03:37 PM - September 9, 2011 by Steve_OS
EA has won the Ryan Hart NCAA player likeness suit and puts a dent in the Sam Keller case.
Head on over to Gamasutra for the details.
|
|||||||||
|
NCAA Football 12 News Post
03:37 PM - September 9, 2011 by Steve_OSEA has won the Ryan Hart NCAA player likeness suit and puts a dent in the Sam Keller case.
Head on over to Gamasutra for the details.
NCAA Football 12 Videos
Member Comments
# 21
EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 12:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
The judge ruled on the work itself being artistic rendition. And it is a right rule, since games are now protected under the First Amendment.
Gamers clamored to have games protected as "art" for decades on the retail level. Much like books, music, and movies. Now that it is, they want to crucify cause they see EA as a big company? But not music companies, book publishers or movie studios?
You can not pick and choose. That is not how it works.
# 22
EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 12:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
EA is profiting from having the NCAA license, nothing more. The NCAA is making money off the players playing, and they are rewarded with much better benefits than your average college student... most of them with a free ride in some pretty prestigious schools for without their athletic talents, would not even be close to getting into.
They agree to it when they sign the scholarship papers.
# 23
Goblowsoup @ 09/11/11 01:45 PM
You called my slavery comment asinine, so what you're saying is that when you sign up for playing college sports that you give up your human rights? That it was your choice? That makes no sense. And, EA IS profiting off of them. As I've said before, within Denard Robinson's likeness, or without your favorite college players existence, many people wouldn't buy the game. Just ask 2k what happened with All Pro 2k8. When you take out someone's favorite players or teams you just get average sales. The Blitz series was at one time a highly selling franchise, take away the NFL license and it went into oblivion.
I just don't think it's right that the NCAA, EA, or anyone makes millions off of someones likeness. The top selling NCAA jerseys aren't just Joe Blow #12...it's that college's star player. And that, is where I feel the line is crossed. Most college football players get partial scholarships. The argument of them making $40,000 a year through scholarships is a joke. Few, if any get that much each year. I'd guess the average scholarship is between $5,000-$10,000 (if that). A full-time employee at McDonalds will make more than that each year. Do you honestly believe that it's proper compensation for a star player?
I just don't think it's right that the NCAA, EA, or anyone makes millions off of someones likeness. The top selling NCAA jerseys aren't just Joe Blow #12...it's that college's star player. And that, is where I feel the line is crossed. Most college football players get partial scholarships. The argument of them making $40,000 a year through scholarships is a joke. Few, if any get that much each year. I'd guess the average scholarship is between $5,000-$10,000 (if that). A full-time employee at McDonalds will make more than that each year. Do you honestly believe that it's proper compensation for a star player?
# 25
EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 02:10 PM
Yes, comparing it to slavery is asinine. And I will stick to that. Their "human rights" are not given up.
To think they morally deserve compensation is one thing, but to compare to slavery is a whole other level.
I am not continuing this discussion. It is just ignorant.
To think they morally deserve compensation is one thing, but to compare to slavery is a whole other level.
I am not continuing this discussion. It is just ignorant.
# 26
bigdunks4eva @ 09/11/11 02:28 PM
The interesting thing about this is this precedent (if it is one) can be used against EA. 2k or another company could make a pro football game with the "likenesses" of nfl players and use this case as a reference point if sued. Ea could be opening the door for their competition... Now I'm no expert but that's what Im thinking
Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk
# 27
EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 02:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Why are people not getting this? You have to separate your moral beliefs with what the law is.
The tattoo is a different story, because they are using another artist's original work (though they may be protected as parody act). Their problem was they copied it to the "T". They could have used it with some variations and been okay.
Making a 6-7, 275lb black man with brown eyes with similar build is not the same as using an artist's original work. That is a form of copyright infringement.
# 28
Goblowsoup @ 09/11/11 03:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
I do also think ones human rights are violated when someone profits off of their identity and livelihood. That would allow a company to place a picture of an individual on a product and say "approved by this guy ->" and never use their names and get away with it. But, by usiing their image, its no different than using their names. And that, is exactly what the ruling states. They could use the image of an individual and profit from it, and so long as they aren't using the persons name it's legal. And that is an invasion on your right to protect your personal identity and image.
# 29
celticfang @ 09/11/11 05:17 PM
Okay, so I returned from a long hiatus to read this. I have several questions about the way the law is actually worded.
The way I see it, you can make an online gridiron game have a team in Indy, that has (say) a horse's hoof as their logo, their QB is a white guy, #18, who is out for the year with neck pains. You can even call him Pierre Manny, but as long as you don't use his actual name, that is all fair game? Same for a college, let's call it Tennenbaum, in TN, with an orange T that the players slap on the wall before a game, they have a retriever dog as the mascot roaming the sidelines and an orange and white endzone.
Would both be permissible under the ruling, or would the two instutions (Tennesee in the second case as Tennebaum would be a fictional UT replacement in a non licensed college title.) be able to sue me, and i'd be able to counter using the EA ruling?
If so, I may actually be able to use that to my advantage in writing to a few authors. If not, well, I'm screwed.
EDIT: And does it apply to other media too? I know some authors are overprotective of their work, as a writer myself I can see their point, but to my way of thinking the law is vague, Citing the ruling, could I write a derivative of a famous book series, and change the names and locations, then protect myself in court? And what about other media such as TV, where does that leave them and movie makers?
The way I see it, you can make an online gridiron game have a team in Indy, that has (say) a horse's hoof as their logo, their QB is a white guy, #18, who is out for the year with neck pains. You can even call him Pierre Manny, but as long as you don't use his actual name, that is all fair game? Same for a college, let's call it Tennenbaum, in TN, with an orange T that the players slap on the wall before a game, they have a retriever dog as the mascot roaming the sidelines and an orange and white endzone.
Would both be permissible under the ruling, or would the two instutions (Tennesee in the second case as Tennebaum would be a fictional UT replacement in a non licensed college title.) be able to sue me, and i'd be able to counter using the EA ruling?
If so, I may actually be able to use that to my advantage in writing to a few authors. If not, well, I'm screwed.
EDIT: And does it apply to other media too? I know some authors are overprotective of their work, as a writer myself I can see their point, but to my way of thinking the law is vague, Citing the ruling, could I write a derivative of a famous book series, and change the names and locations, then protect myself in court? And what about other media such as TV, where does that leave them and movie makers?
# 30
Goblowsoup @ 09/11/11 05:59 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
The ruling only covered people, and their likeness. Meaning, unless your image or likeness is copyrighted, your likeness could be used to earn profit without reimbursement. Atleast that is how I understand the ruling, and understanding of how the law works. However, anyone with enough money could win due to the fact that money typically alters laws. If an NFL players likeness was used, and he were famous, then likely he'd win the lawsuit just as Jim Brown did against EA's Madden series forcing them to remove classic teams. This is also why 2k buys the rights to use classic players in their games so that they do not risk a lawsuit. 2k11 featured a lot of generic no-names for classic teams who didn't use anyones likeness. They were just players. It's also why MLB games always had a black left handed batter who was generic to be in the place of Barry Bonds. All they did was match the hand he used and skin tone, nothing else.
However, I'm no lawyer and I'm solely basing my opinion on a few law classes I took in college. I could be completely wrong, I'm just making an educated guess.
# 31
EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 07:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
They can use a "likeness" in artistic freedom. Not an image itself. A likeness is something created in an artistic manner/rendition.
You can not copyright the human physique.
Again, movies, television, music, books, etc have been doing this within the guidelines of the law for decades. Games are now in the same category as art, which they rightfully should be. Thus they can now follow suit.
# 32
BadAssHskr @ 09/11/11 07:59 PM
Im on my phone and not going to read this whole thread but the whole thing to me is bs.
As someone said keller can suck it.
Following some huskers on twitter, funny to read their tweets of "how Cool it was to be in the game!"
This law suit is bs, and now EA should go above and beyond the call of duty to do what they can to create likeness to the most extreme they legally can.
As someone said keller can suck it.
Following some huskers on twitter, funny to read their tweets of "how Cool it was to be in the game!"
This law suit is bs, and now EA should go above and beyond the call of duty to do what they can to create likeness to the most extreme they legally can.
Post A Comment
Working...