EA Wins Dismissal In NCAA Player Likeness Suit, Puts Dent in Sam Keller Case

[Old School SD Fan]

Money talks in litigation, no way EA should have won such a case on its merits.

[Goblowsoup]

I don't know how in the world your First Amendment Rights apply to a company. They are not people...sorry to be all political but the Bill of Rights protects American Citizens, not Companies operating in the US. This ruling essentially protects any company from using your likeness, and as long as they don't use your name, they won't have to pay you anything for it. So..essentially they can get filty rich off of you. Yeah, sounds just about right...right?

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

While the video game fan in me is happy about this, i still gotta side with the players on this one. If it were us we'd be pissed too that schools and corporations cash in from using the likeness of players. Because think about it, if someone uses, lets say Kim Kardashian's image without her permission, she'd sue and win. But if Oregon sells LaMichael James posters with his image on it, he can't do anything about it.

I disagree. The players agreement to being recruited at that school (basically a contract) is a free ride. Some of these schools are $40K a year. They can choose whatever major they want, and get a nice education. If they do not make the Pros, which chances are more that you wont, they can get a nice job with a the proper education, and not worry about paying back student loans for the rest of their lives.

40K times 4 years on average?

And they are "more than taken care of" as an athlete for the school as well. More so than your average student.



And if they use Kim Kardashian's likeness she will sue and lose. As long as the name is not used. Hell even pictures are used and celebrities lose in court. All these trashy magazines would not exist then. But used in a form of art like a video game or TV show, a likeness can be used down to the T, as long as the name (which your name is a legal contract under the Constitution) is not used.

TV shows, music, books, and movies have been doing this longer than you or I were on this planet.

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

Money talks in litigation, no way EA should have won such a case on its merits.

Negative... the judge waited till after the Supreme Court ruling of games being protected under the same First Amendment as are movies, books, music, etc. So her decision was just and sound.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goblowsoup

I don't know how in the world your First Amendment Rights apply to a company. They are not people...sorry to be all political but the Bill of Rights protects American Citizens, not Companies operating in the US. This ruling essentially protects any company from using your likeness, and as long as they don't use your name, they won't have to pay you anything for it. So..essentially they can get filty rich off of you. Yeah, sounds just about right...right?

A company is owned by the public. Hence stocks and bonds, private companies are a different story. And Hollywood has been doing this for over 50 years. See what I wrote above. You do not "own" your likeness (since it is visual and anyone can look upon you in public), you "own" your name since it is considered a "contract".


As a note: Gamers want games protected under the First Amendment, and clamor to have their precious hobby "free speech" just like every other form of media. This GOES with the territory. Other forms of media are allowed to do this very thing. And have been doing it for over 50 years now. You people can not pick and choose what you want to be protected in parts. It does not work that way. I can bet if this was not EA, and was a more "beloved" game company, people would not be so hard pressed to want those very rights diminished.

This is great news as a sports gamer. And roster makers!

"This isn't "corporation vs individual". This is "commercial speech or artistic expression". The judge made that explicitly clear.

If the SCOTUS had ruled against ESRB in the ruling against California the case would have went the other way. She waited to rule specifically until after that case was decided. But games were ruled to be artistic expressions. That allows ARTISTS, or *ahem* "Corporations", far more leeway than they'd otherwise have when making a commercial product.

We don't get to have it both ways. Either games are art or they're not. You don't get to have them protected as art on the retail side but not considered art on what they choose to depict."

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

I disagree. The players agreement to being recruited at that school (basically a contract) is a free ride. Some of these schools are $40K a year. They can choose whatever major they want, and get a nice education. If they do not make the Pros, which chances are more that you wont, they can get a nice job with a the proper education, and not worry about paying back student loans for the rest of their lives. 40K times 4 years on average? And they are "more than taken care of" as an athlete for the school as well. More so than your average student.

and how about all those Non-Scholarship Athletes? Not every player on a college football team has a scholarship. There are plenty of walk ons in college football who still get in the game and play.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

and how about all those Non-Scholarship Athletes? Not every player on a college football team has a scholarship. There are plenty of walk ons in college football who still get in the game and play.

And playing sports in school is a choice for a non-scholarship athlete. You go to school to learn to get and education to make a career for yourself to make money.

You do not go to "get paid". That is where "student athletes" are losing touch with. I would have been proud if my likeness was used in an NCAA Baseball game. But man has our society gotten greedy.

But that is a different debate than what this topic is about. Which was the proper ruling under the protection of the Constitution.

[Goblowsoup]

Enigma- Companies are only partially owned by the public, and not just the general public but those who have the financial means to do so. And their only reason to own stocks is to gain income and revenue. Plus stockholders are simply a board of directors not the ones making the decisions but the ones who can influence decisions. I guess what so many people in this world see is that stock=public ownership. That's just not the case. I don't care how you turn it, the company still wholly owns its property, not the individual shareholders. Those who own the company don't care about how they make money, they just want to. The individuals who were suing EA don't own any part of EA, they aren't reimbursed and neither is anyone in the general public who could be affected by this ruling in the future.

What the ruling essentially says is that NCAA and the respective school owns the rights of the people who play for them...which is what slaves were to plantation owners. That's not America...and don't call me a troll or tell me I'm being ridiculous, because we have freedoms in this country and they were put in place to protect the individual, not the organizations and companies. This arguement is the exact reason our Economy is in the pits and is better served on a non-gaming site. While I as a sports gamer am excited that our rosters can be accurate, I would have been more pleased to see these guys get a little reimbursement since not only do their schools make millions of dollars off of their hard work, but EA makes millions of dollars off their work while they get a couple thousand dollar scholarship and have to watch everything they do to make sure they don't lose that.

This isn't an arguement over art and whether games are art or not, in any form of art if the likeness replicates the individual down to something as unique as a way a person dresses you start to cross a line of making money off of a person without paying them. That's like taking my friends picture and selling it as pornographic material without reimbursing them, but so long as I don't use their name...I'm in the clear...right? That's what I take from this....not this arguement that it's art or not. That's not what makes me upset over this.

I don't think you're wrong that art must be protected, but I think in any other form you have to keep somethinngs protected. Like Mike Tyson requesting a tatoo of one of the main characters in the Hangover 2 be removed because it is unique to his likeness. If removal happens, that proves enough that likenesses must be protected as well. Previous movies have had instances where they represent a likeness and they place a disclaimer that this may look like someone, but it isn't or it is losely based off of them. I'd be ok with that disclaimer at the beginning of a college sports game, just as I would be if they could name the rosters and pay the players. But a name doesn't make you who you are, it's what you do that makes you a person. They don't put me in the game because I wouldn't sell the game. They put big name players in without their names.

*Note- It could have been 505 Games, Techland, Team MEAT....I don't care who the company is, I'd still feel the same way. Individual rights far exceed that of an international company,

[Old School SD Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

Negative... the judge waited till after the Supreme Court ruling of games being protected under the same First Amendment as are movies, books, music, etc. So her decision was just and sound.

I can tell you're neither a lawyer, nor even a law student. To opine EA's usage is "free speech" and not "commercial"? C'mon.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

I can tell you're neither a lawyer, nor even a law student. To opine EA's usage is "free speech" and not "commercial"? C'mon.

Never claimed I was ::

But the fact remains they (EA/"artists") are protected under the First Amendment.

Movies and books and music have using it commercially for decades. Profiting off of likenesses. And it is accepted. Games are now put in the same category, and rightfully so.

Whatever the moral quandary people have with this is a whole different story however.