Bobby Maze filing lawsuit?

#26
#26
From when Jim Brown attempted to sue EA.


Court Dismisses Jim Brown’s Lawsuit Against EA Sports For Madden Football Video Game

Los Angeles, CA – Jim Brown, one of the greatest football players of all time, sued Electronic Arts (“EA”) over use of his likeness in the popular “Madden NFL” videogames. Details blogged here. Brown asserted a cause of action for unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), under a theory of false endorsement. He also asserted California common law and Cal. Civ. Code §3344 invasion of privacy claims, in addition to a Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 unfair competition claim. EA filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts and a concurrent Motion to Strike the three non-federal causes of action. Court's order available here.
EA maintained that it did not use Jim Brown’s celebrity persona or likeness in the “Madden NFL” game, but also argued that the First Amendment provides a complete defense to the alleged Lanham Act violation. The Court, citing E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2008), agreed that the First Amendment does indeed provide a complete defense to a Lanham Act false endorsement claim. Video games have been found to be a form of expression protected by the First Amendment; thus, the Court used the Rogers’ two prong test to determine if the Lanham Act claim was precluded. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2nd Cir. 1989).

“The first prong requires that the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s trademark be relevant to the underlying work: ‘the level of relevance must merely be above zero.’ . . . If the first prong is satisfied, the Lanham Act claim is still precluded unless the use explicitly misleads consumers about the source or content of the work.” The Court found that the first prong was met because the games are about NFL football and use of a legendary NFL player’s likeness in a game about NFL football is clearly relevant. The second prong also favored EA because use of Brown’s likeness would not explicitly mislead consumers “into thinking that Brown is somehow behind the game or sponsors the product.” The Court based its analysis on the fact that the video game character doesn’t have Brown’s name on the jersey, nor is Brown’s name or character depicted on the games’ packaging or advertising.

As a result, the Court dismissed the Lanham Act claim. “Assuming that all material factual allegations in the Amended Complaint are true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to Brown, EA’s use of Brown’s likeness could not constitute an explicit attempt to signify that Brown endorsed the games. Thus, even if the games do use Brown’s likeness, that use is protected by the First Amendment.” Because the court dismissed the sole Federal cause of action with prejudice, it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state causes of action and dismissed them without prejudice. The case is James “Jim” Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., CV 09-1598 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2009).
Click to expand...


This quote talking about Sam Keller's case:

'“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.” '
Click to expand...
 
#29
#29
What's more wrong... AJ Green selling his jersey for 1,000 bucks and robbing the NCAA of their take, or the NCAA selling his jersey a million times over and him getting nothing?

It's obvious.

Whatever Bobby's intention, I have always been sympathetic to the type of argument he's making.
 
#30
#30
volfanjo said:
What's more wrong... AJ Green selling his jersey for 1,000 bucks and robbing the NCAA of their take, or the NCAA selling his jersey a million times over and him getting nothing?

It's obvious.

Whatever Bobby's intention, I have always been sympathetic to the type of argument he's making.
Click to expand...

Same here, but I don't think he (or Keller) wins this case.

If he does, it'll be interesting to see how everything changes.
 
#32
#32
Yea, some former football players sued EA as well. I actually took a survey in one of my college classes where they showed players from NCAA 10 and asked us to identify them. This was supposed to help prove or disprove the player's case. (One of the players was Eric Berry).
 
#34
#34
"The suit against Electronic Arts Inc. says the NCAA requires athletes to sign a form each year giving up the right to their likeness that continues even after they graduate."

This will be fun to watch. The high and mighty NCAA is in the wrong on this one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
Bobby should hire Ogle, Elrod, and Baril...I mean, they turn your wreck into a check. I'm sure that they would be awesome for him.
 
#41
#41
The video game has his number, but did it have MAZE on the jersey? If not, nuff said.
 
#42
#42
GAVol said:
I've got to say . . . I think Maze actually has a point here. It's his likeness wearing his number in the game, and somebody other than him is cashing in on it. Not exactly fair.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I respectfully disagree. Maze and Gordon Ball must be upset that a bunch of teens and preteens enjoy pretending that they are playing for the Vols and/or coaching and a part of the team.

Must be a slow ambulance chasing season for Gordon.
Saw him in the Ray Mears room last night think he had his grandson with him-- bet he enjoys playing the games with the likeness of the real athletes-- and he seemed to be enjoying the game, etc. All the games do -- is create additional excitement, enjoyment of the college game and goodwill. Good for the game, good for the school, and good for the players - you know like Bobby Maze. Helps expand his fan base.

If Maze didn't feel it was right Gordon should have held him out all three years that he played because he did play and he did sign a contract agreeing to allow this to happen.

I call BS - what is Ball going to do - pick a different player each year and sue. I see Ball's retirement plan.

This is one of the reasons people have such great respect for attorneys - not. I guess at least he's not defending the mass murdering Zoo Man like Issics.

No sir, I don't like it. All they did was give Maze his five minutes of fame. I have a good mind to sue Maze for his his poor shooting skills that I had to watch and his lack of distribution. I payed to see a point guard...
 
#43
#43
VolGraduate said:
"The suit against Electronic Arts Inc. says the NCAA requires athletes to sign a form each year giving up the right to their likeness that continues even after they graduate."

This will be fun to watch. The high and mighty NCAA is in the wrong on this one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

sorry but maze does not own the color orange or the number he wore while playing
 
#44
#44
I see both sides of this one. I def think he's got a point. (Maybe not a case; but a point)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
Interesting how players who are worth a damn don't seem to have a problem with it.
 
#46
#46
kiddiedoc said:
Interesting how players who are worth a damn don't seem to have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I can't think of any household names that sued over it, but I'm sure you've heard big-names complain about the system before. (Not games per se, but 'AA athletes and the likeness issue) I've heard R Miller talk about it numerous times.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
Everybody involved gets rich except the players.
Bobby should yell, "show me the money.
Show me the money!!!"
 
#50
#50
I think the players portrayed in the video game should be compensated too...
BUT, could you imagine the video games that Auburn and USC would start producing.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top