Operation Sports Logo Header
Home
Operation Sports Logo Header
Madden NFL 17 News Post

Jim Brown Receives $600K Settlement Against EA

  06:06 PM - June 28, 2016 by RaychelSnr

It seems the likeness lawsuit settlements and final judgements continue to roll out against sport game makers -- the last announced today is Jim Brown receiving a $600,000 settlement from EA.

Check out the full press release:

Quote:
"Iconic running back and Hollywood actor Jim Brown has agreed to accept a voluntary judgment offered by Electronic Arts (EA) stemming from the use of his likeness in Madden NFL video games, according to Hagens Berman. EA will pay $600,000 in exchange for a dismissal and release of Brown’s claims.

Brown’s attorney Robert Carey praised the outcome, saying, “This recovery marks an important victory for plaintiffs in publicity-rights cases, and athletes in particular. Big business should think twice before it turns players’ hard-won identities and achievements into merchandise without permission or compensation.”

Brown concurred, “I took a stand for all athletes and laid a framework for future plaintiffs with my great legal team. Hopefully, this is a step forward in getting companies like Electronic Arts to recognize the value that athletes have in selling their products.”

EA’s best-selling Madden NFL football game allowed users to play as Brown’s team (the 1965 Cleveland Browns) and other historic franchises. Brown’s suit alleged that EA asked to use his likeness and that he expressly refused. EA nonetheless created an avatar in the game that mimicked Brown’s height, weight, skin color, experience, team, position and ability level.

The payment will exceed amounts EA has reportedly paid other athletes to appear not only in the game, but on the Madden NFL cover."

This is obviously just the latest of several lawsuits ongoing against EA for using likenesses within past sports games. The most famous of which was the Ed O'Bannon case which effectively ended the NCAA Football and Basketball series' from EA.

Game: Madden NFL 17Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 17 - View All
Member Comments
# 61 4thQtrStre5S @ 06/30/16 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
This is all so strange to me.

EA uses a player's likeness without permission or payment. The player sues and gets a settlement and people are mad at the player?

Huh?
Most likely, more people just don't like Jim Brown; had it been Walter Payton's family, many more may have sided with the settlement, IMO.

Also, Jim Brown's likeness? How many people who play Madden really even know who he was, or care? What constituted his likeness? Being a RB on the Browns with the #32?

Then taking into account J. Brown got $600k, and he wasn't even on the cover or a promoted player that I am aware of.
 
# 62 BezO @ 06/30/16 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
Most likely, more people just don't like Jim Brown; had it been Walter Payton's family, many more may have sided with the settlement, IMO.

Also, Jim Brown's likeness? How many people who play Madden really even know who he was, or care? What constituted his likeness? Being a RB on the Browns with the #32?

Then taking into account J. Brown got $600k, and he wasn't even on the cover or a promoted player that I am aware of.
What is there not to like about Jim Brown?

If you're playing with the Browns of that era, you likely know who Jim Brown is. And a 60s Browns RB wearing #32, at Brown's height, weight and complexion definitely qualifies as his likeness. Who else could it be?

Both sides must've though $600K was fair, or at least worth not having to spend additional time and money pursuing/fighting the case. And he was important enough to the game that EA used his likeness despite Brown telling them not to use it. $600K seems light if you ask me.
 
# 63 roadman @ 06/30/16 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YITF
You do realize this is about the LAW, not EA Sports, right?

They literally illegally used him after he said not to. There aren't sides. He is right, they are wrong. Doesn't matter what the company name is.
That holds true for you, me and a lot of people, but others in this thread and other threads of the very same nature, the law isn't the only thing that crosses a few peoples minds.
 
# 64 aholbert32 @ 06/30/16 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
Most likely, more people just don't like Jim Brown; had it been Walter Payton's family, many more may have sided with the settlement, IMO.

Also, Jim Brown's likeness? How many people who play Madden really even know who he was, or care? What constituted his likeness? Being a RB on the Browns with the #32?

Then taking into account J. Brown got $600k, and he wasn't even on the cover or a promoted player that I am aware of.
Thats not the point.

Nobody knows who me or you are either. But if I played in the NFL (even if I was a barely famous lineman) and they used my likeness without permission....I'm suing.

Its called a likeness RIGHT. I have the right to approve anyone using my likeness and I have a right to be compensated for using my likeness.
 
# 65 aholbert32 @ 06/30/16 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BezO
What is there not to like about Jim Brown?

If you're playing with the Browns of that era, you likely know who Jim Brown is. And a 60s Browns RB wearing #32, at Brown's height, weight and complexion definitely qualifies as his likeness. Who else could it be?

Both sides must've though $600K was fair, or at least worth not having to spend additional time and money pursuing/fighting the case. And he was important enough to the game that EA used his likeness despite Brown telling them not to use it. $600K seems light if you ask me.
Plenty. Multiple domestic violence arrests. He's been a pretty big civil rights advocate (many people are against some of the positions he's taken).

With that said, none of the matters because it has nothing to do with the law.
 
# 66 4thQtrStre5S @ 06/30/16 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Thats not the point.

Nobody knows who me or you are either. But if I played in the NFL (even if I was a barely famous lineman) and they used my likeness without permission....I'm suing.

Its called a likeness RIGHT. I have the right to approve anyone using my likeness and I have a right to be compensated for using my likeness.
I actually know the law: my point is valid, that many people still do not like Jim Brown and therefore are not happy he was awarded $600k, regardless of laws, which may be just laws or unjust laws.
 
# 67 BezO @ 06/30/16 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
...Multiple domestic violence arrests. He's been a pretty big civil rights advocate (many people are against some of the positions he's taken)...
I was thinking about disliking him for something related to this case.
 
# 68 dk6663 @ 06/30/16 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
Most likely, more people just don't like Jim Brown; had it been Walter Payton's family, many more may have sided with the settlement, IMO.

Also, Jim Brown's likeness? How many people who play Madden really even know who he was, or care? What constituted his likeness? Being a RB on the Browns with the #32?

Then taking into account J. Brown got $600k, and he wasn't even on the cover or a promoted player that I am aware of.

That was my point exactly. Maybe I just vocalized it wrong .....
 
# 69 aholbert32 @ 06/30/16 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dk6663
That was my point exactly. Maybe I just vocalized it wrong .....
Your point is wrong though. This case has nothing to do with if EA used his likeness on the cover or in promos.
 
# 70 seasprite @ 06/30/16 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
I actually know the law: my point is valid, that many people still do not like Jim Brown and therefore are not happy he was awarded $600k, regardless of laws, which may be just laws or unjust laws.


Since when should a popularity contest have anything to do with the application of law? I understand people not liking Brown, I don't, but should applaud the fact that he was rightfully compensated under the law.
 
# 71 dk6663 @ 06/30/16 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Your point is wrong though. This case has nothing to do with if EA used his likeness on the cover or in promos.
Exactly my point in that I just don't Like him !
 
# 72 4thQtrStre5S @ 06/30/16 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
Since when should a popularity contest have anything to do with the application of law? I understand people not liking Brown, I don't, but should applaud the fact that he was rightfully compensated under the law.
When was every law absolutely correct?

Rightfully compensated? Again, an area of contention, as I believe $600k is way too much.
 
# 73 DeuceDouglas @ 06/30/16 06:14 PM
Maybe it's just me but I feel like this whole situation is really much ado about nothing. I don't know when exactly this lawsuit started but I'm guessing it stems from his likeness being used in the Xbox/PS2 era Madden's with classic teams where they did the exact same thing NCAA was doing and EA already lost. The classic rosters continued to be used in those Madden's but never made the leap to XB360/PS3 and likely weren't ever a priority. And now with MUT using legends and the state of the game currently it's almost certain that regardless of this decision or lawsuit even that historic rosters were never going to come back.
 
# 74 4thQtrStre5S @ 06/30/16 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big FN Deal
Other laws and what anyone believes is completely irrelevant in this situation, EA has repeatedly illegally used player likeness, in this case it was Jim Brown's and that settlement amount, as Bezo has said repeatedly, was agreed on by both parties. Why anyone would have contention over EA's money, what they agreed to do with it and how much of it in this situation, is just plain odd.
Considering your general negative stance towards EA I will not bother debating reasons to settle, even when in best interests of a party to not do so in the long run.
 
# 75 seasprite @ 07/01/16 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
When was every law absolutely correct?

Rightfully compensated? Again, an area of contention, as I believe $600k is way too much.
What exactly does that have to do with anything? It's the law and that is what the courts are directed by.....even though it didn't get to that point. You believe 600K is way too much, I would like to see how bad you would have lost it if it had gone to court and to see what his payout would have been then. Would any of this change for you if you really liked the guy or it was one of your favorite athletes? Just think you are wanting to change law because you just don't like the guy. JMO
 
# 76 seasprite @ 07/01/16 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S
Considering your general negative stance towards EA I will not bother debating reasons to settle, even when in best interests of a party to not do so in the long run.
How was it in the best interests of EA to not settle? Care to even think about what they would have paid out had this gone to court? It was an easy case for Brown.
 
# 77 mrprice33 @ 07/01/16 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
How was it in the best interests of EA to not settle? Care to even think about what they would have paid out had this gone to court? It was an easy case for Brown.
I own my own company. That 600k that EA paid Brown, when adjusting for revenue, is probably like 100 bucks to my company, and I'd gladly pay 100 bucks to get rid of a case and billable hours from lawyers.
 
# 78 baconbits11 @ 07/01/16 10:23 AM
This settlement and lawsuit are ridiculous. Back in the day when his so-called "likeness" was in the game, the player models were so primitive that it did not constitute a likeness. So any black player with the number of 32 could be considered a likeness? There was no face, no discerning marks, Jim Brown did not OWN the ratings that were given to him. The only mistake I see EA making was putting him on the Browns. They should have just put a #32 in the free agent pool.

Now if it was XBOX 360 or PS3 and EA had his face on a model without permission, then yeah sue for that. But this is just Mr Brown being a d***.
 
# 79 aholbert32 @ 07/01/16 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baconbits11
This settlement and lawsuit are ridiculous. Back in the day when his so-called "likeness" was in the game, the player models were so primitive that it did not constitute a likeness. So any black player with the number of 32 could be considered a likeness? There was no face, no discerning marks, Jim Brown did not OWN the ratings that were given to him. The only mistake I see EA making was putting him on the Browns. They should have just put a #32 in the free agent pool.

Now if it was XBOX 360 or PS3 and EA had his face on a model without permission, then yeah sue for that. But this is just Mr Brown being a d***.
I wish people knew the actual legal definition of a likeness before posting.

Likeness: The distinguishable aspects of a person identity.

So Madden had a RB on the classic Browns team that was Black, 6-2, 235 lbs, Black and wore #32.

Jim Brown was a RB on the Browns.
Jim Brown is 6-2.
Jim Brown was 235 lbs when he played.
Jim Brown wore #32.
Jim Brown is a black man.

That right there is enough to justify a right of publicity/likeness suit. Those are all distinguishable ways to identify Brown.

The fact that they asked Brown before they added him to the game and he said no just makes the case more of a slam dunk.

It doesnt matter that the graphics were primitive.
It doesnt matter that they didnt try to make his face resemble Brown.
It doesnt matter that they didnt use Brown's name.

Your solution of just putting a #32 in the FA pool wouldnt work for EA. They wanted people to know it was Brown without using his name. Adding a black RB with the #32 wouldntve been enough for people to know it was Brown. A black #32 RB could be Marcus Allen or OJ Simpson or Franco Harris. They wanted people to know it was Brown.

I honestly dont know why anyone would defend EA here.
 
# 80 baconbits11 @ 07/01/16 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
I wish people knew the actual legal definition of a likeness before posting.

Likeness: The distinguishable aspects of a person identity.

So Madden had a RB on the classic Browns team that was Black, 6-2, 235 lbs, Black and wore #32.

Jim Brown was a RB on the Browns.
Jim Brown is 6-2.
Jim Brown was 235 lbs when he played.
Jim Brown wore #32.
Jim Brown is a black man.

That right there is enough to justify a right of publicity/likeness suit. Those are all distinguishable ways to identify Brown.

The fact that they asked Brown before they added him to the game and he said no just makes the case more of a slam dunk.

It doesnt matter that the graphics were primitive.
It doesnt matter that they didnt try to make his face resemble Brown.
It doesnt matter that they didnt use Brown's name.

Your solution of just putting a #32 in the FA pool wouldnt work for EA. They wanted people to know it was Brown without using his name. Adding a black RB with the #32 wouldntve been enough for people to know it was Brown. A black #32 RB could be Marcus Allen or OJ Simpson or Franco Harris. They wanted people to know it was Brown.

I honestly dont know why anyone would defend EA here.
I said EA's mistake was putting him on the Browns. My point is if they had changed just one of the identifying marks above, changed height, weight, put him in the free agent pool, made him white, etc. what then? Mr Brown would have lost his suit if there's any justice if any of that happened. I'm sure there are other black players #32 with the same height and weight as Brown in many other Madden games.

Sure EA Screwed up, I never questioned that, but Mr. Brown is being a jerk. It's a videogame! If it's clear EA wanted people to know it was Brown, then should have been honored by his legacy being explored by young kids who play games. Now this opens the door for every other player to sue also. If this continues, then we may not have any football games.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.