More Links

BadAssHskr · 07-10-2009, 12:49 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/sp...a.html?_r=1&hp

College Stars Sue Over Likenesses in Video Games

One of the best parts about being the quarterback for Arizona State was the thrill that Sam Keller got whenever he played NCAA Football, the popular video game from Electronic Arts.

Although Keller’s name did not appear in the game, there was little doubt that he was the inspiration for the Arizona State quarterback in its 2005 edition. The virtual player shared Keller’s jersey number, 9, as well as his height, weight, skin tone, hair color and home state. The virtual quarterback even had the same playing style, as a pocket passer. “That was what made it so cool,” said Keller, who transferred to Nebraska in 2006. “It was so blatant.”

Keller has since come to view his appearance in the video game in a different light: as exploitation. He filed a class-action lawsuit this spring against Electronic Arts and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, arguing that they illegally profit from the images of college football and basketball players. Ryan Hart, a former Rutgers quarterback, filed a similar lawsuit against Electronic Arts earlier this week in a New Jersey state court.

“We signed a paper at the beginning of college saying we couldn’t benefit from our name,” said Keller, who is now 24 and living in Scottsdale, Ariz. “So why was the N.C.A.A. turning a blind eye to this and allowing EA Sports to take our likenesses and make big bucks off it?”

The N.C.A.A. has long enforced strict rules barring its athletes from cashing in on their celebrity status at the same time that it earned millions of dollars through licensing deals, like those for jerseys, that some say did just that. Now athletes are challenging in court for the right to control the use of their images.

Other athletes have successfully sued over the right to profit from their likenesses, including a group of retired N.F.L. players who sued their union for allowing Electronic Arts to use their identities in Madden NFL without compensating them. In November, a jury awarded more than 2,000 retired players $28.1 million. The award was reduced to $26.25 million in a settlement.

The case of the college athletes is more serious, said Richard Karcher, the director of the Center for Law and Sports at the Florida Coastal School of Law. “It’s more egregious when third parties are profiting off of amateur athletes,” he said.

Legal experts said it would be difficult to quantify how much the likenesses of college players are worth, but by comparison, the N.F.L. players union earned more than $35 million in royalties from Electronic Arts in 2008. Robert Carey, Keller’s lawyer, said college athletes could be compensated in ways that do not violate their amateur status, such as by placing the royalty payments in a trust or paying for graduate education.

In a statement, the N.C.A.A. said the complaints were without merit and that the video games did not violate N.C.A.A. rules. A spokesman for Electronic Arts declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuits. The lawsuits come as the N.C.A.A. is considering loosening restrictions on the marketing of individual players. Christine Plonsky, director of women’s athletics at the University of Texas, argued that there was no harm in showcasing the talents of individual athletes, within limits. She and her colleagues “don’t view uses of their imagery as exploitative, but mere evidence of participation,” she said in an e-mail message.

But Amy Perko, executive director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, an independent watchdog group, said profiting from the use of athletes’ images veered too far from amateurism. “If that line is erased, it puts the whole enterprise on the slippery slope toward further professionalization,” she said.

Perko and others see the video games as the most extreme examples of the commercialization of individual athletes. The N.C.A.A. and its member universities have licensing agreements that allow Electronic Arts to publish three college-themed video games: NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball and NCAA March Madness.

Unlike video games for professional sports leagues, the games for N.C.A.A. sports do not use players’ names. But even casual fans of college sports would recognize the athletes depicted in them. In NCAA Football 2009, the quarterback for the University of Florida is left-handed, stands 6 feet 3 inches, and wears No. 15, just like the Gators’ Tim Tebow, one of college football’s biggest stars. While the electronic player’s hometown is different — Tebow is from Jacksonville, not Brandon — each is from Florida.

Fans can download player rosters from other users via an online feature set up by Electronic Arts. Once the names are downloaded, they automatically appear on the back of jerseys. Several legal experts said that Keller and Hart made a persuasive case that Electronic Arts violated their right of publicity, which prevents the commercial use of someone’s likeness without that person’s consent. Celebrities have prevailed in similar cases, including one in which the game show hostess Vanna White sued Samsung for using a robot that resembled her in an advertisement.

The N.C.A.A. would not disclose its earnings from video game royalties. But they are a significant source of income for the association and the universities, said Martin Brochstein, senior vice president of the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers’ Association, a trade group. A 2008 survey conducted by his group found that video-game royalties represented the second-largest category in earnings from collegiate licensing deals, behind apparel.

“Video games have been one of the biggest categories for some time now,” he said.

Plonsky and others contend that the Internet and mobile technology demand new types of information, and that colleges should be allowed to do more to promote marquee players. Plonsky served on an N.C.A.A. committee that looked into relaxing the rules that she said would only be an extension of the existing reality, in which colleges collect fees from sponsors and television networks that showcase the performances of athletes. “In no way was a student-athlete compromised,” she said.

Under the proposed changes, commercial sponsors would be able to highlight an individual player but only by using game footage and only if the player was not portrayed as directly endorsing a product. Although the changes would require students to give their consent, they would not be paid.

One of the twists in the debate over video games is that the very players who are supposedly the victims are some of the games’ biggest fans. Jason Kelce, an offensive guard for the University of Cincinnati, said he agreed with the spirit of Keller and Hart’s lawsuits. “I don’t think it’s fair for college athletes over all,” he said.

Still, Kelce said he and his teammates were counting the days until July 14, when Electronic Arts will release the latest version of NCAA Football. “We end up playing it nonstop for like four months,” he said.

footballitis · 07-10-2009, 12:53 PM

this is ridiculous.

utahman19 · 07-10-2009, 12:55 PM

So, signing a release isn't considered consent anymore?

WolverinesFinest · 07-10-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAssHskr


	Jason Kelce, an offensive guard for the University of Cincinnati, said he agreed with the spirit of Keller and Hart’s lawsuits. “I don’t think it’s fair for college athletes over all,” he said. Still, Kelce said he and his teammates were counting the days until July 14, when Electronic Arts will release the latest version of NCAA Football. “We end up playing it nonstop for like four months,” he said.

Did he just contradict himself?

N51_rob · 07-10-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolverinesFinest


	Did he just contradict himself?

He gets hit in the head a lot being an offensive lineman so you will have to excuse him.

Perfect Zero · 07-10-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utahman19


	So, signing a release isn't considered consent anymore?

If they did sign a release to have their likeness used without profit, then that throws out the case right there. If they signed off not to make a profit off of their name, then that becomes tricky.

I see a lot of scenarios to where Keller wins, and to where EA wins. The best thing for EA to do would be to compensate right now, but the NCAA might have a different say on that. There are three ways this could end.

1.) Best Case Scenario- EA compensates money to the kids and hopes for no more law suits. It may not sound too cool, but it would keep the series alive.

2.) Worst Case Scenario- Keller wins, and the NCAA has to stop letting EA make teams with real like players. Furthermore, that could signal the end for all out editing of teams. I don't think this would reach out to how the teams play, but it could put a short black quarterback for Florida.

3.) What I think will happen- EA will say that these kids receive the money through scholarships and other perks at the school due to licensing rights, and thus it doesn't compromise their amateur status. It may mean that EA has to switch up lineups even more, but I don't think it would kill off editing.

Sauk · 07-10-2009, 01:11 PM

It really is sad to see some of your comments regarding this issue. And they are only said because you think it will ruin the game lol

He has a case and they should be given royalties. They are not allowed to profit, so why should the NCAA and 3rd parties? Why the double standard?

And don't say well they are given free schooling crap, they earned that by playing that sport to it's highest levels. It was EARNED, not given to them.

Some of you need to grow up and realize this isn't fun anymore, it is a BIG dollar business. And guess what, college athletes are big boys to now.

FakeTiger · 07-10-2009, 01:13 PM

As gamers we may not like where this lawsuit ends up going, but Keller has a very strong argument and is not the bad guy here. The real culprit is the NCAA. What Keller's suit is saying is that the NCAA forces all college athletes to sign a document that prevents the athlete from making money off of his or her likeness. However, the NCAA then goes out and makes money, as an institution, off of that very likeness.

Video games are the example here, but it occurs in all areas of NCAA publicity. Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford's images were all over publicity for the BCS championship yet neither player received compensation (other than their scholarships) for the use. It is a system that is set up to benefit the NCAA, the sponsors, the universities and the fans, but not the players (at least not directly).

As an avid gamer and fan of NCAA series (except the last two lousy versions), I will be as disappointed as everyone else if this results in EA and the NCAA acting in such a way as to reduce our enjoyment of the game; however, I can understand the viewpoint of the athletes that feel their likeness is being used without appropriate compensation.

The problem could be solved if EA would have simply utilized generic player likenesses in the base roster but allow the community to fully and easily edit every aspect of the player and roster. My fear is that the greed of the NCAA may result in this option being taken away as a result of the lawsuit. It would be a shame for this to happen but it is a possibility.

As for the final comment by the player who agrees with the lawsuit but loves the game. The positions aren't mutually exclusive. The athletes love the game and love their likenesses being in the game, but I'm sure they would also love to get paid for the use of this likeness rather than seeing all revenues go to EA and the NCAA.

07-10-2009, 12:49 PM	#1
BadAssHskr XSX OVR: 9 Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 3,429	More on sam keller and the lawsuit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/sp...a.html?_r=1&hp College Stars Sue Over Likenesses in Video Games One of the best parts about being the quarterback for Arizona State was the thrill that Sam Keller got whenever he played NCAA Football, the popular video game from Electronic Arts. Although Keller’s name did not appear in the game, there was little doubt that he was the inspiration for the Arizona State quarterback in its 2005 edition. The virtual player shared Keller’s jersey number, 9, as well as his height, weight, skin tone, hair color and home state. The virtual quarterback even had the same playing style, as a pocket passer. “That was what made it so cool,” said Keller, who transferred to Nebraska in 2006. “It was so blatant.” Keller has since come to view his appearance in the video game in a different light: as exploitation. He filed a class-action lawsuit this spring against Electronic Arts and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, arguing that they illegally profit from the images of college football and basketball players. Ryan Hart, a former Rutgers quarterback, filed a similar lawsuit against Electronic Arts earlier this week in a New Jersey state court. “We signed a paper at the beginning of college saying we couldn’t benefit from our name,” said Keller, who is now 24 and living in Scottsdale, Ariz. “So why was the N.C.A.A. turning a blind eye to this and allowing EA Sports to take our likenesses and make big bucks off it?” The N.C.A.A. has long enforced strict rules barring its athletes from cashing in on their celebrity status at the same time that it earned millions of dollars through licensing deals, like those for jerseys, that some say did just that. Now athletes are challenging in court for the right to control the use of their images. Other athletes have successfully sued over the right to profit from their likenesses, including a group of retired N.F.L. players who sued their union for allowing Electronic Arts to use their identities in Madden NFL without compensating them. In November, a jury awarded more than 2,000 retired players $28.1 million. The award was reduced to $26.25 million in a settlement. The case of the college athletes is more serious, said Richard Karcher, the director of the Center for Law and Sports at the Florida Coastal School of Law. “It’s more egregious when third parties are profiting off of amateur athletes,” he said. Legal experts said it would be difficult to quantify how much the likenesses of college players are worth, but by comparison, the N.F.L. players union earned more than $35 million in royalties from Electronic Arts in 2008. Robert Carey, Keller’s lawyer, said college athletes could be compensated in ways that do not violate their amateur status, such as by placing the royalty payments in a trust or paying for graduate education. In a statement, the N.C.A.A. said the complaints were without merit and that the video games did not violate N.C.A.A. rules. A spokesman for Electronic Arts declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuits. The lawsuits come as the N.C.A.A. is considering loosening restrictions on the marketing of individual players. Christine Plonsky, director of women’s athletics at the University of Texas, argued that there was no harm in showcasing the talents of individual athletes, within limits. She and her colleagues “don’t view uses of their imagery as exploitative, but mere evidence of participation,” she said in an e-mail message. But Amy Perko, executive director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, an independent watchdog group, said profiting from the use of athletes’ images veered too far from amateurism. “If that line is erased, it puts the whole enterprise on the slippery slope toward further professionalization,” she said. Perko and others see the video games as the most extreme examples of the commercialization of individual athletes. The N.C.A.A. and its member universities have licensing agreements that allow Electronic Arts to publish three college-themed video games: NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball and NCAA March Madness. Unlike video games for professional sports leagues, the games for N.C.A.A. sports do not use players’ names. But even casual fans of college sports would recognize the athletes depicted in them. In NCAA Football 2009, the quarterback for the University of Florida is left-handed, stands 6 feet 3 inches, and wears No. 15, just like the Gators’ Tim Tebow, one of college football’s biggest stars. While the electronic player’s hometown is different — Tebow is from Jacksonville, not Brandon — each is from Florida. Fans can download player rosters from other users via an online feature set up by Electronic Arts. Once the names are downloaded, they automatically appear on the back of jerseys. Several legal experts said that Keller and Hart made a persuasive case that Electronic Arts violated their right of publicity, which prevents the commercial use of someone’s likeness without that person’s consent. Celebrities have prevailed in similar cases, including one in which the game show hostess Vanna White sued Samsung for using a robot that resembled her in an advertisement. The N.C.A.A. would not disclose its earnings from video game royalties. But they are a significant source of income for the association and the universities, said Martin Brochstein, senior vice president of the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers’ Association, a trade group. A 2008 survey conducted by his group found that video-game royalties represented the second-largest category in earnings from collegiate licensing deals, behind apparel. “Video games have been one of the biggest categories for some time now,” he said. Plonsky and others contend that the Internet and mobile technology demand new types of information, and that colleges should be allowed to do more to promote marquee players. Plonsky served on an N.C.A.A. committee that looked into relaxing the rules that she said would only be an extension of the existing reality, in which colleges collect fees from sponsors and television networks that showcase the performances of athletes. “In no way was a student-athlete compromised,” she said. Under the proposed changes, commercial sponsors would be able to highlight an individual player but only by using game footage and only if the player was not portrayed as directly endorsing a product. Although the changes would require students to give their consent, they would not be paid. One of the twists in the debate over video games is that the very players who are supposedly the victims are some of the games’ biggest fans. Jason Kelce, an offensive guard for the University of Cincinnati, said he agreed with the spirit of Keller and Hart’s lawsuits. “I don’t think it’s fair for college athletes over all,” he said. Still, Kelce said he and his teammates were counting the days until July 14, when Electronic Arts will release the latest version of NCAA Football. “We end up playing it nonstop for like four months,” he said. __________________ "Not the victory but the action. Not the goal but the game. In the deed the glory."

07-10-2009, 12:53 PM	#2
footballitis Rookie OVR: 1 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Oklahoma	Re: More on sam keller and the lawsuit this is ridiculous.

07-10-2009, 12:55 PM	#3
utahman19 Rookie OVR: 4 Join Date: Jul 2006	Re: More on sam keller and the lawsuit So, signing a release isn't considered consent anymore?

07-10-2009, 01:11 PM	#7
Sauk Rookie OVR: 5 Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Everywhere	Re: More on sam keller and the lawsuit It really is sad to see some of your comments regarding this issue. And they are only said because you think it will ruin the game lol He has a case and they should be given royalties. They are not allowed to profit, so why should the NCAA and 3rd parties? Why the double standard? And don't say well they are given free schooling crap, they earned that by playing that sport to it's highest levels. It was EARNED, not given to them. Some of you need to grow up and realize this isn't fun anymore, it is a BIG dollar business. And guess what, college athletes are big boys to now. __________________ What have you done for me lately!

07-10-2009, 01:13 PM	#8
FakeTiger Rookie OVR: 3 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Lakeland, FL	Re: More on sam keller and the lawsuit As gamers we may not like where this lawsuit ends up going, but Keller has a very strong argument and is not the bad guy here. The real culprit is the NCAA. What Keller's suit is saying is that the NCAA forces all college athletes to sign a document that prevents the athlete from making money off of his or her likeness. However, the NCAA then goes out and makes money, as an institution, off of that very likeness. Video games are the example here, but it occurs in all areas of NCAA publicity. Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford's images were all over publicity for the BCS championship yet neither player received compensation (other than their scholarships) for the use. It is a system that is set up to benefit the NCAA, the sponsors, the universities and the fans, but not the players (at least not directly). As an avid gamer and fan of NCAA series (except the last two lousy versions), I will be as disappointed as everyone else if this results in EA and the NCAA acting in such a way as to reduce our enjoyment of the game; however, I can understand the viewpoint of the athletes that feel their likeness is being used without appropriate compensation. The problem could be solved if EA would have simply utilized generic player likenesses in the base roster but allow the community to fully and easily edit every aspect of the player and roster. My fear is that the greed of the NCAA may result in this option being taken away as a result of the lawsuit. It would be a shame for this to happen but it is a possibility. As for the final comment by the player who agrees with the lawsuit but loves the game. The positions aren't mutually exclusive. The athletes love the game and love their likenesses being in the game, but I'm sure they would also love to get paid for the use of this likeness rather than seeing all revenues go to EA and the NCAA.

	New OS Forums Are Coming on May 1
	The Best Sports Gaming Year of All-Time
	Arcade Sports Games Need a Revival

More Links

More on sam keller and the lawsuit