Bill Russell sues NCAA and EA Sports

[fairweatherfan]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-06/ex-celtics-star-bill-russell-sues-ncaa-for-antitrust-in-licensing-dispute.html

Gotta say I agree with Bill here - why can the NCAA profit from his image in perpetuity without paying him or even getting his consent?  And this sounds like complete hogwash:

The company (EA) has said in court filings that the constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment means it doesn’t need permission to use the players’ likenesses because the videos have enough creative elements that, as a whole, they are more than a depiction of any one athlete.

So if I make a video game where you can play golf with Tiger Woods, but also lots of other fictional and customizable players, Tiger can't sue me because the game is bigger than the depiction of him?  Sounds pretty weak.

[Chris]

Has this happened before?  I am really surprised this has been allowed for so long. 

This probably goes to a larger question of the right of public figures versus private citizens, but I just cannot understand how companies are allowed to profit by using the name or likeness of a public figure without their permission, or more importantly, without compensating them. 

[thirstyboots18]

I thought this was settled when Michael Jordan sued for sole ownership and financial control of his likeness.  Perhaps  my memory is faulty, or maybe I am oversimplifying...

[Fafnir]

Has this happened before?  I am really surprised this has been allowed for so long. 

This probably goes to a larger question of the right of public figures versus private citizens, but I just cannot understand how companies are allowed to profit by using the name or likeness of a public figure without their permission, or more importantly, without compensating them. 

This issue has been sued over multiple times, I'm not sure how they all turned out. Some were settled I know, but others likely are still being litigated.

Ed O'Bannon (among others) also sued about this didn't he?

[fairweatherfan]

I thought this was settled when Michael Jordan sued for sole ownership and financial control of his likeness.  Perhaps  my memory is faulty, or maybe I am oversimplifying...

It's a legal issue, it's probably never that simple.  Wonder why Jordan would be an exception, though.

Ed O'Bannon (among others) also sued about this didn't he?

Yeah, the suit is mentioned in the article - Russell's suit is likely to be combined with that one. 

In related news, Ed O'Bannon's still kicking around apparently.

[Roy H.]

I thought this was settled when Michael Jordan sued for sole ownership and financial control of his likeness.  Perhaps  my memory is faulty, or maybe I am oversimplifying...

It's a legal issue, it's probably never that simple.  Wonder why Jordan would be an exception, though.

My understanding -- and I could be misremembering this -- is the reason that Jordan (and Barkley) negotiated the use of their likeness separately is because they weren't part of the Player's Association.  Usually, games negotiate with the NBAPA for the likeness of anybody under their purview. 

Of course, that's for use of their name as well as their likeness.  I have absolutely no idea regarding the legality of putting a 6'10" white player with a blonde mustache in your game, and naming him "#33".

Regarding the NCAA, I guess I can understand why the NCAA would retain the right to reproduce NCAA game footage, and even to make highlight reels from it.  (This isn't a legal argument, just a common sense one).  However, specifically using a player's name or likeness to promote that package seems a bit less fair to me.

[thirstyboots18]

Re:  players image and, by extension, the Lockout.

It seemed to me at the time that that was a very large chunk of money "team/owners coffers and put into the players bank account.  I think it was the right decision, but the players will never be satisfied until they 110% of everything basketball related.  I just hope the issues are resolved or they might have 110% of Nothing.

If the owners ended up losing the season, they would have a tax right off for that loss, correct?  What would the players end up with?  Personal satisfaction?

I am on the owners side of this Lockout.  The owners are the ones who risk their money to make a profit.  The players get paid regardless of how the  team does either financially or in terms of basketball success. (and paid plenty, I might add...)  I don't care how much the owners make or lose...that is their problem.

I  realized my thinking is simplistic and probably I have my facts skewed.  IMO, outside interests have confused the issue much more than it deserves.

[Roy H.]

Interestingly, Jim Brown lost a similar lawsuit to EA:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/09/federal-judge-rules-video-games-are-protected-expressive-works/

On Wednesday, a federal district court in Los Angeles dismissed Brown’s claim against Electronic Arts for the use of his image in its Madden NFL series. Judge Florence Marie-Cooper essentially found that video games are “expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment.” Such works are protected by the First Amendment.

I have no idea if this case was ever appealed, or settled out of court, but at least at the District Court level, Brown lost.

[thirstyboots18]

I thought this was settled when Michael Jordan sued for sole ownership and financial control of his likeness.  Perhaps  my memory is faulty, or maybe I am oversimplifying...

It's a legal issue, it's probably never that simple.  Wonder why Jordan would be an exception, though.

Ed O'Bannon (among others) also sued about this didn't he?

Yeah, the suit is mentioned in the article - Russell's suit is likely to be combined with that one. 

In related news, Ed O'Bannon's still kicking around apparently.

I don't believe Jordan was an exception...I think he was just the one who ultimately took the issue to court.

[Celtics4ever]

If they are NCAA games, you'd think they have the right to make films of them as the NCAA.  ESPN Classic doesn't seem to have this kind of trouble nor does the NBA when they broadcast an old game.   I love Russ but I think he may not win this battle.

[fairweatherfan]

If they are NCAA games, you'd think they have the right to make films of them as the NCAA.  ESPN Classic doesn't seem to have this kind of trouble nor does the NBA when they broadcast an old game.   I love Russ but I think he may not win this battle.

It's not the game films I have a problem with - that's content that the NCAA has rights to. 

Creating new content like a video game and using player likenesses without consent or compensation to sell it is what I think is objectionable

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

If they are NCAA games, you'd think they have the right to make films of them as the NCAA.  ESPN Classic doesn't seem to have this kind of trouble nor does the NBA when they broadcast an old game.   I love Russ but I think he may not win this battle.

It's not the game films I have a problem with - that's content that the NCAA has rights to. 

Creating new content like a video game and using player likenesses without consent or compensation to sell it is what I think is objectionable

This.

[Lord of Mikawa]

If they are NCAA games, you'd think they have the right to make films of them as the NCAA.  ESPN Classic doesn't seem to have this kind of trouble nor does the NBA when they broadcast an old game.   I love Russ but I think he may not win this battle.

It's not the game films I have a problem with - that's content that the NCAA has rights to. 

Creating new content like a video game and using player likenesses without consent or compensation to sell it is what I think is objectionable

But couldn't the NCAA argue that once a person signs over their likeness that they(NCAA) can use it however they please?

[Roy H.]

If they are NCAA games, you'd think they have the right to make films of them as the NCAA.  ESPN Classic doesn't seem to have this kind of trouble nor does the NBA when they broadcast an old game.   I love Russ but I think he may not win this battle.

It's not the game films I have a problem with - that's content that the NCAA has rights to. 

Creating new content like a video game and using player likenesses without consent or compensation to sell it is what I think is objectionable

But couldn't the NCAA argue that once a person signs over their likeness that they(NCAA) can use it however they please?

I think the players would argue that they didn't sign over their likeness in perpetuity, if at all.