly right. So, how about they quit looking a gift horse in the mouth and take advantage of the opportunity they're blessed with? They are given an education that will make them money for the rest of their lives. Instead of seeing incredible opportunity in that, they piss it away and look for the next handout. Again, I have no sympathy.

Kwizzy
02-16-2011, 07:38 AM
Now many of you make the point that a scholarship is worth a lot of money. It is but that same scholarship has been the standard for years despite the phenomenal growth in revenues. I think it's completely fair for a college football athlete to wonder if they deserve more, especially since the average player still has to cough up an extra $4000 per year because it's not a true full ride.

I would debate this point with you Rudy... One of my good friends played for Nebraska, 4th stringer. Came from a non-wealthy family. Had a really nice 3 Bedroom apartment to himself, new car, always went out... No job. I promise you they get plenty of $$$ from their scholarship & their "housing allowance" etc....

Also, the value of a scholarship has risen with the cost of attendance for these universities over the years so it's not exactly the "same scholarship" but I do see your point in that, comparing the cost of attendance increase to the revenue growth is not exactly apples to apples. I would say that a full ride scholarship with all of the amenities that comes with as well as a shot to enhance your skills enough to earn a ridiculously high paying and glamorous career is more than enough compensation.

HuskerBlitz
02-16-2011, 08:34 PM
Here is the podcast from the 9th Circuit hearing. Pretty interesting.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007013

steelerfan
02-16-2011, 09:32 PM
Here is the podcast from the 9th Circuit hearing. Pretty interesting.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007013

Thank you for posting that, HB. Good listen.

IMO, and CLW certainly knows better than I do, Keller's camp is gonna have to come much stronger at any future proceedings.

I hope someone makes a not-so-flattering movie about Keller just to piss him off. After all, his attorney said movies are fair game. :P

HuskerBlitz
02-16-2011, 09:51 PM
Thank you for posting that, HB. Good listen.

IMO, and CLW certainly knows better than I do, Keller's camp is gonna have to come much stronger at any future proceedings.

I hope someone makes a not-so-flattering movie about Keller just to piss him off. After all, his attorney said movies are fair game. :P

I would love that.

Also, I think EA's lawyers won that battle. They brought up a lot of good points. Granted, I don't know the law as well as others, but by just listening I think EA brought up enough issues. I definitely can see how the video game can be called creative and interactive. I also LOLed at Keller's lawyers bringing the height, weight, etc of Keller then saying it wasn't the same type of facts as statistics. Both can be found in any media source like baseball stats.

JeffHCross
02-16-2011, 09:54 PM
Both can be found in any media source like baseball stats.Yeeeeeeeeeeeep. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between the use of players' "likenesses" as far as NCAA is concerned and the recent case involving the MLB and fantasy baseball is equipment and things like skin color/hair. Everything else, numbers, height, weight, is all stats.

cdj
02-18-2011, 05:12 PM
Here is the podcast from the 9th Circuit hearing. Pretty interesting.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007013

Awesome. Nice find & thanks for sharing!

cdj
02-18-2011, 05:15 PM
Cdj, I don't care if a report comes out and says only 14 schools made money last year with their athletic department. If that's true then why does every BCS school pay their head coach close to $1 million with the average SEC school paying about $2.5 million? If schools aren't making enough money then it's time to cut the salaries of these overpaid coaches rather than say we can't give any more to the athletes or cut other programs. It's an extremely hypocritical stance, especially when football is making so much money and everyone else from coaches to ADs have seen their share go up at an incredible rate, more than the student's scholarship value.

I agree 100% with you on that. The college athletics arms race is driving more schools into the red and putting more space between the have and have-nots. Though, I do think it's al least worth nothing that despite the huge money involved all around (TV deals, BCS, etc.), many schools aren't making money. Though, again you are right that poor financial management has a lot to do with that.

steelerfan
02-18-2011, 05:32 PM
Paying top dollar for a coach is an investment. It's easy for me to see that these schools are looking around at the financial climate and noting that many schools are losing money. We can invest in a coach who gives us a chance to be in the black, or we can accept being in the red.

I would liken it to the money EA invests in licensing. It's a big investment that you hope pays for itself and makes you money on top of it.

gschwendt
05-04-2011, 12:32 PM
Court Dismisses Complaint Against EA Sports In Ed O'Bannon Licensing Case (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/05/04/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/EA-Sports.aspx)

A U.S. District Court in California earlier this week dismissed a complaint against EA Sports in the Ed O'Bannon licensing case. The former UCLA star sued EA Sports, the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company in '09 on the grounds they were using his image and likeness without his consent, and the suit later grew into a class action involving Basketball HOFer Oscar Robertson among several others. Judge Claudia Wilken for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint against EA Sports, ruling, "This purported conspiracy involves Defendants' concerted action to require all current student-athletes to sign forms each year that purport to require each of them to relinquish all rights in perpetuity for use of their images, likenesses and/or names and to deny compensation 'through restrictions in the NCAA Bylaws.' The Consolidated Amended Complaint, however, does not contain any allegations to suggest that EA agreed to participate in this conspiracy." Wilken denied separate motions from the NCAA and CLC to dismiss claims against them, and those will continue to proceed.

oweb26
05-04-2011, 12:42 PM
So this means.......????? Besides no one really won

CLW
05-04-2011, 12:53 PM
So this means.......????? Besides no one really won

Trying to find the opinion/order b/c that small blurb really doesn't make any sense.

gschwendt
05-04-2011, 12:59 PM
As an uneducated person, to me it sounds like that particular judge found that EA SPORTS is not at fault for using player likeness and therefore no harm will come to them in that lawsuit. However, since the NCAA & CLC are the ones that handle the actual licensing terms, then they would be the ones that would be at fault if the judge decides there is fault to be had.

Obviously there is still the Keller lawsuit and even the O'Bannon lawsuit may result in the NCAA no longer being able to handle player names/images/likenesses the way they currently do which would obviously in-turn effect EA.

JBHuskers
05-04-2011, 01:05 PM
To me, all this was just failed athletes trying to get an easy cash grab.

CLW
05-04-2011, 01:07 PM
Still looking for the full opinion/order. However, this appears to be key:


The Consolidated Amended Complaint, however, does not contain any allegations to suggest that EA agreed to participate in this conspiracy

Basically this doesn't mean/resolve anything. In a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Court simply looks at the Plaintiffs' Complaint and assumes EVERYTHING in that Complaint is true and then looks to the law to see if a valid claim under the law has been made.

Here, O'Bannon's lawyers for whatever reason (possibly mal practice - perhaps I should hit up O'Bannon so he can sue his sleezy lawyers) did not include an allegation that EA agreed to participate in the conspiracy. Therefore, O'Bannon's lawsuit against EA cannot proceed because he has failed to even allege a valid claim under the law.

If anyone find's a link to the Opinion/Order I would be more than happy to read it and try to analyze it and break it down for everyone.

EDIT: As best I can currently tell the O'Bannon lawsuit is ENTIRELY different (legal theory wise) from the Keller lawsuit. They have been consolidated by the Court (most likely for discovery reasons only). However, unless I am missing something this Opinion will have ZERO affect on the Keller "likeness" lawsuit.

JBHuskers
05-04-2011, 01:13 PM
I think CLW should have his own avatar. "Resident Lawyer" under his regular avatar :D

gschwendt
05-04-2011, 01:16 PM
CLW, not sure if this will help or not but here's another link
http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/242837

At the bottom it says you can "view more details and drill down deeper, take a free trial now."

steelerfan
05-04-2011, 01:19 PM
I think CLW should have his own avatar. "Resident Lawyer" under his regular avatar :D

I'm just glad he is moving to Houston. I could use an attorney in this town who is on my side. :nod:

CLW
05-04-2011, 01:21 PM
I'm tempted to use my Federal Bar License ID to log in and get the opinion. The problem is it bills my current firm for access to the documents. :smh:

So far all I can gather is:

#1- EA's motion to dismiss was granted on O'Bannon's antitrust claim. This would NOT stop O'Bannon (or someone else) from filing the same lawsuit against EA again and actually allege EA agreed to participate in the alleged conspiracy.

#2 - The Keller "likeness" issue against EA is still very much in play.

steelerfan
05-04-2011, 01:21 PM
At the bottom it says you can "view more details and drill down deeper, take a free trial now."

All the sites I visit that say stuff like that are NSFW.:smh::o

oweb26
05-04-2011, 01:23 PM
I also vote for clw resident lawyer tag.
I am glad to know I wasn't the only one where it didn't really make sense

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

CLW
05-04-2011, 01:24 PM
CLW, not sure if this will help or not but here's another link
http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/242837

At the bottom it says you can "view more details and drill down deeper, take a free trial now."

I'm heistant to sign up for any free trials b/c it would require me to remember to unsubscribe shortly.

This (if true) is interesting:


However, the judge granted the players two weeks to amend their antitrust allegations...


In English, yes EA won the motion to dismiss on a "technicallity" (basically O'Bannons lawyers are idiots and committed mal practice). However, rather than hurt those poor lawyers we give the lawyers another chance not to F it up. I would anticipate O'Bannon filing another Amended Complaint which contains an allegation that EA was complicit in this "conspiracy" which will solve the problem (at least temporarily).

CLW
05-04-2011, 02:23 PM
I was able to find an older Order by the Court in the O'Bannon case. This may help explain a few things. I assume that not much about O'Bannon's claim have changed since the previous Order.

O'Bannon's lawsuit alleges violations of the Sherman Act (Federal antitrust). (He also has/had an "unjust enrichment" state law claim which I'll ignore here as I don't think it was subject to today's ruling)

In order to make a valid claim/win under the Sherman Act O'Bannon has to allege (and eventually prove):

#1 - A Contract OR Conspiracy;

#2 - That unreasonably restrained trade (think commerce i.e. buying stuff);

AND

#3 - In Interstate Commerce (Congress/Federal Government can ONLY regulate "interstate commerce" under the Constitution - this is known as the "Federal Jurisdictional Hook" this is at the heart of "Obamacare" litigation) (in this case basically it means that the contract/conpiracy must restrain trade between people/companies in different states)


I am guessing at some point EA was amended into the O'Bannon action b/c the order I am reading does not mention (or list) EA as being in the O'Bannon case but does mention the Keller lawsuit being consolidated with it.

The apparent problem for O'Bannon today was that his lawyers failed to allege #1 (above) against EA. His lawyers did allege #1 against the NCAA and CLC so those claims move forward.

Interestingly (to me anyways and as an aside), you will recall me saying O'Bannons lawyers committed malpractice b/c they failed to allege #1 against EA. Well they also somewhat irked the judge in the past by FALSEY quoting "law" in support of their argument.

A foot note in the opinion I read states:


The Court notes that O'Bannon purportedly quotes language from [case] however, the quoted language does not appear in that case. O'Bannon [lawyers] must ensure that he [they] accurately represents case law.


So... in sum O'Bannon (at least) is represented by lawyers who cannot even ensure they allege a proper case against EA and they have attempted to mislead OR do not bother to ensure they accurately quote the law.

Yet these bums have a J.D. :down: :smh: :mad: :sick:


In any event, today's ruling is a SMALL victory for EA. IF the Court granted O'Bannon the ability to amend his Complaint (as reported above) O'Bannon needs to only allege #1 (above) as to EA to bring EA back into his case for Sherman Act violations. Moreover (and perhaps more importantly) I do NOT see this ruling having ANY ramification on the Keller "likeness" issue. The Keller "likeness" case is ongoing and up on appeal (the last time I heard checked).

Basically, I would hope O'Bannon's lawyers could get it right this time allege a valid claim under the law and EA will be back into the case in short order. Whether O'Bannon will win in the end is another matter to be determined later. NOTHING, about today's ruling really gives any incite as to the Judge's thought process on that. Perhaps, if I saw the oral argument you could tell what the Judge thought of the case as a whole. However, the only issue today was simply did O'Bannon allege a valid claim under the law against EA. He clearly did not and the Court has apparently given him another chance to do so.

Capt Orygun
05-04-2011, 04:44 PM
I really see an easy workaround for this. Pay the coaches for their likenesses and model the teams after their style for the upcoming year.

You could build a roster with the exact same ratings we have now, then just randomize year, ethnicity, number and name.

Oregon doesn't have a fast HB because its lamichael james, they have a fast HB because that's what Chip Kelly is planning for in the fall. If he's white, a freshmsn, and #26 how can you ever say it's supposed to be him?

It will allow online play to continue unscathed, offline who cares, we all use custom rosters anyways...

souljahbill
05-04-2011, 04:59 PM
I think CLW should have his own avatar. "Resident Lawyer" under his regular avatar :D

Is there a resident athletic trainer designation? I can talk about concussions and injury issues and whatnot. :D

psusnoop
05-04-2011, 05:02 PM
Thanks CLW for breaking things down for us. Really appreciate your input and help in trying to understand everything.

ram29jackson
05-04-2011, 05:05 PM
Is there a resident athletic trainer designation? I can talk about concussions and injury issues and whatnot. :D

lets just start with a ankle and wrist taping seminar :D

and best knee pad comparisons :D

Capt Orygun
05-04-2011, 05:15 PM
#3 - In Interstate Commerce (Congress/Federal Government can ONLY regulate "interstate commerce" under the Constitution - this is known as the "Federal Jurisdictional Hook" this is at the heart of "Obamacare" litigation) (in this case basically it means that the contract/conpiracy must restrain trade between people/companies in different states)

I laugh every time I hear someone say this. Wickard v. Filburn killed any meaningful distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. Even US v. Lopez dealt with something that was completely unrelated to commerce of any kind in a traditional sense....

CLW
05-04-2011, 06:59 PM
I laugh every time I hear someone say this. Wickard v. Filburn killed any meaningful distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. Even US v. Lopez dealt with something that was completely unrelated to commerce of any kind in a traditional sense....

You are correct that "interstate commerce" has almost been defined by our Supreme Court to the point that there is virtually zero limit on our Federal Government. Basically every act just has to say "interstate commerce" is affected in it and then can be completely ignored.

Obama et al. are arguing that just being alive amounts to affecting interstate commerce so they can force you to purchase health insurance. If Obamacare is upheld there is NO limit on the Federal Government's power and they can force us to do whatever they want (so long as they deem it to affect interstate commerce). The Americans Must Buy Brocoli Act anyone?

IMHO, Wickard was/is a HORRIBLE decision and I hope the SCOTUS can slowly but surely but some teeth back into the interstate commerce requirement of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of the 50 (or is it 57) states?

souljahbill
05-04-2011, 07:25 PM
I laugh every time I hear someone say this. Wickard v. Filburn killed any meaningful distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. Even US v. Lopez dealt with something that was completely unrelated to commerce of any kind in a traditional sense....


You are correct that "interstate commerce" has almost been defined by our Supreme Court to the point that there is virtually zero limit on our Federal Government. Basically every act just has to say "interstate commerce" is affected in it and then can be completely ignored.

Obama et al. are arguing that just being alive amounts to affecting interstate commerce so they can force you to purchase health insurance. If Obamacare is upheld there is NO limit on the Federal Government's power and they can force us to do whatever they want (so long as they deem it to affect interstate commerce). The Americans Must Buy Brocoli Act anyone?

IMHO, Wickard was/is a HORRIBLE decision and I hope the SCOTUS can slowly but surely but some teeth back into the interstate commerce requirement of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of the 50 (or is it 57) states?

Yeah, what you guys said.

Capt Orygun
05-04-2011, 09:10 PM
IMHO, Wickard was/is a HORRIBLE decision and I hope the SCOTUS can slowly but surely but some teeth back into the interstate commerce requirement of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of the 50 (or is it 57) states?

Likewise, minus the "H." If Art 1 Sec 8 was meant to be that encompassing there would be no need for the plenary vs. enumerated powers structure, the 9th or 10 Amendment, etc. Wickard does an excellent job of illustrating that the Supreme Court is not "Final because we are right, but right because we are final." (William Wayne I think but that's off the top of my head so don't flame lol)

JeffHCross
05-04-2011, 10:17 PM
To me, all this was just failed athletes trying to get an easy cash grab.False.

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611


Oscar Robertson is asked to affix his autograph to various items every day and he recently discovered a new one being pushed in front of him by fans – trading cards featuring him as a player at the University of Cincinnati. Some come with a swath of his “game jersey” attached. Others have him in his freshman number, 22.

This was not a product he recalled approving for his likeness to be used. He tried calling the trading card companies (Upper Deck, Donruss) for an explanation yet couldn’t get a response.

The answer was the NCAA had signed licensing deals with the companies without Robertson’s direct consent. The association maintains it has the right to control a player’s likeness in perpetuity.

In the case of the 72-year-old Big O, that means 51 years and counting. He left UC in 1960.

JBHuskers
05-04-2011, 11:37 PM
False.

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

Okay failed athletes, and athletes from long ago that have run out of money.

steelerfan
05-05-2011, 12:21 AM
Okay failed athletes, and athletes from long ago that have run out of money.

Or never really made any.:lb:

ram29jackson
05-05-2011, 12:32 AM
ex amateur players suing a commercial company while the NCAA still cashes in on them is odd as well

psuexv
05-05-2011, 09:13 AM
I think CLW should have his own avatar. "Resident Lawyer" under his regular avatar :D

this should be his avatar

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShne8-zWb50k9c6N3ssLVZw8a4PrEdGk1R0GtZwfYT906KyNph&t=1

JBHuskers
05-05-2011, 11:35 AM
Or never really made any.:lb:

good use of the new emoticon :lb:

JBHuskers
05-05-2011, 11:35 AM
this should be his avatar

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShne8-zWb50k9c6N3ssLVZw8a4PrEdGk1R0GtZwfYT906KyNph&t=1

:D

SmoothPancakes
05-05-2011, 11:36 AM
this should be his avatar

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShne8-zWb50k9c6N3ssLVZw8a4PrEdGk1R0GtZwfYT906KyNph&t=1

Nice! :D That makes me want to watch Vinny right now.

CLW
05-06-2011, 09:40 AM
Article from ESPN which is the best article I have seen to date explaining the situation as I understand it.


SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has dismissed video game maker Electronic Arts Inc. from a high-profile antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's long-standing prohibition against paying student athletes for their performance.

But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Monday refused to drop the bulk of the case, which accuses the NCAA and its marketing company of operating an illegal sports marketing monopoly. Led by former UCLA basketball standout Ed O'Bannon, former athletes allege they are forced to forever sign away their commercial rights to play collegiate sports.

The judge refused to dismiss the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co. from the lawsuit that seeks to become a class action representing thousands of former football and basketball players who say the NCAA illegally controls their images forever without compensation.

The NCAA responds that players are free to make commercial deals after they leave college. NCAA policy prohibits players from receiving compensation while they are playing.

The judge said there is enough evidence to continue the litigation. But she said Monday that there was no evidence that Redwood City-based EA conspired with the NCAA to deny the players compensation and she dismissed the company from the lawsuit.

The O'Bannon case and another led by former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller are being closely watched because of their potential to dramatically reshape the commercial relationship between the NCAA and its athletes. Keller's lawsuit also alleges that the NCAA is unfairly depriving athletes of their share of revenues generated by their performances. But Keller's lawsuit makes different legal arguments, claiming the NCAA is violating the players' commercial rights when it refuses to cut them in on marketing deals using their images. The Keller lawsuit also names EA as a defendant.

Last year, Wilken refused to dismiss EA from the Keller case. EA has appealed that decision.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6487782

JeffHCross
05-06-2011, 10:50 PM
Or never really made any.:lb:Which may be why he has an issue with the idea that the NCAA is making money off of him to this day, yes? ;)

CLW
05-07-2011, 08:13 AM
Another article with some interesting tidbits:


Former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the NCAA will proceed after a federal judge dismissed claims against Electronic Arts Inc. but refused to do so with the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co.

O'Bannon is leading a group of former college athletes in an antitrust lawsuit filed in 2009 over the use of their images and likenesses. There are signs that it could be getting increasingly uncomfortable for the NCAA. According to USA Today, NCAA president Mark Emmert faces a deposition date.
Jon T. King, a lawyer for the players, also has filed notice to take the deposition of NCAA President Mark Emmert on June 22, though that could change slightly depending on Emmert's schedule, King said.

"As the plaintiffs well know, Dr. Emmert was not at the NCAA during the time period at issue in this lawsuit," the NCAA's Bob Williams said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "The plaintiff's notice of his deposition at this point is inappropriate, and we will take action accordingly."

Emmert became NCAA president in October 2010.

The case is scheduled for trial in March 2013, but fact discovery is scheduled for completion by late January 2012, King said.

The lawsuit has gotten notoriety for its potential game-changing effects on how the NCAA conducts business. The organization currently bars players from being paid during their college careers.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a recent poll found that nearly half of the 300 football and men's basketball players surveyed said they didn't understand they had signed away their rights to commercial use of their images without receiving a share of the proceeds.
The athletes' confusion didn’t stop with the form. Fifty-four percent of the survey's respondents thought that by appearing in video games bearing their images or likenesses, they were endorsing those commercial goods, said Anastasios Kaburakis, an assistant professor of management and sports business at Saint Louis University and the study's lead author.

"They weren’t getting any money, but they still felt they were actually endorsing the product," he said in a phone interview.

Despite the confusion, 97 percent of respondents liked being featured in video games, and two-thirds believed that the way the NCAA and video-game companies used their image or likeness was fair. But only 33 percent believed that their athletic scholarship was sufficient payment for the use of their image or likeness.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/30717/ed-obannons-ncaa

Basically our D1 college athletes are MORONS but I think most of us already knew that.

JeffHCross
05-08-2011, 01:23 PM
Basically our D1 college athletes are MORONS but I think most of us already knew that.To be fair, I think the majority of America is just as confused about collegiate likenesses as our athletes are. Obviously the athletes have more stake in knowing, and therefore they should, but it's still worth noting that it's confusing as hell.

It's also worth acknowledging that we're going to have to listen to this crap for two more years before it even goes to trial. Sigh.

gschwendt
09-09-2011, 02:59 PM
EA defeats ex-Rutgers QB over video game image (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/video-games/gaming-news/ea-defeats-ex-rutgers-qb-over-video-game-image/article2159781/)

Definitely doesn't sound like it's over yet... the Keller case is still out there.

JeffHCross
09-09-2011, 08:38 PM
Definitely doesn't sound like it's over yet... the Keller case is still out there.And, let's be honest, the decision to allow the Keller case to move on could be used as an argument to appeal this decision. If it hasn't been already (not clear from the article).

OptionMasta
09-12-2011, 02:39 AM
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, however, if another suit affects your suit that doesn't give you the right to appeal.

keyser soze
09-12-2011, 09:26 AM
How is this any different then the NCAA and schools selling jersey's with names on them? Or is that illegal as well?

JBHuskers
09-12-2011, 01:19 PM
How is this any different then the NCAA and schools selling jersey's with names on them? Or is that illegal as well?

They sell jerseys with names on them? All college jerseys that are sold around here don't.

SmoothPancakes
09-12-2011, 01:21 PM
They sell jerseys with names on them? All college jerseys that are sold around here don't.

Yeah, I have never seen a college jersey sold anywhere around here with names on them. If someone wanted to, I suppose they could personally go to someplace and have a name sewn on by a professional, but I have never seen a jersey sold with names.

JeffHCross
09-12-2011, 08:17 PM
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, however, if another suit affects your suit that doesn't give you the right to appeal.It doesn't give you the right, true. But I was assuming they would appeal anyway, and they could use the allowance of the Keller case to move forward in their appeal.

CLW
09-16-2011, 09:04 PM
The Rutgers case really won't have any impact on the Keller case (or at least it doesn't have to). Both cases are at the trial court level. The Rutgers case can be appealed. Since the cases are in entirely different Federal Circuits even an appellate decision in the Rutgers decision in favor (or against) EA wouldn't necessarily be binding on the judge in CA either.

Will/could EA use this NJ opinion in CA? Yes. However, it is merely persuasive authority aka the Judge in CA can follow that opinion or just completely ignore it or say that opinion was/is wrong.

cdj
05-20-2012, 12:23 PM
EA's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit from former NCAA athletes has been denied, meaning the trial will move forward.

The former NCAA athletes claim EA conspired with the NCAA and the CLC to have players sign away their likenesses and names to be used in video games without compensation. The players allege that in order to participate in NCAA sports they were required to sign a form allowing EA their likenesses in games, even after their college sports careers ended.

The federal judge previously dismissed other claims in the lawsuit, but denied EA's attempt to have an antitrust claim thrown out.

Courtesy: Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/18/former-ncaa-athletes-lawsuit-against-ea-is-so-on/)

Little Steve
05-20-2012, 04:18 PM
I'd be happy if i was in the college basketball game. I'd say, Hey look theirs me! That one white guy siting on the bench! No im not the waterboy!!! I'd played, ok well praticed.

JeffHCross
05-20-2012, 04:48 PM
I believe the majority of players are in favor of their likeness being used, but there's always a minority as well. I do some have issues with the NCAA's ability to use a player's likeness perpetually, though there are also times when I think the NCAA is completely in their right.

CLW
05-20-2012, 08:30 PM
I believe the majority of players are in favor of their likeness being used, but there's always a minority as well. I do some have issues with the NCAA's ability to use a player's likeness perpetually, though there are also times when I think the NCAA is completely in their right.

Your right most players don't care at all. However, the Sam Kellers (aka losers who didn't pan out in the pros and didn't take their FREE education seriously) of the world can easily ruin it for everyone.

Class action lawsuits do not require the "Tim Tebows" (the players that don't care) to sue EA. Rather, Sam Keller "sues on their behalf" as a representative sample of the class. Of course Tebow et al. can opt out and not sue EA but very few people even read the junk mail notice they receive when a class is certified by the Court.

EA is going to lose this case at trial as the Plaintiffs' lawyers intentionally picked VERY liberal venues to get a jury full of "commies". Their only chance is to make as many issues as possible for appeal. Lose at the 9th Circuit to the whores to the plaintiffs bar there and hope the Supreme Court takes the case.

Little Steve
05-20-2012, 08:40 PM
Your right most players don't care at all. However, the Sam Kellers (aka losers who didn't pan out in the pros and didn't take their FREE education seriously) of the world can easily ruin it for everyone.

Class action lawsuits do not require the "Tim Tebows" (the players that don't care) to sue EA. Rather, Sam Keller "sues on their behalf" as a representative sample of the class. Of course Tebow et al. can opt out and not sue EA but very few people even read the junk mail notice they receive when a class is certified by the Court.

EA is going to lose this case at trial as the Plaintiffs' lawyers intentionally picked VERY liberal venues to get a jury full of "commies". Their only chance is to make as many issues as possible for appeal. Lose at the 9th Circuit to the whores to the plaintiffs bar there and hope the Supreme Court takes the case.

Your in Houston and u like duke?

JeffHCross
05-20-2012, 08:40 PM
CLW: Well, yeah. Duh ;)

Though watch it with the liberal = stupid enough to fall for this ;)


Your in Houston and u like duke?Yeah ... and I'm in DC and like Ohio State. People move.

SmoothPancakes
05-20-2012, 08:47 PM
CLW: Well, yeah. Duh ;)

Though watch it with the liberal = stupid enough to fall for this ;)

Yeah ... and I'm in DC and like Ohio State. People move.

And I'm in Ohio and like Navy and Denver (and have become a part-fan of Florida International), along with all the professional teams in Colorado/Denver.

baseballplyrmvp
05-20-2012, 08:49 PM
since when did the individuals become greater than the university though? when the kids put that jersey on, they're a representative of the school. so in that aspect, the individual player likenesses are irrelevant, as ea already has permission from each school and the license to make a college football game from the ncaa. awarding the lawsuit to the former players says that the player's likeness is above the university they play for, and in turn, above the ncaa.


Class action lawsuits do not require the "Tim Tebows" (the players that don't care) to sue EA. Rather, Sam Keller "sues on their behalf" as a representative sample of the class. Of course Tebow et al. can opt out and not sue EA but very few people even read the junk mail notice they receive when a class is certified by the Court.

the same argument can also be made though, that the loser players could have opted out to not have their likenesses in the game. sam keller knew a similar virtual presense of him was going to be in ncaa football....hell, he probably even played as himself in the game...... yet he did nothing about it until he was out of school.

SmoothPancakes
05-20-2012, 08:51 PM
since when did the individuals become greater than the university though? when the kids put that jersey on, they're a representative of the school. so in that aspect, the individual player likenesses are irrelevant, as ea already has permission from each school and the license to make a college football game from the ncaa. awarding the lawsuit to the former players says that the player's likeness is above the university they play for, and in turn, above the ncaa.



the same argument can also be made though, that the loser players could have opted out to not have their likenesses in the game. sam keller knew a similar virtual presense of him was going to be in ncaa football....hell, he probably even played as himself in the game...... yet he did nothing about it until he was out of school, failed to find success in the NFL and eventually ended up broke and in search of money.

Fixed it for you. :)

Little Steve
05-20-2012, 08:52 PM
How does all this affect 13?

JeffHCross
05-20-2012, 09:01 PM
How does all this affect 13?It's extremely unlikely that this case is going to get decided anytime soon, IMO. In the theoretical case where it was decided, let's say the day before 13 releases, then the plaintiffs could ask for EA to be prevented to release 13. I'm not sure that would happen, namely because I'm not sure if Keller's "class" (that the suit is on behalf of) included current players, or just former players. If it includes current, then it's likely that they would ask for 13 to be prevented from being sold.

Though, again, IMO it's unlikely this gets decided before then. It's more likely that whatever happens in this case will affect 14, or maybe even not until 15.

baseballplyrmvp
05-20-2012, 09:02 PM
Added onto it for you. :)now your's is fixed. lol :P

SmoothPancakes
05-20-2012, 09:06 PM
now your's is fixed. lol :P

Semantics. :D

Little Steve
05-20-2012, 09:09 PM
It's extremely unlikely that this case is going to get decided anytime soon, IMO. In the theoretical case where it was decided, let's say the day before 13 releases, then the plaintiffs could ask for EA to be prevented to release 13. I'm not sure that would happen, namely because I'm not sure if Keller's "class" (that the suit is on behalf of) included current players, or just former players. If it includes current, then it's likely that they would ask for 13 to be prevented from being sold.

Though, again, IMO it's unlikely this gets decided before then. It's more likely that whatever happens in this case will affect 14, or maybe even not until 15.
Not really concerend with 14. I'll be fighting for playing time in a jr college next year. I dough(doubt)t they'd win either, every college does it. Ever watch the Michigen freshmen 5 thing on espn? nike socks, billboards, ect. made alot of money off them.

ram29jackson
05-20-2012, 10:01 PM
..thats why most players dont care..they are happy with all the under the table stuff they get LOL

JeffHCross
05-21-2012, 07:49 PM
CLW, you may have already mentioned this in another post, but I don't recall.

Apparently the claim against the NCAA, CLC and EA is specific to "Form 08-3a", which was required to be signed to participate in athletics. The allegation, and I'm paraphrasing, is that the form gives the NCAA the athlete's likeness in perpetuitiy, as well as to third parties like EA. I'm not sold.

Here's a copy of said form from UK: http://www.ukathletics.com/doc_lib/compliance0809_sa_statement.pdf

Part IV appears to be the section in question. Thoughts?

JeffHCross
05-21-2012, 07:49 PM
OH NOES!@ The dreaded double post

baseballplyrmvp
05-22-2012, 10:18 AM
CLW, you may have already mentioned this in another post, but I don't recall.

Apparently the claim against the NCAA, CLC and EA is specific to "Form 08-3a", which was required to be signed to participate in athletics. The allegation, and I'm paraphrasing, is that the form gives the NCAA the athlete's likeness in perpetuitiy, as well as to third parties like EA. I'm not sold.

Here's a copy of said form from UK: http://www.ukathletics.com/doc_lib/compliance0809_sa_statement.pdf

Part IV appears to be the section in question. Thoughts?

for the lame....its part 4. i just dont see how a judge can rule against the ncaa and ea in this case. the student athletes signed a "contract" that allowed the ncaa to use their name and picture to promote ncaa championships or other ncaa events.

the athletes signed off on that. they signed away their likeness. its an open and shut case, imo. ea got the cfb license from the ncaa, in which the ncaa can claim that this is an "other ncaa event" from part 4.....i dont see how it helps the former student athletes at all. in fact, it hurts their case.

Rudy
05-22-2012, 11:48 AM
for the lame....its part 4. i just dont see how a judge can rule against the ncaa and ea in this case. the student athletes signed a "contract" that allowed the ncaa to use their name and picture to promote ncaa championships or other ncaa events.

the athletes signed off on that. they signed away their likeness. its an open and shut case, imo. ea got the cfb license from the ncaa, in which the ncaa can claim that this is an "other ncaa event" from part 4.....i dont see how it helps the former student athletes at all. in fact, it hurts their case.

I think any time you take a little guy (athlete) with little knowledge of the legalities of a contract and have him sign something he is desperate to do (the scholarship, especially if he only has one offer) there is always a concern over what is fair. The NCAA is the big bad financial wolf with the lawyers that force some of these things down people's throats. I do think the courts will protect the rights of those that have a hard time protecting themselves. Anything that smells of a monopoly or a dictorship may cause the courts to do what's in the best interest of the public.

I'm not a lawyer but I've just read enough things about stuff like this where the court can rule against the official letter of the law to do what they may consider the right thing to do. I know there are similar fights in the music industry over who owns the rights to certain music. Often record companies make artists sign over everything for a long time and will make a ton of money off of them. There are a lot of examples from musicians in the past who were ripped off like crazy because of the stronghold on the industry a few people had. They try to justify the excessive profit by saying it covers the expenses of all the failed contracts that cost money but it still smells at times.

JeffHCross
05-22-2012, 07:24 PM
Well, the one thing I will say for the plaintiffs, MVP, is there's nothing in that part of the contract that says they'll hold onto your likeness for the rest of time. It doesn't say they won't either, but I imagine that is going to be the sticking point of the trial. Plus, it says nothing about merchandise. "Other NCAA events" may not hold water to a judge.

Escobar
05-23-2012, 12:08 AM
In reply to baseball and Rudy, as a former track & field athlete at the University of Oklahoma (#BOOMERSOONER), the NCAA and the colleges basically make you sign your rights to yourself away when you sign up to be a part of the team. Our first official team meeting before practice my freshman year we filled out paperwork for almost an hour, most of which explains drug testing procedures and various other things. One of which states that the college "owns" our likeness or whatever you want to call it, which also stipulates we cannot take any pictures in our attire or for other organizations to be posted in various media outlets w/o the University's permission. It's kind of like the government...they've been doing it that way for years and even if you disagree with it, you have to do it to even get a chance to participate in the system.

Where things get complicated is when you try and transfer schools. That's why we have so many problems with players only transferring to certain schools and needing to be granted a "release". The release doesn't only pertain to being released from your scholarship, it also contains your "likeness". Even if you aren't on scholarship, but are a walk-on who is part of the team and gets significant pt, you will need to be granted a release before you will be able to participate at your new school or even talk to coaches.

When you're 17 like I was, or 18 you don't even think about things like that. You just think I have to sign these forms as being part of the team. It was funny because they had to mail mine off after I signed them so my parents could, because I was still a minor.

baseballplyrmvp
05-23-2012, 12:52 AM
i understand. but the fact still remains, the kids are signing away their likeness, and allowing the both the school and ncaa to "own" it, per se, for at least the duration that these kids are in school. since ea paid the ncaa for the cfb license, i'm guessing that it was part of the deal that ea could use anything the ncaa owned or partnered with, as long as the ncaa had a final say on the matter. this would include the players' likenesses. having individual permission from every player wouldnt matter at all, since they no longer have ownership of their likeness.

i went through the same process escobar, even though i played juco baseball. i received partial d1 offers, but wasnt able to come up with the rest of the money for tuition so i went the juco route. i'm familiar with all the paperwork required by the clearinghouse and all that stuff. the first time that i was exposed to it, i remember asking :Washington: former head baseball coach ken knutson about it as i thumbed through the paperwork at a glance at one of their prospect camps....and he dumbed it down by saying (i forget the exact quote) that i basically had no say over any kind of exposure of me in a school uniform. its made very clear to the kids that they dont own their image if they're in a uniform.

ruling in favor of the student athletes nulifies that part of the paperwork, in which they knowingly signed over the rights to their likeness.

Escobar
05-23-2012, 04:44 PM
baseball I'm not arguing in favor of Sam Keller, just trying to give some background infomation to people who don't know or understand how the system works. I get irritated when I see people say stuff bad mouthing athletes when problems come up, like we are in control of everything that goes on. I got into an argument at work with somebody once during the whole Terrelle Pryor situation at Ohio State, not defending him just saying I could see why some players would sell their memorabilia. I had to watch one of my best friends from Houston and teammates at OU have to figure out how he was going to pay his rent, because he was only on a partial scholarship and athletes aren't really allowed to have jobs.

Back to the topic: I don't expect Sam Keller to actually win this fight. I think he's doing it more to shed light on a situation which all goes back to the idea that college athletes should be paid. He like others didn't realize what that paper entails until he left the university. The NCAA is a horribly corrupt system...you are their property and when you sign that paper they control your likeness for life, whether or not you finish school. I learned this first hand after I decided to sit out of school for almost 2 years before transferring back to Houston. I was highly upset when I had to sit out of practice for pretty much a whole semester because that's how long it took for me to get my release from Oklahoma.

CLW
09-19-2012, 01:28 PM
As expected discovery leaks now with internal e-mails indicating "concerns" with NCAA/EA policy.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8396753/ncaa-policy-chief-proposes-dropping-student-athlete-term

This ain't good folks for the future of the series UNLESS the NCAA decides it is going to start paying players (in addition to their payment of a free education) for this

ram29jackson
09-19-2012, 07:45 PM
there will always be a work around of some sort. Or someone will make a very customizable football game at some point

JeffHCross
09-19-2012, 07:49 PM
NatureBoy posted a PastaPadre story in Other Video Games which linked to this article: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/09/ea_sports_and_collegiate_licen.html

It has some of the same quotes as in CLW's link above.

Well, crap.


Or someone will make a very customizable football game at some pointDon't bet on it. Backbreaker was originally designed to allow full customization, including features that would have let you create NFL teams in Backbreaker. The threat of a lawsuit shut that down. Threats of lawsuits will be able to shut down practically any customization game.

gschwendt
09-20-2012, 10:05 AM
EA Sports developed college games with athletes' real names (http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/20/3362304/ea-sports-ncaa-basketball-football-student-athletes-real-names)

CLW
09-20-2012, 01:36 PM
EA Sports developed college games with athletes' real names (http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/20/3362304/ea-sports-ncaa-basketball-football-student-athletes-real-names)

Now that evidence (if you believe Plaintiff's theory as a matter of law) entitles them to PUNITIVE damages.

gigemaggs99
09-20-2012, 02:39 PM
If EA didn't make money off of their games do you think people would be suing?

What I'm suggesting is, it's not really a matter of taking some likeness, it's that they are missing out on the money, seems silly. Go get a job, make your own money.

If I was big enough or good enough to play college sports I think it would be bad ass to own a game that had me in the game....isn't that the entire point of gameface?

SmoothPancakes
09-20-2012, 02:54 PM
If EA didn't make money off of their games do you think people would be suing?

What I'm suggesting is, it's not really a matter of taking some likeness, it's that they are missing out on the money, seems silly. Go get a job, make your own money.

If I was big enough or good enough to play college sports I think it would be bad ass to own a game that had me in the game....isn't that the entire point of gameface?

They do think that. It's after they get out of college, find out they suck ass and don't have a future in the NFL, and because they did jack shit with their time in college, have nothing to fall back on for a career and are now poor, they feel they're entitled to the money now.

CLW
09-20-2012, 04:13 PM
They do think that. It's after they get out of college, find out they suck ass and don't have a future in the NFL, and because they did jack shit with their time in college, have nothing to fall back on for a career and are now poor, they feel they're entitled to the money now.

That pretty much sums it up factually (although O'Bannon should be NBA not NFL). Sadly, if things don't work out for you we now have a branch of government (the judiciary) that redistributes wealth to make up for your stupidity.

SmoothPancakes
09-20-2012, 06:49 PM
That pretty much sums it up factually (although O'Bannon should be NBA not NFL). Sadly, if things don't work out for you we now have a branch of government (the judiciary) that redistributes wealth to make up for your stupidity.

Yeah, that's the way I've viewed it from the very start. They couldn't cut it in professional sports, didn't do squat while in college, and now want a payday because they have nothing in terms of a career outside of sports.

And from the way this case is starting to look in the recent days, could we be seeing the eventual demise of NCAA Football video games? EA may decide to eventually just cut bait and drop it. And while some people would be praising that result, because it would be out of EA's hands, I hate to tell them, but I seriously doubt ANYONE would ever pick NCAA Football back up if EA drops it because of these lawsuits. Any company (2K since so many people love to name them) picking up the NCAA Football license and making a game would, I'm guessing, open themselves up to every single one of these very lawsuits, unless they go the route of making every single thing in the game generic as shit and forcing their customers to "make the game" for them in terms of conferences, teams and rosters.

souljahbill
09-20-2012, 07:26 PM
If EA gets out the NCAA biz, I'm out the football video game consumer circle. I hardly watch any pro football and could care less about Madden. Guess I'd finally reach 60 years in a dynasty with the last release.

gschwendt
09-20-2012, 07:37 PM
I would assume that at the very least, EA would put out at least one more game with generic rosters and see what kind of response it gets. Teams, logos, uniforms, etc. aren't the issue... it's player likeness. If they make every player completely, undeniably generic then I don't believe the threat of suit would be an issue going forward. We would just have to hope we'd still have EA Locker and perhaps even an online roster editor.

Quest4Gold
09-20-2012, 11:16 PM
I really couldn't care if they had real players in it. I am in year five of all my dynasties and I don't have any players left. Plus I started a dynasty the first day before rosters were out so I just did name generator and went with it. All EA has to do is adjust the sizes a little bit and put a name generator in it. I could care less if they had a roster editor in it.

baseballplyrmvp
09-20-2012, 11:59 PM
EA Sports developed college games with athletes' real names (http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/20/3362304/ea-sports-ncaa-basketball-football-student-athletes-real-names)


Now that evidence (if you believe Plaintiff's theory as a matter of law) entitles them to PUNITIVE damages.

only based on the fact that ea used their names without their permission. that doesnt prove or support the claim, at all, in that ea made money off of their image and likeness. all that was basically said in the article, was that names were used in the development process only for the convenience of the developers to get correct stats. there's also a lesser chance of screwing something up using names instead of always having to refer back to a player's position and number.

Rudy
09-21-2012, 04:28 AM
I would assume that at the very least, EA would put out at least one more game with generic rosters and see what kind of response it gets. Teams, logos, uniforms, etc. aren't the issue... it's player likeness. If they make every player completely, undeniably generic then I don't believe the threat of suit would be an issue going forward. We would just have to hope we'd still have EA Locker and perhaps even an online roster editor.

An online roster editor would be a must. But what about online play for that crowd?

CLW
09-21-2012, 06:37 AM
I would assume that at the very least, EA would put out at least one more game with generic rosters and see what kind of response it gets. Teams, logos, uniforms, etc. aren't the issue... it's player likeness. If they make every player completely, undeniably generic then I don't believe the threat of suit would be an issue going forward. We would just have to hope we'd still have EA Locker and perhaps even an online roster editor.

The problem with that game is they would still be subject to suits for "conspiracy", "negligence", etc... for putting out a product that allows others to commit wrongs (i.e. unlawful use of "likeness"). Its like Napster. Technically, they didn't do it it was their consumers that did but their product allowed the illegal conduct to occur.

Honestly, at this point I see only 2 potential ways the series survives.

#1 EA fights this thing up on appeal and wins a 1st Amendment argument or some other dismissal on the basis that Plaintiffs have no claims as a matter of law

#2 The NCAA changes things and either "beefs up" their waiver and/or starts allowing additional payments to athletes for the use of their likeness.

#2 would essentially allow EA to make their game like Madden (i.e. with real life rosters from the start) but I just don't see the NCAA going that route yet.

gigemaggs99
09-21-2012, 12:44 PM
I'm no law dog, but it seems like another place they could go after are the sites that charge for roster names. If someone is making money off of your name then I could see an issue. I'm thankful there are free rosters.

JBHuskers
09-21-2012, 12:45 PM
I would to have seen a high profile case against Kaldenberg to watch him squirm :D

ram29jackson
09-21-2012, 03:40 PM
NatureBoy posted a PastaPadre story in Other Video Games which linked to this article: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/09/ea_sports_and_collegiate_licen.html

It has some of the same quotes as in CLW's link above.

Well, crap.

Don't bet on it. Backbreaker was originally designed to allow full customization, including features that would have let you create NFL teams in Backbreaker. The threat of a lawsuit shut that down. Threats of lawsuits will be able to shut down practically any customization game.

no, I didnt specify it/you needed to replicate real life anything. All I mean is customizable to where you can create alot of anything you want.

that said, at worst it will be real peoples names that are taboo. Making a uniform that looks close to a real life team shouldnt be an issue because alot of teams look like alot of teams anyway LOL.

honestly, you guys are taking this way too seriously and following it way too closely. College jocks cant win this case because it will lead to wanting to get paid for play and government wont let that happen.

At some point government and the courts will do a little under the table work around and there will be limitations but they wont squash the possibility of a college football video game ever happening again.

Rudy
09-21-2012, 04:14 PM
Hopefully EA can reach a deal with the students about using their names and player likeness for a very small fee - like $1 to make it legitimate but only for the current game and not historic teams. I think most kids would love to see their name in the game and would agree to it. The ones that don't become generic blobs or dropped down the depth chart.

JeffHCross
09-21-2012, 04:48 PM
They do think that. It's after they get out of college, find out they suck ass and don't have a future in the NFL, and because they did jack shit with their time in college, have nothing to fall back on for a career and are now poor, they feel they're entitled to the money now.While I understand this frustration-filled view point, it's not true for everyone involved in the suit. The Big O is part of the suit. Some of the people involved are involved because the NCAA is abusing their likeness rights (IMO).


If they make every player completely, undeniably generic then I don't believe the threat of suit would be an issue going forward.Going forward, no. But that doesn't help with years and years of content. But, IMO, a loss by EA may sink the franchise, dollars wise, enough that they don't try to do anything going forward.


only based on the fact that ea used their names without their permission. that doesnt prove or support the claim, at all, in that ea made money off of their image and likeness. all that was basically said in the article, was that names were used in the development process only for the convenience of the developers to get correct stats.The defense that has been used -- I don't know if it's been used officially, but it's at least been used informally -- is that the players in the game (at least NCAA) were not based on a real-life player, they just shared similarities like number, position, size. But if names were used as a reference, to ensure stats/ratings were accurate, then that shows that the virtual versions are based on a real-life player. That is the argument that is now available to them, with proof.

That said, I don't personally believe this is a smoking gun that will prove that the game profited off the player's likeness. They didn't actually use the players names without permission, it was never released with names. It's a question of likeness. And while I don't think this is the smoking gun, I do think there are others. We shall see.


I'm no law dog, but it seems like another place they could go after are the sites that charge for roster names. If someone is making money off of your name then I could see an issue. I'm thankful there are free rosters.Historically, those sites have been targets of cease-and-desist orders, I believe. But not enough to dissuade them from continuing to be d-bags about it.

One of the articles about this topic suggested that EA Locker was in response to the NCAA not allowing real names -- that it was a way to circumvent that process. I don't believe that was it at all. I believe EA Locker was in response to the d-bags charging for rosters (some, like FK, are not d-bags. But I think the d-bags outnumber the straight up guys), and provided a mechanism for users to get rosters without significant searching or paying ridiculous fees.

MrToo Brand New
09-21-2012, 05:59 PM
I wouldn't consider the upcoming case a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. Kirby v. Sega of America, Hart v Electronic Arts, and amendments to Hilton v. Hallmark make a good case for EA. EA can argue that the players are not exact replications of real NCAA Athletes due to not exact accuracies in hair, face, city, and many players heights, weights, jersey numbers, and classes not being exactly correct. Also an argument can be made that consumers editing rosters in protected by their first amendments rights of expression. EA will have to make a good case stating that the characters in the game are transformed enough that they are now the company and consumer's expression rather than exact real life replications.

CLW
09-21-2012, 06:28 PM
I wouldn't consider the upcoming case a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. Kirby v. Sega of America, Hart v Electronic Arts, and amendments to Hilton v. Hallmark make a good case for EA. EA can argue that the players are not exact replications of real NCAA Athletes due to not exact accuracies in hair, face, city, and many players heights, weights, jersey numbers, and classes not being exactly correct. Also an argument can be made that consumers editing rosters in protected by their first amendments rights of expression. EA will have to make a good case stating that the characters in the game are transformed enough that they are now the company and consumer's expression rather than exact real life replications.

EA basically made those arguments and lost (b/c they are in Nancy Pelosi country). They also have to deal with the 9th Circuit. Basically, to win, EA has to fight the case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and pray they grant the appeal and hope for a 5-4 decision.

EA may decide its just best to settle this case and get the F out of making a NCAA game.

ram29jackson
09-21-2012, 06:29 PM
just a side note to legal arguments, the Guys at Next Gen Uniforms who use teambuilder to profit off the truly lazy and uneducated.
They use this as their reasoning for making NCAA uni's for people.

on facebook


Next Gen Uniforms All collegiate designs are extra content given to users after joining. This is not a sold item on our site. High School content and roster downloads are the premise of our service.

Yesterday at 12:32pm · Like · 1

JeffHCross
09-21-2012, 07:45 PM
:smh: at what Ram quoted. That just shouldn't be able to exist.

JeffHCross
01-29-2013, 08:13 PM
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money


In dismissing a motion by the NCAA to prevent football and men's basketball players from legally pursuing a cut of live broadcast revenues, a federal court judge Tuesday raised the stakes for the governing body of college sports as it defends its economic model.

Judge Claudia Wilken issued her ruling Tuesday, rejecting the NCAA's motion that players in the antitrust suit led by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon should be precluded from advancing their lawsuit on procedural grounds.

The NCAA had objected to the players amending their lawsuit last year to claim a share of all television game revenues, not just those from rebroadcasts.

"Now the (NCAA and its co-defendants) are facing potential liability in the billions of dollars instead of tens or hundreds of millions," said Michael Hausfeld, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve."

JBHuskers
01-29-2013, 10:07 PM
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

To me, "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve." Read "It's another way for the lawyers to add onto the already $20M bill in legal fees that have accrued."

CLW
01-30-2013, 07:31 AM
To me, "It's a more accurate context for what the players deserve." Read "It's another way for the lawyers to add onto the already $20M bill in legal fees that have accrued."

Yep. EA's "only" hope is to fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court. There is 0% chance the liberal judge in San Francisco and/or the 9th Circuit are going to let EA/NCAA out of this case. So.... there options are: (1) settle; (2) fight for years and spend probably millions of $ in legal fees and hope they get a hearing (not guaranteed) by the Supreme Court and hope Roberts most recent waffling on his conservative ideology was an aberration to get a 5-4 ruling in their favor on 1st Amendment grounds.

JeffHCross
02-07-2013, 09:47 PM
Just got an e-mail about this tonight: http://marchmadness-art.cbscollegestore.com/store.cfm?store_id=526

Couldn't help but wonder how these paintings came about.

steelerfan
03-20-2013, 09:12 PM
I got the following text the other day and couldn't help but immediately think that this will by brought into play by Sam Keller et al.


ESPN NFL - NFL will pay $42M to retired players who sued league for using their names, images without permission

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

morsdraconis
03-21-2013, 04:46 AM
I got the following text the other day and couldn't help but immediately think that this will by brought into play by Sam Keller et al.

Most likely. That's setting the groundwork for college players to sue the hell out of EA.

JeffHCross
03-21-2013, 07:19 AM
That sets the groundwork for a settlement by the NCAA. Not necessarily EA.

steelerfan
03-21-2013, 07:42 AM
That sets the groundwork for a settlement by the NCAA. Not necessarily EA.

Though it doesn't mean good things for EA, I agree, Jeff.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

CLW
04-10-2013, 03:02 PM
EA claims it is only 25% accurate with its rosters.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/ea_sportsclc_expert_most_ncaa.html

JeffHCross
05-06-2013, 08:23 PM
Good summary of the case and the next steps: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/6/4291666/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-next-class-certification

CLW
05-06-2013, 08:46 PM
Good summary of the case and the next steps: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/6/4291666/ed-obannon-ncaa-lawsuit-next-class-certification

No need to wait. The Liberal trial judge will give Plaintiffs ANYTHING/EVERYTHING they ask for. 9th Circuit will shoot EA/NCAA down as well. EA/NCAA's only hope is to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ram29jackson
05-23-2013, 01:26 PM
http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/23/ea-sports-tim-tebow-ncaa-football/


EA Sports used ex-Florida quarterback Tim Tebow’s name in its NCAA Football 10 video game, SB Nation reports. That installment of EA’s college football series was released in July 2009, the summer before Tebow’s senior season in Gainesville.

An SB Nation reader found Tebow’s name in the game within Florida’s playbook in a play called “Shotgun Twin QB Tebow – Motion Stay.” The formation was used by the Gators during Tebow’s career, which spanned from 2006-10.

The notion that EA Sports used Tebow’s name in a video game while Tebow was still a student-athlete adds an interesting wrinkle to an issue that has largely dominated the offseason. The Ed O’Bannon v. the NCAA lawsuit pits O’Bannon, a former UCLA basketball player, and others against college athletics’ governing body, EA Sports and College Licensing Company over an alleged violation of antitrust laws, specifically for using players’ likenesses in video games and other commercial items. If the plaintiffs succeed, the suit has the potential to completely redefine the premise of amateurism in college athletics.

CLW
05-23-2013, 02:22 PM
http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/23/ea-sports-tim-tebow-ncaa-football/

That is a "smoking gun" as we call in the law. Of course, that assumes you buy the premise of the argument (which I don't). I think EA has a solid 1st Amendment argument as well as an argument that the Athletes waived their claims by signing a waiver to the NCAA.

Regardless said finding is NOT good for EA or the future of the series.

baseballplyrmvp
05-23-2013, 11:41 PM
shouldnt matter all that much. this is only a name of a play. this has zero connection to the player's likeness claim

JeffHCross
05-24-2013, 06:35 AM
shouldnt matter all that much. this is only a name of a play. this has zero connection to the player's likeness claim In reality, I agree with you. But a lawyer could probably leverage it to make a convincing argument.

CLW
05-24-2013, 09:27 AM
shouldnt matter all that much. this is only a name of a play. this has zero connection to the player's likeness claim


In reality, I agree with you. But a lawyer could probably leverage it to make a convincing argument.

It would depend on the state but actually the unauthorized use of a name for commercial gain is direct evidence of a "privacy" based tort in most/many states. I'd be shocked if it wasn't in California.

Moreover, it can be used to show/argue that EA's intent or mental state with regard to how it "treats" these athletes. It uses their likeness/images (evidence elsewhere) and they even use some of their names without permission and without compensating them.

A liberal San Francisco jury will likely punish EA and award punitive damages. That "Tebow" play is evidence than can be used to not only win but to receive punitive damages to punish EA/NCAA.

TIMB0B
05-24-2013, 04:48 PM
I haven't read the case, but what are the plaintiffs seeking?

steelerfan
05-24-2013, 04:54 PM
I haven't read the case, but what are the plaintiffs seeking?

$

I'm using Tapatalk 2 and the Cleveland Browns STILL suck.

TIMB0B
05-24-2013, 05:03 PM
$

I'm using Tapatalk 2 and the Cleveland Browns STILL suck.
Hmm. I doubt Sam Keller helped EA make any money.

Jayrah
05-24-2013, 05:07 PM
Hmm. I doubt Sam Keller helped EA make any money.It goes a lot deeper than this, but Keller says that along with thousands of other student athletes over the years, EA has been portraying their likenesses and made most, if not all of their money on that.

TIMB0B
05-24-2013, 05:17 PM
It goes a lot deeper than this, but Keller says that along with thousands of other student athletes over the years, EA has been portraying their likenesses and made most, if not all of their money on that.

Interesting. Maybe that's why EA introduced the Legends Mode; to show holes in the plaintiffs argument. Because that would be an example of someone buying a game because of an athlete. However, I never played one second of that mode, and I'm sure 99% of the gamers out there didn't buy the game because of past Heisman winners either.

CLW
05-25-2013, 08:17 AM
Hmm. I doubt Sam Keller helped EA make any money.

Doesn't matter. If you buy Plaintiffs theory you cannot use another person's "likeness" (legal term) without their permission. However, your point is a decent one re: Keller's alleged damages. Thus, Plaintiffs' counsel knowing Keller et al. are bums are using a class action lawsuit (trying to represent every NCAA player) so they can increase the damages just by the sheer number of plaintiffs they represent.

TIMB0B
05-25-2013, 10:28 AM
Doesn't matter. If you buy Plaintiffs theory you cannot use another person's "likeness" (legal term) without their permission. However, your point is a decent one re: Keller's alleged damages. Thus, Plaintiffs' counsel knowing Keller et al. are bums are using a class action lawsuit (trying to represent every NCAA player) so they can increase the damages just by the sheer number of plaintiffs they represent.
If they bring on too many in the suit, his cut of the money decreases. He better watch it.

What I want to know is, what will happen to the franchise if the plaintiffs win? Will they still create the game, but make all of the players the same size, race, and number? I think with the gaming community putting out rosters every year, the game will be fine for us, but will the casual gamer be upset without some sort of accurate default rosters out of the box, therefore hurting future sales?

jello1717
05-25-2013, 11:24 AM
Interesting. Maybe that's why EA introduced the Legends Mode; to show holes in the plaintiffs argument. Because that would be an example of someone buying a game because of an athlete. However, I never played one second of that mode, and I'm sure 99% of the gamers out there didn't buy the game because of past Heisman winners either.
I was going to rebut this post, but then you used my argument in your next post.

but will the casual gamer be upset without some sort of accurate default rosters out of the box, therefore hurting future sales?
This is why the plaintiffs have a case. If EA put out a game with completely random rosters this would absolutely hurt their sales, especially from ranked game players who can only use the default roster. EA knew this which is why they put out accurate (for EA) rosters with their game.

I don't see any way that the plaintiffs can lose this case because there's no question that EA used player likenesses in their games. Even though they don't use names, EA is screwed. There's no way that they could argue that in their game the starting QB for Michigan (who is a black dude and wears #16, is a SR, hails from Florida, is 6'0, 195, and is easily the fastest QB in the country) is not an accurate representation of Denard Robinson. I don't know enough about the case to know if the big loser will be EA or the NCAA though (but probably both).

TIMB0B
05-25-2013, 01:30 PM
I was going to rebut this post, but then you used my argument in your next post.

This is why the plaintiffs have a case. If EA put out a game with completely random rosters this would absolutely hurt their sales, especially from ranked game players who can only use the default roster. EA knew this which is why they put out accurate (for EA) rosters with their game.

I don't see any way that the plaintiffs can lose this case because there's no question that EA used player likenesses in their games. Even though they don't use names, EA is screwed. There's no way that they could argue that in their game the starting QB for Michigan (who is a black dude and wears #16, is a SR, hails from Florida, is 6'0, 195, and is easily the fastest QB in the country) is not an accurate representation of Denard Robinson. I don't know enough about the case to know if the big loser will be EA or the NCAA though (but probably both).
The loser will be the gamer.

CLW
05-26-2013, 01:59 PM
If they bring on too many in the suit, his cut of the money decreases. He better watch it.

What I want to know is, what will happen to the franchise if the plaintiffs win? Will they still create the game, but make all of the players the same size, race, and number? I think with the gaming community putting out rosters every year, the game will be fine for us, but will the casual gamer be upset without some sort of accurate default rosters out of the box, therefore hurting future sales?

Actually his cut will not change no matter how many Plaintiffs there are. In fact, if the lawsuit is certified by the court as a class action (it will be) Keller could get an extra cut for being a "named plaintiff" to "represent" the class. The only people who's cut is effected is the plaintiffs' lawyer thus why they are pushing for the class action device so they can get their Million dollar+ pay day.

No one knows for sure what will happen to the series if Plaintiffs win. I personally don't think the series survives but I could be wrong.

Jayrah
05-26-2013, 09:50 PM
Actually his cut will not change no matter how many Plaintiffs there are. In fact, if the lawsuit is certified by the court as a class action (it will be) Keller could get an extra cut for being a "named plaintiff" to "represent" the class. The only people who's cut is effected is the plaintiffs' lawyer thus why they are pushing for the class action device so they can get their Million dollar+ pay day.

No one knows for sure what will happen to the series if Plaintiffs win. I personally don't think the series survives but I could be wrong.
I think the series has to survive just to pay off the damages :D

countryboy
05-27-2013, 08:33 AM
could bringing up the fact that he waited until now to bring this lawsuit against EA instead of when he first noticed his likeness being used in the game, be something that helps EA?

I mean, we all know that if Keller had the talent to make it in the NFL that he would've never brought this suit, but since he's a no talent never was, he is seeking his NFL payday thru the pockets of EA.

CLW
05-27-2013, 09:16 AM
I think the series has to survive just to pay off the damages :D

Nope b/c each edition adds hundreds of new Plaintiffs.


could bringing up the fact that he waited until now to bring this lawsuit against EA instead of when he first noticed his likeness being used in the game, be something that helps EA?

I mean, we all know that if Keller had the talent to make it in the NFL that he would've never brought this suit, but since he's a no talent never was, he is seeking his NFL payday thru the pockets of EA.

What you are talking about is called a Statute of Limitations. That is the time period that a person must file their lawsuit by or forever lose their right to make a claim. It varies from state to state but I assume that Keller must not be violating the SOL b/c EA's lawyers surely would have checked that and filed a motion to dismiss on that basis and even a VERY liberal judge would have a hard time not granting a motion to dismiss when the time to file the lawsuit has passed.

jello1717
05-27-2013, 10:49 AM
I mean, we all know that if Keller had the talent to make it in the NFL that he would've never brought this suit, but since he's a no talent never was, he is seeking his NFL payday thru the pockets of EA.The haters always seem to focus on Keller and O'Bannon and say this is only because they weren't successful pros. They also seem to always ignore the fact that this suit also includes Jim Brown and Oscar Robertson who are as far from "no talent never was" guys as you can get.

countryboy
05-27-2013, 11:57 AM
The haters always seem to focus on Keller and O'Bannon and say this is only because they weren't successful pros. They also seem to always ignore the fact that this suit also includes Jim Brown and Oscar Robertson who are as far from "no talent never was" guys as you can get.

A hater? Ok...I was just bringing up a point as to why Keller and the rest decided until now to bring up the suit, when this has been going on for quite a while. And I understand that Brown, O'Bannon, and Robertson are included in the suit and no where did I mention that they were "no talent never was" guys, only Keller which is why I only used his name.

countryboy
05-27-2013, 12:00 PM
What you are talking about is called a Statute of Limitations. That is the time period that a person must file their lawsuit by or forever lose their right to make a claim. It varies from state to state but I assume that Keller must not be violating the SOL b/c EA's lawyers surely would have checked that and filed a motion to dismiss on that basis and even a VERY liberal judge would have a hard time not granting a motion to dismiss when the time to file the lawsuit has passed.

Oh ok. Thanks!

ram29jackson
06-03-2013, 07:19 PM
the trial now is slated to begin june 2014. Appeals following a decision could extend the fight through 2020.

too early to bother worrying about anything for a consumer

CLW
06-03-2013, 08:31 PM
too early to bother worrying about anything for a consumer

Yeah if EA just wants to drag it out it certainly can. However, the legal bills have no doubt been HUGE and will continue to be HUGE all the way up through final disposition.

However, if O'Bannon/Keller are really hell bent on just breaking the NCAA EA/NCAA really don't have much of an option other than try to appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS.

SmoothPancakes
06-03-2013, 11:37 PM
Well, at least we know we're 100% safe for a NCAA '15 release, and maybe even NCAA '16 if either side appeals.

CLW
06-20-2013, 04:06 PM
Hearing today on motion to certify as class action. Despite the Supreme Court yet again today slapping down the class action device, I'd bet the farm that the judge certifies the case as a class.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9406971/former-athletes-seek-class-action-status-lawsuit-vs-ncaa

CLW
06-20-2013, 04:22 PM
347813911908716545

SmoothPancakes
06-20-2013, 05:20 PM
Hearing today on motion to certify as class action. Despite the Supreme Court yet again today slapping down the class action device, I'd bet the farm that the judge certifies the case as a class.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9406971/former-athletes-seek-class-action-status-lawsuit-vs-ncaa

So would the NCAA be able to appeal a class action certification to the Supreme Court?

CLW
06-20-2013, 06:38 PM
So would the NCAA be able to appeal a class action certification to the Supreme Court?

Eventually yes they could - often you can do it as soon as the action is certified (Interlocutory Appeal). It would have to go to the 9th Circuit first though for a ruling. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide:


A court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying class action certification under this rule if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order. An appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the court of appeals so orders.

The 9th Circuit (Appellate Court for CA) wouldn't likely grant it immediately b/c they are all liberals knowing that if they affirm a class certification it's that much closer to a potential Supreme Court review.

Of course the Supreme Court doesn't have to rule on the case as they have complete discretion (just about) on what cases they hear.

Most likely NCAA/EA would have to go to trial then appeal the Class Certification (and any other rulings) in one swoop.

CLW
06-21-2013, 01:12 PM
According to ESPN. The Judge ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add current student-athletes and "suggested" mediation.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9404803/why-obannon-suit-was-inevitable-ncaa-why-face-challenge


Reading tea leaves that's probably not good for the NCAA/EA as this lawsuit just got even bigger. I suppose the judge could (in theory) want to deny this type of lawsuit for everyone possible but that just seems highly unlikely.

Most likely result this case gets certified as all current and former NCAA athletes are plaintiffs against EA/NCAA. EA/NCAA will undoubtedly try to appeal the certification ruling to the 9th Cir. / Supreme Court but it will be an uphill battle to get the 9th to agree to hear the case.

ram29jackson
06-21-2013, 02:06 PM
the longer this goes on..I doubt they rule in favor of the jocks. its consumers that give the players names and not the company perse. And I could care less if I had to generate fictional names from any point onward.

This actually needs to be a side note to the NCAA being told to lighten up on restrictions to student athletes being allowed to make their own money any way they choose while being on full scholarship.

Just like the anti- indian team names crusaders. Its a few whiners trying to create a problem when most jocks live their lives and play their games both on field and on console LOL and don't care. Just more wasted taxpayer money on a long winded dumb legal battle

CLW
06-21-2013, 02:45 PM
the longer this goes on..I doubt they rule in favor of the jocks

Actually, the longer a lawsuit goes on the more likely it is to settle out of court. The Judge/9th Circuit knows that. PARTICULARLY in class actions once the case is certified unless you are Wal-Mart (or some other huge Corp with DEEP POCKETS AND A DEEP BELIEF YOU ARE RIGHT) almost all Defendants settle as soon as the class is certified.

Why? Simple the threat of a multi-million (or in this case multi-billion) dollar verdict and the cost of defending against 1000s of Plaintiffs simply just becomes too costly. Better to cut your losses now and move on.

Does EA/NCAA constitute Deep pockets - yeah they definitely have the funds necessary to fight it all the way up

However, do they believe deep in their hearts they are right and thus are willing to spend a fortune to attorneys to finally prevail at the Supreme Court after a decade plus of litigation? - I don't know

To me EA would probably be happy to pay $X per year to use actual player names so they don't really have a "deep"stake in this fight. It will likely be whether the NCAA wants to continue its current Amateurism stance (rightly or wrongly - IMHO rightly). Is it worth it to the NCAA? Time will tell.

CLW
07-30-2013, 12:52 PM
EA files Motion to Dismiss:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/30/4571472/ea-ncaa-football-obannon-keller-lawsuit-motion-to-dismiss (http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/30/4571472/ea-ncaa-football-obannon-keller-lawsuit-motion-to-dismiss)

Odd "strategy" if in fact the Judge told EA to not file a Motion to Dismiss. However, most likely EA is hoping the judge denies it w/o considering it giving them an additional ground for appeal.

CLW
07-31-2013, 02:16 PM
Liberal 9th Circuit slaps down EA on 1st Amendment Argument.

http://www.pastapadre.com/2013/07/31/major-defense-for-ea-in-likeness-suit-struck-down-by-appeals-court

EA will likely appeal this but SCOTUS doesn't have to take it as their review is ENTIRELY discretionary (except a few cases outlined in the Constitution).

The 1st Amendment is EA's best legal argument and the best potential win for fans of the series as a SCOTUS decision could protect the series from future lawsuits.

SmoothPancakes
07-31-2013, 02:27 PM
Well, if the Supreme Court takes it up, EA does have something in their favor.


It’s worth noting The 9th is one of the most reversed courts in the nation. Since 2005 78% of their cases that have reached the Supreme Court have been reversed.

ram29jackson
07-31-2013, 02:36 PM
Jim Brown http://www.profootballhof.com/UserFiles/image/Brown_Jim_180-220.jpg


In a separate decision also written by Bybee, the same 9th Circuit panel by a 3-0 vote on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown's lawsuit against EA over the use of his likeness in its Madden NFL video game.




It said Brown's likeness was "artistically relevant" to that game, and that there was no showing that EA explicitly misled consumers about his involvement with the game.

EA spokesman John Reseburg said in a statement: "We're pleased with the outcome regarding Jim Brown's likeness, but equally disappointed with the ruling against First Amendment protection in the Keller case. We believe the reasoning in Judge Thomas' dissent in that decision will ultimately prevail as we seek further court review."

CLW
07-31-2013, 02:39 PM
Well, if the Supreme Court takes it up, EA does have something in their favor.

Yep the 9th gets reversed a TON its a running joke that when/if SCOTUS takes a 9th Circuit case its to reverse them. There are even instances where Supreme Court takes up Case A from the 9th reverses. Then a few years later case B on the SAME ISSUE comes up and the 9th ignores SCOTUS. SCOTUS takes case and again reverses.

Of course that 78% # is only on cases that are actually heard by SCOTUS. TONS of bad 9th Circuit law is still out there but SCOTUS could/would fill its entire docket with bad law from the 9th if it wanted but it has to take cases from other areas too.

Its got a decent shot of being heard but I'd probably put it at slightly less than 50/50. Now the SCOTUS seems REALLY interested in class actions right now so that decision has a really good shot at going all the way up at some point.

CLW
07-31-2013, 04:59 PM
Apparently OS doesn't have a "resident lawyer" b/c they are mis-reporting what happened today in the Keller lawsuit. No worries I attempted to correct it for the masses but ALWAYS be weary of reading an article about law/lawsuit by someone who doesn't know jack squat about law. Just sayin'

SCClassof93
07-31-2013, 05:12 PM
I met Jack Squat a couple years ago playing golf, think he was from Scotland.

CLW
07-31-2013, 05:19 PM
I met Jack Squat a couple years ago playing golf, think he was from Scotland.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sY2vJGjs45I/UOHwYKXedXI/AAAAAAAAJ0w/o4V4fjMzxnM/s320/jack2.jpg

SCClassof93
07-31-2013, 05:24 PM
:D

cdj
08-20-2013, 06:40 PM
EA plans to appeal Keller case to Supreme Court (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/08/19/ea-sports-lawsuit-sam-keller-supreme-court-ncaa/2675019/)

Video game manufacturer Electronic Arts plans to appeal two cases involving the use of college athletes' names and likenesses to the U.S. Supreme Court, the company said in a court filing Monday.

The filing came in connection with a lawsuit filed by former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller. A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently voted 2-1 to reject a bid by EA to strike Keller's claims. With the case's formal referral back to a district court scheduled to occur Aug. 21, EA on Monday asked the 9th Circuit to delay that action for 90 days, pending the filing of EA's petition for the Supreme Court to hear both the Keller case and a suit involving former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart.

In the Hart case, EA failed in a bid to get a favorable ruling from a three-judge panel in the 3rd Circuit and then was rebuffed in an effort to have that ruling reviewed by the circuit's entire judging panel.

The Keller case has drawn attention from a wide range of interests in the entertainment and media worlds because it revolves, in part, around whether EA's product was protected under the First Amendment as an artistic creation.

The NCAA and and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., are co-defendants in the Keller case, but the First Amendment issue and others involved in the appeal related to the EA's role in the case.

The case's potential ramifications prompted the filing of friend-of-the-court arguments with the 9th Circuit in favor of EA's position by entities and companies ranging from the Motion Picture Association of America, ESPN, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and publishing interests including the Gannett Co., the parent of USA TODAY Sports. Lining up on Keller's side were, among others, the players' unions of every major North American pro sports league, the Screen Actors Guild and the corporation that controls rights held by the late Bob Marley.

At issue is Keller's and Hart's right to control the use of their names, images and likenesses -- against EA's First Amendment right to use his likeness in what the company says is an artistic, or expressive, work.

"In both cases, the dissenting judges, vigorously argued that EA's constitutional protection trumps the athletes' interests," EA's lawyers wrote Monday. "… EA's petition for certiorari (appeal to the Supreme Court) thus raises a critical issue of constitutional law: what is the proper test for determining whether the First Amendment bars a right-of-publicity claim arising from the use of a celebrity's name or likeness in an expressive work? … This issue has broad implications among content creators, who struggle to discern the scope of First Amendment protection afforded to motion pictures, books, video games, and other expressive works that use real-life individuals' names and likenesses. As with any issue involving freedom of expression, uncertainty inevitably leads to self-censorship, as creators and distributors of expressive works attempt to avoid costly litigation."

CLW
08-20-2013, 07:40 PM
EA plans to appeal Keller case to Supreme Court (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2013/08/19/ea-sports-lawsuit-sam-keller-supreme-court-ncaa/2675019/)

Video game manufacturer Electronic Arts plans to appeal two cases involving the use of college athletes' names and likenesses to the U.S. Supreme Court, the company said in a court filing Monday.

The filing came in connection with a lawsuit filed by former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller. A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently voted 2-1 to reject a bid by EA to strike Keller's claims. With the case's formal referral back to a district court scheduled to occur Aug. 21, EA on Monday asked the 9th Circuit to delay that action for 90 days, pending the filing of EA's petition for the Supreme Court to hear both the Keller case and a suit involving former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart.

In the Hart case, EA failed in a bid to get a favorable ruling from a three-judge panel in the 3rd Circuit and then was rebuffed in an effort to have that ruling reviewed by the circuit's entire judging panel.

The Keller case has drawn attention from a wide range of interests in the entertainment and media worlds because it revolves, in part, around whether EA's product was protected under the First Amendment as an artistic creation.

The NCAA and and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., are co-defendants in the Keller case, but the First Amendment issue and others involved in the appeal related to the EA's role in the case.

The case's potential ramifications prompted the filing of friend-of-the-court arguments with the 9th Circuit in favor of EA's position by entities and companies ranging from the Motion Picture Association of America, ESPN, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and publishing interests including the Gannett Co., the parent of USA TODAY Sports. Lining up on Keller's side were, among others, the players' unions of every major North American pro sports league, the Screen Actors Guild and the corporation that controls rights held by the late Bob Marley.

At issue is Keller's and Hart's right to control the use of their names, images and likenesses -- against EA's First Amendment right to use his likeness in what the company says is an artistic, or expressive, work.

"In both cases, the dissenting judges, vigorously argued that EA's constitutional protection trumps the athletes' interests," EA's lawyers wrote Monday. "… EA's petition for certiorari (appeal to the Supreme Court) thus raises a critical issue of constitutional law: what is the proper test for determining whether the First Amendment bars a right-of-publicity claim arising from the use of a celebrity's name or likeness in an expressive work? … This issue has broad implications among content creators, who struggle to discern the scope of First Amendment protection afforded to motion pictures, books, video games, and other expressive works that use real-life individuals' names and likenesses. As with any issue involving freedom of expression, uncertainty inevitably leads to self-censorship, as creators and distributors of expressive works attempt to avoid costly litigation."

Well this is the WHOLE BALL OF WAX folks. The 1st Amendment is EA's best defense and a win on that issue would save the series/status quo from now until eternity (or until the SCOTUS changes its mind).

SmoothPancakes
08-20-2013, 08:24 PM
Well this is the WHOLE BALL OF WAX folks. The 1st Amendment is EA's best defense and a win on that issue would save the series/status quo from now until eternity (or until the SCOTUS changes its mind).

So if SCOTUS decides to take up the case and hear the appeal, how soon/long would it be before a decision is handed down?

CLW
08-20-2013, 09:23 PM
So if SCOTUS decides to take up the case and hear the appeal, how soon/long would it be before a decision is handed down?

Technically eternity SCOTUS can take as long/short as they want to issue an opinion. There is also the possibility of a "punt" kick it back down on a "technicality" and not reach the merits.

Most likely, the opinion would come down at the end of the term after oral argument. The oral argument would likely occur in the Court's October 2014 Term but they have different "sittings" so the opinion could come down really at anytime. However, this is a fairly large and somewhat interesting/important case that could (likely) be a very HOT/DIVIDED court. I suspect this case to come down 5-4 on the issue. So the opinion wouldn't likely come out at the end of the term which would roughly be June/July 2015.

ram29jackson
08-20-2013, 09:40 PM
Technically eternity SCOTUS can take as long/short as they want to issue an opinion. There is also the possibility of a "punt" kick it back down on a "technicality" and not reach the merits.

Most likely, the opinion would come down at the end of the term after oral argument. The oral argument would likely occur in the Court's October 2014 Term but they have different "sittings" so the opinion could come down really at anytime. However, this is a fairly large and somewhat interesting/important case that could (likely) be a very HOT/DIVIDED court. I suspect this case to come down 5-4 on the issue. So the opinion wouldn't likely come out at the end of the term which would roughly be June/July 2015.

:P loosely translated= he aint be got no idea

baseballplyrmvp
08-21-2013, 12:01 AM
:P loosely translated= he aint be got no idea

:ram?:

jaymo76
08-21-2013, 12:06 AM
Well this is the WHOLE BALL OF WAX folks. The 1st Amendment is EA's best defense and a win on that issue would save the series/status quo from now until eternity (or until the SCOTUS changes its mind).

:+1: It's just frustrating to see how far this has gone up the food chain.

CLW
08-21-2013, 06:28 AM
:+1: It's just frustrating to see how far this has gone up the food chain.

I've been saying from the beginning EA would have to have the SCOTUS save their bacon. There is a reason allot of big lawsuits are filed out in California. The trial judges are generally VERY liberal and the 9th Cir. is VERY liberal so your only hope as a Corporate Defendant is SCOTUS.

SCClassof93
08-21-2013, 07:16 AM
I've been saying from the beginning EA would have to have the SCOTUS save their bacon. There is a reason allot of big lawsuits are filed out in California. The trial judges are generally VERY liberal and the 9th Cir. is VERY liberal so your only hope as a Corporate Defendant is SCOTUS.

You know we agree on most issues and I agree here about the 9th circuit. However, ideology is not driving this case, money is......here is a quote from cdj's article.

The case's potential ramifications prompted the filing of friend-of-the-court arguments with the 9th Circuit in favor of EA's position by entities and companies ranging from the Motion Picture Association of America, ESPN, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and publishing interests including the Gannett Co., the parent of USA TODAY Sports. Lining up on Keller's side were, among others, the players' unions of every major North American pro sports league, the Screen Actors Guild and the corporation that controls rights held by the late Bob Marley.

I know for a fact that the CBLDF are some of the most liberal loons out there. Gannett is almost as bad. Motion Picture Association is no bastion of conservative or Libertarian principles either:D. These are all liberal groups. On the other stand, ideologically, "unions", whether the individuals in them are liberal or not are libera. Unions and Hollywood screen actors on the other side, nuff said.

I do agree if the Court even agrees to hear this we may have a 5-4 decision and it will most likely split the liberal faction.

steelerfan
08-21-2013, 08:05 AM
Those guys all simply realize that Pandora's Box will be opened if EA loses. EVERY form of art (including comic books) will become a potential lawsuit target if this is not seen as something that is protected by the First Amendment. Ever reference ANYTHING or ANYBODY real in your movies, comic books, music, etc? Yes? Excellent, bend over!

I'm using Tapatalk 2 and the Cleveland Browns STILL suck.

CLW
08-21-2013, 12:53 PM
You know we agree on most issues and I agree here about the 9th circuit. However, ideology is not driving this case, money is......here is a quote from cdj's article.

The case's potential ramifications prompted the filing of friend-of-the-court arguments with the 9th Circuit in favor of EA's position by entities and companies ranging from the Motion Picture Association of America, ESPN, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and publishing interests including the Gannett Co., the parent of USA TODAY Sports. Lining up on Keller's side were, among others, the players' unions of every major North American pro sports league, the Screen Actors Guild and the corporation that controls rights held by the late Bob Marley.

I know for a fact that the CBLDF are some of the most liberal loons out there. Gannett is almost as bad. Motion Picture Association is no bastion of conservative or Libertarian principles either:D. These are all liberal groups. On the other stand, ideologically, "unions", whether the individuals in them are liberal or not are libera. Unions and Hollywood screen actors on the other side, nuff said.

I do agree if the Court even agrees to hear this we may have a 5-4 decision and it will most likely split the liberal faction.


Those guys all simply realize that Pandora's Box will be opened if EA loses. EVERY form of art (including comic books) will become a potential lawsuit target if this is not seen as something that is protected by the First Amendment. Ever reference ANYTHING or ANYBODY real in your movies, comic books, music, etc? Yes? Excellent, bend over!

I'm using Tapatalk 2 and the Cleveland Browns STILL suck.

Yep liberals are liberal until they need Conservatism to save their bacon. Hollywood is left on most things but they kinda like that ability to say what they want and do what the want in the name of free speech.

It's just a "weird" case where liberal entities need a conservative opinion here so save them so they will join forces with whomever they have to.

CLW
08-21-2013, 09:13 PM
Below is why this series is DEAD unless SCOTUS rules EA has a 1st Amendment right to do what it has done in the past:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk)

Bottom line schools are going to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and potentially millions in judgments against them for $100K a year. It's bad economics the risk/reward is out of whack. All you liberals here at TGT better kiss the ground of Kennedy and hope he sides with the Conservative block to make a 5-4 ruling in EA's favor (assuming you want the series to continue)

ram29jackson
08-21-2013, 09:32 PM
Below is why this series is DEAD unless SCOTUS rules EA has a 1st Amendment right to do what it has done in the past:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk)

Bottom line schools are going to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and potentially millions in judgments against them for $100K a year. It's bad economics the risk/reward is out of whack. All you liberals here at TGT better kiss the ground of Kennedy and hope he sides with the Conservative block to make a 5-4 ruling in EA's favor (assuming you want the series to continue)

which is why it wont happen..they aren't going to rule that colleges lose millions of dollars just because some guys who couldn't make the pros have a hissy fit. They know that wont benefit the masses and is counter productive. Amateur athletes will just have to be redifined

SmoothPancakes
08-22-2013, 09:35 AM
Below is why this series is DEAD unless SCOTUS rules EA has a 1st Amendment right to do what it has done in the past:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/81020/is-ea-sports-revenue-worth-schools-risk)

Bottom line schools are going to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and potentially millions in judgments against them for $100K a year. It's bad economics the risk/reward is out of whack. All you liberals here at TGT better kiss the ground of Kennedy and hope he sides with the Conservative block to make a 5-4 ruling in EA's favor (assuming you want the series to continue)

After EA's handling of this year's release, that has finally been the straw that broke the camel's back for me, I'm not sure anymore if I want EA to win this case or not. :D

Even if they do manage to release College Football 15, I'm on the sidelines. I'm not going through this crap yet another year and release.


which is why it wont happen..they aren't going to rule that colleges lose millions of dollars just because some guys who couldn't make the pros have a hissy fit. They know that wont benefit the masses and is counter productive. Amateur athletes will just have to be redifined

With this court, I wouldn't be so sure. And just because it won't benefit the masses and is counter productive doesn't mean they'll rule one way. That's not the way they do it.

CLW
08-22-2013, 06:49 PM
With this court, I wouldn't be so sure. And just because it won't benefit the masses and is counter productive doesn't mean they'll rule one way. That's not the way they do it.

You are correct SCOTUS here isn't thinking like :ram: (go figure). The liberal bloc will be thinking of it as a way to "stick it to the man" (NCAA/EA/Big Universities) and the conservative bloc will be looking at it as a way to "stick it to Plaintiffs' lawyers".

ram29jackson
08-22-2013, 07:34 PM
You are correct SCOTUS here isn't thinking like :ram: (go figure). The liberal bloc will be thinking of it as a way to "stick it to the man" (NCAA/EA/Big Universities) and the conservative bloc will be looking at it as a way to "stick it to Plaintiffs' lawyers".

that's just a basic 2 sided opinion. The truth is you have no clue which way each individual will bend and for what reasons and neither do I. Most colleges are liberal from stuff ive heard or read but if you threaten their money they well may think the other way :dunno:

I have no clue where its going or why it got so big but I doubt it will change much of anything because that many amateur jocks cant be paid like a job. They will have to find another way and classify these jocks in another way.

somewhere, somehow there will always be some form of a football video game no matter what happens with this anyway.

...hopefully better then this current piece of pseudo football junk :D

SmoothPancakes
08-22-2013, 07:53 PM
that's just a basic 2 sided opinion. The truth is you have no clue which way each individual will bend and for what reasons and neither do I. Most colleges are liberal from stuff ive heard or read but if you threaten their money they well may think the other way :dunno:

I have no clue where its going or why it got so big but I doubt it will change much of anything because that many amateur jocks cant be paid like a job. They will have to find another way and classify these jocks in another way.

somewhere, somehow there will always be some form of a football video game no matter what happens with this anyway.

...hopefully better then this current piece of pseudo football junk :D

Madden, yes. College? Nope. Just look at college basketball. 5 years ago, if you had told me that a college basketball video game would exist, would I believe you? Hell no. But yet, here we are, a couple years now without a college basketball video game. Now while the issue with that was predominantly sales numbers, still, there is no hint of any company anywhere even considering picking up college basketball. College basketball is pretty much forever dead in video games.

College football very well may still end up the same route, especially if more conferences drop out and a bunch of individual schools start dropping out of the game. Sure, someone can go the APF 2K8 route and make it pretty much solely user customized, but you'll still never have actual team logos in the game again. If schools drop out of the EA game, EA (and users via Teambuilder) won't be allowed to use their logos, so goodbye any chance of having, for example, Washington (with logo) in any future game. And who the hell knows in regards to stadiums. If EA isn't allowed to use the actual stadiums in the future, or if EA drops college football and someone is actually willing to expose themselves to legal issues in the future and picks it up, then every team in the game will be playing with lovely, boring ass generic stadiums and domes.

Ultimately, it'll become a shell of a college football game. A shell that I'll have no interest in playing. If I can't play with the actual Navy in their stadium, then I'm not gonna waste my money. There's a reason I never gave two shits about APF 2K8, because I wanted to play with the actual Denver Broncos, not some poorly made Denver Broncos wannabe/lookalike.

souljahbill
01-08-2014, 09:50 AM
Looks like likeness rule changes/compensations are being explored

Click me (http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014/01/07/ncaa-amateurism-cabinet-exploring-student-athlete-likeness-concepts.htm)

Rudy
01-08-2014, 05:37 PM
Interesting.

Escobar
01-08-2014, 08:36 PM
They should have explored this earlier considering how much they use the players' names/likenesses in ESPN commercials, or any advertisement for an upcoming game.