"Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

"Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

June 9, 2008

If you're a football fan, you've surely heard the voice of the late John Facenda.

Facenda, a beloved Philadelphia newscaster from 1948-1973, gained national recognition for his voice-over work with NFL Films in the latter part of his career.

However, a lawsuit filed by Facenda's son alleges that the NFL allowed Electronic Arts to use the announcer's voice to promote Madden 2006 in violation of a contract Facenda signed before his death..

The case, which has been working its way through the federal court system since GamePolitics originally reported on it in 2006, now appears headed for trial. As detailed by the Associated Press on Friday:

A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday and strongly hinted that a jury should decide whether the 22-minute film was a commercial or a documentary , or perhaps, as one judge suggested, "a documercial."

 

Facenda's son is challenging the use of 13 seconds of his father's baritone voice on an NFL Network program about the making of the 2006 Madden game... The NFL, hoping to have the suit thrown out before trial, is appealing a lower-court ruling that allowed the suit to go forward.

 

The program aired on the NFL Network nine times in the days leading up to the August 2006 release of the popular Madden game. The game was not directly offered for sale during the program.

 From the complaint:

In or around August 2005, the NFL caused to be broadcast on its NFL Network a program devoted to publicizing and promoting the Madden 2006 football game... The broadcast of “The Making of Madden 2006” was coordinated with the marketing of the Madden 2006 videogame. The program was a blatant commercial for the product; in fact, the broadcast was coordinated to coincide with the release of the game...

GP: We should note that EA is not a defendant in the suit.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

Thats pretty damned shady, kind of reminds me of those movies & ads using dead celebrities to sell useless crap

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

Not all use of dead celebritiesis shady.

http://www.giveafewbob.org/

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

While it is good for the man to be remembered, well, I'm pretty sure I'd turn over in my grave if EA were usign words of mine long after I passed. EA already has a goddamn NFL game monopoly, they don't need anymore leeway

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

2005... this is 2008... why wouldnt he file the lawsuit in 2005... when the commercial actually aired?  Sounds like just another guy who needs money and tries to sue the big companies for anything to get it.

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

For the record, i dont agree with using the guy's voice, i'm just saying what the guy's true motive for suing probably is.

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

I vote legal red tape.

GamePolitics originally reported on it in 2006...

Re: "Voice of God" Use in Madden Promo Headed to Trial

Ummm...  if you read the article you may notice that he did infact initiate this lawsuit in 2006...

-- mostly harmless

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts