NCAA Football 11 News Post

New York Times on Sam Keller/EA Lawsuit: "It's about much more than video games"

02:47 PM - November 19, 2010 by RaychelSnr

The New York times reported earlier this week on the Sam Keller/EA Sports lawsuit:

Quote:


	"When Sam Keller, a former quarterback at Arizona State, sued the video game publisher Electronic Arts last year, he was seeking compensation for himself and other college athletes whose names were not used but whose images he contended were being illegally used by the company. But to the media conglomerates, athletes, actors, First Amendment advocates and others who have recently weighed in on the case, Keller�s lawsuit is about much more than video games. The outcome of a recent appeal filed by Electronic Arts, their lawyers say, could rewrite the rules that dictate how much ownership public figures have over their images � and the extent to which outside parties, including media and entertainment companies � can profit from them."

Basically, this is becoming a big lawsuit and it's not really about video games anymore -- at least to these additional parties with interests in the suit.

Quote:


	'�It�s one of the most important clashes in all of First Amendment law, and one of the more unsettled areas,� said David L. Hudson Jr., a scholar with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. �I think it�s an area that is crying out for Supreme Court review in the right case.� '

We haven't even seen the case move forward too far and people are already talking Supreme Court? Well this would mean we won't see a resolution for quite some time, which is either good or bad news, depending on how you look at it.

Quote:


	"'The implications here are enormous,' said Rob Carey, Keller�s lawyer. 'I don�t think we anticipated such a drastic, far-reaching defense, and then when EA Sports did that, that�s when everybody started to cover their own turf.' Since Electronic Arts filed its opening brief in the appeal in August, more than three dozen parties have signed their names to briefs supporting each side. Those who support Electronic Arts claim that free speech rights permit the use of the athletes� images. But Keller and his supporters argue that the video games in question are not protected by the First Amendment because the company was using the likenesses of college athletes for purely commercial gain."

Basically for those who don't quite understand yet -- there are a lot of people very interested in the outcome of this lawsuit. It's becoming quite a big deal.

Quote:


	"But representatives of athletes, actors and other famous figures say they deserve to be compensated for use of personas they have worked hard to develop, and say Electronic Arts goes too far. If Electronic Arts were to prevail, �the real-life consequence would be that anybody making anything other than a television commercial or a print ad � what is very clearly commercial speech � would essentially have the right to use people�s names and likenesses in those projects without any consultation,� said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the general counsel of the Screen Actors Guild. "

The case hasn't progressed too far yet, but with everyone lining up on each side of the case -- we are going to see a very interesting set of arguments from both sides of the fence. I know gamers are interested in Electronic Arts winning this case, but there is indeed a much bigger picture at work here.

The argument from the Keller Camp that sports video games aren't the same as other games, and that prior court rulings that video games are protected speech, is an interesting one. If Keller wins, the NCAA and EA will have to fork over some major money and then EA will have to either start licensing real players for NCAA or EA will have to create completely generic rosters in every sense of the word.

However, should EA win, from what Crabtree-Ireland said above -- you would no longer have to license likenesses in sports games. So while you would still have to license teams, players would be fair game to be used without a license fee of any kind.

It would be good for sports gamers if EA won in that sense, but it would also be exceptionally bad if you are someone who might be used in a creative production of any kind. This is indeed a huge case and it should be the most interesting and groundreaking case for video games perhaps ever.

As always, we'll be on top of it!

Game: NCAA Football 11Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: iPhone / PS2 / PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 83 - View All

NCAA Football 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 SaintsTheMetal @ 11/21/10 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	I don't know if this is still true, but 3 years ago when I was playing college sports, we had to sign a waiver that said that our school and the NCAA could use our likeness for promotional purposes. It didn't say anything about using them for profit though, which is what the NCAA does by selling the exclusive license to EA. My biggest issue with this case, and why I support Sam Keller's idea to sue, is that the NCAA makes billions of dollars off of the athletes at their institutions, but if a player wants to take a free meal they are ineligible. I find it insane that the NCAA and universities are allowed to make money off of their athletes, but (outside of a free education for some athletes, not all) the athletes themselves can't make a dime.

yea, we still have to sign the same waiver.. same 3 hour long meeting reading the entire damn contract and bylaws or whatever the hell it is.

but I think the root of it is because the NCAA wants to maintain an air of "amateurism." As everyone always brings up in recruiting violations, the minute a kid makes money off of his talent he is then a "professional."

# 22 Jr. @ 11/21/10 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsTheMetal


	yea, we still have to sign the same waiver.. same 3 hour long meeting reading the entire damn contract and bylaws or whatever the hell it is. but I think the root of it is because the NCAA wants to maintain an air of "amateurism." As everyone always brings up in recruiting violations, the minute a kid makes money off of his talent he is then a "professional."

What's worse is that if you don't sign it, you're ineligible. So if you don't allow the NCAA and your school to make money off of you, they won't let you play. It's ridiculous.

# 23 brza37 @ 11/21/10 09:25 AM

Seriously, the NCAA should be the ones that are getting sued. Its a multi-billion dollar monopoly that they are running based off of what is basically indentured servitude. And like what Baughn said they have these contracts to make it seem like you have a choice but if you refuse you can't play. What kind of choice is that?
And football is different from other sports where if you don't like what the NCAA is doing you can try and go directly pro. The NFL doesn't allow it. You have to wait 3 years after graduating before being eligible. And there is seriously no way to get to the NFL without playing NCAA ball. I think Eric Swann is the only player to have made the NFL without going to college in modern day football.

# 24 loccdogg26 @ 11/21/10 02:01 PM

The NCAA's new slogan should be "hypocrisy at its finest".

# 25 MrOctober430 @ 11/21/10 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Death


	What's really funny is I named a guy in the game 'Sam Keller.' Only when he dropped back to pass, the announcer said, "Cry Baby drops back to pass..."

Seriously?

# 26 thedudedominick @ 11/21/10 03:33 PM

If anything this should be more targeted at the NCAA. They are the ones making the most money off of "likenesses" of players. Think about all the unnamed jerseys that get sold, when we really know exactly what player each jersey is for. When you see an Ohio State fan wearing a number 2 jersey, it isn't because they like the number. It is because of Pryor.

I am not in favor of putting the money in the pockets of the players, except for maybe the same amount of money they could get working a part time job every month, because I am a college student and know any extra money I have rarely goes to anything productive.

# 27 SaintsTheMetal @ 11/21/10 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedudedominick


	I am not in favor of putting the money in the pockets of the players, except for maybe the same amount of money they could get working a part time job every month, because I am a college student and know any extra money I have rarely goes to anything productive.

fyi every team I know of gives its players quite a bit more than we would get working part time at minimum wage.. not even counting the scholarship which can be worth 30k+.. that's why I really have no problem with a school marketing players, they already are giving us so much.

But it is really dumb how the NCAA makes SO much, I mean really what do they even do?? I remember the talk ESPN was saying about how the new superconferences could be moving away from the NCAA, wouldn't that just be awesome!

# 28 thedudedominick @ 11/21/10 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsTheMetal


	fyi every team I know of gives its players quite a bit more than we would get working part time at minimum wage.. not even counting the scholarship which can be worth 30k+.. that's why I really have no problem with a school marketing players, they already are giving us so much.

See, the way people talk about the athletes you would assume they get basically nothing. I did not know this.

# 29 Jr. @ 11/21/10 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsTheMetal


	fyi every team I know of gives its players quite a bit more than we would get working part time at minimum wage.. not even counting the scholarship which can be worth 30k+.. that's why I really have no problem with a school marketing players, they already are giving us so much. But it is really dumb how the NCAA makes SO much, I mean really what do they even do?? I remember the talk ESPN was saying about how the new superconferences could be moving away from the NCAA, wouldn't that just be awesome!

Players do get stipends along with scholarships if they are on a full-ride (which every college football and basketball player, and a couple of other sports that give full-rides, has if they have a scholarship) but I'm not exactly sure how much it is that they get. But your second point speaks more to the issue, the NCAA makes billions of dollars every year off of D1 college football and basketball players. The players should be entitled to some of that money, especially when the NCAA directly endorses those players.

# 30 stlstudios189 @ 11/21/10 11:10 PM

These players get free room and tution, meals, etc.. Times that by 5 years and you are looking at $100,000 in perks, and hopefully a degree that they can use for life. I still have my $25,000 in loans left for the next 14 years. Plus if they divided up the $$ evenly for this it would end up being like $50 a year. There are 80 players on 120 teams for a total of 96,000 players to pay.

# 31 SaintsTheMetal @ 11/22/10 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedudedominick


	See, the way people talk about the athletes you would assume they get basically nothing. I did not know this.

It's not much, but its supposed to be enough to pay for housing, food, transportation, etc.. and a little a spending money. Usually amounts to about $1k per month (can only speak for a couple of schools though.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	Players do get stipends along with scholarships if they are on a full-ride (which every college football and basketball player, and a couple of other sports that give full-rides, has if they have a scholarship) but I'm not exactly sure how much it is that they get. But your second point speaks more to the issue, the NCAA makes billions of dollars every year off of D1 college football and basketball players. The players should be entitled to some of that money, especially when the NCAA directly endorses those players.

The thing is to me, that if you start letting players get a cut from EA Sports, then you suddenly have players getting endorsements from Nike, Underarmor, everyone. Once these sponsorships come is the point that worries both me and I'm sure the NCAA and schools, because at that point players may start choosing schools based on money (potentially BIG money) rather than reasons that they should be chosen for. IMO a prospect would start to think why would you go to Northwestern for an excellent education when you can go to Ohio State and get endorsement deals from 4,000 different businesses that have a significant market in Ohio.

# 32 Jr. @ 11/22/10 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsTheMetal


	The thing is to me, that if you start letting players get a cut from EA Sports, then you suddenly have players getting endorsements from Nike, Underarmor, everyone. Once these sponsorships come is the point that worries both me and I'm sure the NCAA and schools, because at that point players may start choosing schools based on money (potentially BIG money) rather than reasons that they should be chosen for. IMO a prospect would start to think why would you go to Northwestern for an excellent education when you can go to Ohio State and get endorsement deals from 4,000 different businesses that have a significant market in Ohio.

Yeah I see that point, but very few athletes pick the school they're going to attend for the education anyway. Honestly, the NCAA should just let boosters pay athletes whatever they want them to. It happens anyway, might as well make it legal. Then we wouldn't have to worry if Heisman Candidate A got "extra benefits" from anyone, we would just know that he did

# 33 supermanemblem @ 11/22/10 03:50 AM

it's actually 9,600 which the ncaa could cover with their multi billions.

# 34 seawolves9 @ 11/22/10 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baughn3


	Yeah I see that point, but very few athletes pick the school they're going to attend for the education anyway. Honestly, the NCAA should just let boosters pay athletes whatever they want them to. It happens anyway, might as well make it legal. Then we wouldn't have to worry if Heisman Candidate A got "extra benefits" from anyone, we would just know that he did

No, actually they shouldn't do this. That'd be a terrible idea.

# 35 Jr. @ 11/22/10 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seawolves9


	No, actually they shouldn't do this. That'd be a terrible idea.

Why not? It happens a ton already, why not let boosters give athletes whatever they want to? At least then the NCAA doesn't have to waste time and money worrying about stupid compliance issues (like spending 5 years to penalize USC and players that had nothing to do with Reggie Bush's family taking money that he rightfully deserved if someone wanted to give it to him)

# 36 ODogg @ 11/22/10 06:11 PM

Because then it's no longer college athletics, it's pro sports and we already have that. That's why not.

Oh and likeness of players is not protected from use either...if it was you couldn't go buy that Gameday guide for $10 with Terrell Pryor's face on the cover of it.

# 37 Jr. @ 11/22/10 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	Because then it's no longer college athletics, it's pro sports and we already have that. That's why not. Oh and likeness of players is not protected from use either...if it was you couldn't go buy that Gameday guide for $10 with Terrell Pryor's face on the cover of it.

So it's college athletics now because they're getting paid under the table? Big time football and basketball aren't college athletics anymore. If they were then there wouldn't be players leaving early to be drafted, or special exemptions to allow athletes to attend colleges where they don't have to meet the same entry standards as the non-athlete student body. I'm not sure what "Gameday guide" you're talking about. Gameday guides at stadiums are made by the schools, hence the player signing a waiver to allow their school and the NCAA to promote them. If you mean preseason mags or something like that, then I'm pretty sure they have an agreement with the NCAA to use current players' likenesses but I could be wrong about that.

It would be great if college athletics were truly amateur sports like they were in the 60s and 70s, but I don't think it's ever going to go back to that unless the superconferences that are coming separate themselves from the NCAA and start their own minor league-type system for the NFL. There's no way to stop boosters, agents, and their runners from paying athletes that are willing to take the money, so why not make it legal?

# 38 ODogg @ 11/22/10 07:08 PM

It's college athletics because there are rules that they aren't supposed to get money under the table. No one should be getting paid period. Your argument that we should just allow it because it sometimes happens anyways is not a very good one, that same argument could be applied for any law in the history of mankind.

# 39 Jr. @ 11/22/10 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	It's college athletics because there are rules that they aren't supposed to get money under the table. No one should be getting paid period. Your argument that we should just allow it because it sometimes happens anyways is not a very good one, that same argument could be applied for any law in the history of mankind.

Yes it could be applied to any law, but laws keep people from doing things that hurt others... these are asinine rules that allow the NCAA and the schools to keep all of the money they make off of their athletes with very little compensation in comparison. Why can't AJ Green sell his jersey if someone wants to buy it from him? Why couldn't Reggie Bush take money that people wanted to give him? It's not like these guys are better on the field because they made some money off of their talents.

# 40 ODogg @ 11/23/10 03:27 PM

Making the college game into a professional sport would in fact hurt many of the student-athletes. Changing it into a pay-to-play pro sport, and making them just athletes instead of student-athletes, would mean those who are actually playing while getting an education would be bypassed in favor of simply the best athletes. Sure to some extent that happens at the bigger schools but there are a lot of athletes who are students, take it seriously and use their scholarships to get a degree. It's only a small percentage of Div 1A who utilize college athletics to go on to turn pro. We also have to realize that college sports goes far beyond just college football. Is there really going to be a sustainable market for womens synchronized swimming? Or discus throwing? On a pay-for-your-value type scale those athletes would not be needed, nor wanted and thus those sports would wither and die.

For anyone who thinks its an unfair system there are other professional football leagues that athletes can play in besides the NFL (and indirectly leading to the NFL) if they want to go that route and bypass college and all of its "unfair" rules. Anyone who feels they are being cheated should either re-think their situation and realize just how good they do have it or consider an alternate path if they still think they're being cheated. Partaking in the system knowing full well ahead of time what it is all about and then later crying foul makes one simply look either ignorant at best and hypocritical at worst.

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links

New York Times on Sam Keller/EA Lawsuit: "It's about much more than video games"