Lawsuit against EA/NCAA over player likeness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

EA Sports developed college games with athletes' real names

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLW

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

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.

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.

I would to have seen a high profile case against Kaldenberg to watch him squirm :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

NatureBoy posted a PastaPadre story in Other Video Games which linked to this article: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...ate_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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gigemaggs99

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrToo Brand New

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

:smh: at what Ram quoted. That just shouldn't be able to exist.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...levision-money

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...levision-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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

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.

Just got an e-mail about this tonight: http://marchmadness-art.cbscollegest...m?store_id=526

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

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.

That sets the groundwork for a settlement by the NCAA. Not necessarily EA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

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