Forget about LaDainian Tomlinson. Longtime NFL watchers still maintain that Jim Brown is the best running back to ever play the game.
And now Brown is suing EA and Sony over what he says is the inclusion of his likeness in EA's best-selling Madden series. According to a report on Bloomberg
Brown, who left the National Football League to become an actor and starred in the movies "The Dirty Dozen'' and "Any Given Sunday..." [alleges that] the character, part of the "Real Old School Teams and Players'' series, is a muscular, African-American running back wearing the number 32 jersey who is featured in the game's "All [Cleveland] Browns Team,'' Brown said in a complaint filed yesterday in state court in New York.
Brown, who was number 32 for the Cleveland Browns, said in the complaint that he "never signed away any rights that would allow his likeness to be used...'' Brown said in the complaint that, when he played football, "the NFL had league wide policy that players shall have no lawyers or agents when negotiating compensation. Video games were not invented yet and no union to obtain rights from existed.''
Active NFL players are covered - and receive compensation - under licensing agreements with the NFL Players Association. Some retired players have received funds as well, but the numbers are typically smaller than for active players.
Via: GameDaily
Comments
it would seem to me that you would need more than the fact that the guy ws muscular african american wearing the number 32 to prove it was your likeness...
Then who is it supposed to be? These games don't really do the whole fictional character thing.
Yeah it pretty much is obvious it's him, same team. But really, sueing SONY? did they make the game? What about microsoft?
Note the "Liceinced by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo" at the boot up of every single game on one of their consoles.
You might think that but not according to previous like Ali VS Playgirl. In that case a cartoon which depicted a muscular black boxer seated in his corner with the captions "mystery fighter" and "The Greatest" was found to be enough to rule in favor of Mohammed Ali. There are other cases like this in which celebrities catch phrases or jersey numbers have been enough for the courts to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
true, but unless they explicitly say its him, I don't think he has legal grounds, as far as I know.
Covering your tracks on a player you haven't got the rights to is nothing new: Ken Griffey Jr.'s MLB on the SNES had a pitcher with incredible stats on the Boston Red Sox named "Heat" who was a dead ringer for Clemens, and there was a basketball game a while back that included Michael Jordan as "Roster Player."
But maybe if EA gets shafted on using retired players in Madden games, they'll bring out a CFL game where I can play as Mike Pringle.
---
The Mammon Industry
Right, or baseball games, such as EA's MVP (RIP) series having a playing on the San Francisco Giants named Jim Dowd who had stats strangly similar to Barry Bonds or dozens of other sports games that have done the same over the decades. If they don't use his name or his face then he has no case. His jersey nor the number on it doesn't belong to him and his stats whatever they may be in he game don't either, just being a well built black guy isn't enough to claim his likeness was used without his permission.. Leaving MS and Nintendo out is either from ignorance or just because having two large companies who have lawyers that will rip this suit to shreds was enough.
Jim's complaint makes a point in that old school everybodies (ballers, rappers, actors, ect.) did tend to get played by the various industries they worked in when it came to compensation in comparison to what some of the new school cats make (some of whom are straight-up bums in comparison and don't deserve half of what they make) because, in part, the old school cats taught the new school cats by example how NOT to get played. All the more reason for the the old school cats not to keep on getting played for their paper. Besides, you don't wanna get on Jim Brown's bad side. He's quick to slap the taste out ya mouth, if you do.
And it don't take much to have a good "unauthorized use of likeness" case. As I recall, the legal test in most jurisdictions is "likely to cause confusion" (i.e., if the average, reasonable person on the street would be unsure that the product isn't depicting Person X, then Person X has satistfied the "looks like me" requirement of the lawsuit. You'll notice that the test doesn't call for Joe Blow to conclude that it is Person X, just that he can't say for sure that it isn't.