Home
NCAA Football 12 News Post


EA has won the Ryan Hart NCAA player likeness suit and puts a dent in the Sam Keller case.

Head on over to Gamasutra for the details.

Quote:
U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson accepted EA's arguments that its First Amendment right to free expression overruled the privacy rights of Hart and other NCAA players to protect use of their name and likeness.

While EA's NCAA Football 2006 didn't refer to Hart by name, his lawsuit pointed out that the "virtual QB" for Rutgers in the game shared Hart's general appearance, attributes, uniform number, height, weight, visor, home state, and even a distinctive left hand wristband Hart wore.

Game: NCAA Football 12Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 102 - View All
NCAA Football 12 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 Aph0ticShield @ 09/09/11 03:39 PM
That's good news for roster makers.

EDIT: Does this suit mean that they can put names in the game now?
 
# 2 Bullet Sponge @ 09/09/11 03:41 PM
This is fantastic news for EA. The ruling doesn't deny that EA used the player likenesses (without names) but says it was within their rights of free speech to do so. This opens the door for EA to go back to putting in players that are identical in all but name. Heck perhaps even names?

"U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson accepted EA's arguments that its First Amendment right to free expression overruled the privacy rights of Hart and other NCAA players to protect use of their name and likeness."
 
# 3 CM Hooe @ 09/09/11 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aph0ticShield
That's good news for roster makers.

EDIT: Does this suit mean that they can put names in the game now?
No, that's still against the terms of agreement between EA and the NCAA.
 
# 4 aholbert32 @ 09/09/11 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aph0ticShield
That's good news for roster makers.

EDIT: Does this suit mean that they can put names in the game now?
No it just means that they can continue to do what theyve done in the past.
 
# 5 nolan273 @ 09/09/11 04:29 PM
That hurts all such suits against EA Sports. It could potentially dismiss EA from the Sam Keller suit, as well. Ed O'Bannon still has the best case, IMO. I don't think he named EA Sports in his lawsuit...

It's really good news for fans of college football video games... Now if EA could rid the game of all the glitches and bugs...
 
# 6 Sundown2600 @ 09/09/11 05:34 PM
Good news for EA and gamers but I do understand the position of some of these players.

I remember the PS2 days when star players on NCAA really did closely resemble their real life counterparts. I remember Timmy Chang the Hawaii QB being in the game and you can tell that EA went out of their way to make him look Asian. The face detail of some star players from last gen was actually better than now as far as resembling real players, but it's obvious that this suit caused EA to change their approach. Hopefully after this ruling maybe they can get back to making the star players faces look closer to real life.
 
# 7 Herky @ 09/09/11 08:51 PM
Good news.

Too bad Sam Keller didn't try to put this much effort into being a good QB after college.
 
# 8 EnigmaNemesis @ 09/09/11 09:07 PM
Does this mean they can make the minor league players in The Show look just like them down to every detail, but have different names?
 
# 9 acreyman @ 09/09/11 10:39 PM
Figures. Again.....this would effect everything that has a players name on it including jersey sales,like "Teebow" Florida jerseys, or School calenders with thier pics on them. I am glad this is about to die out.
 
# 10 eaterofworlds888 @ 09/09/11 11:52 PM
Good now when they make another NCAA Basketball title I'll be happy
 
# 11 Leon Sandcastle @ 09/10/11 12:13 AM
Sam Keller can suck it!

If Keller won I think that would of been the last of NCAA Football so glad they resolved the problem
 
# 12 PaperBoyx703 @ 09/10/11 09:47 AM
Yawn. Moving on from this it was and will always be a win from EA(or any gaming corporation) until someone's name is used to identify them with their image which, EA will not do.

EDIT: Hopefully they can patch the roster edit restrictions in the game I.E QB #16 unable to recieve dreads unless its Face 12 and weight is set at 216, which in fact he is more like 180 slightly more or less.
 
# 13 Goblowsoup @ 09/10/11 12:30 PM
I don't know how in the world your First Amendment Rights apply to a company. They are not people...sorry to be all political but the Bill of Rights protects American Citizens, not Companies operating in the US. This ruling essentially protects any company from using your likeness, and as long as they don't use your name, they won't have to pay you anything for it. So..essentially they can get filty rich off of you. Yeah, sounds just about right...right?
 
# 14 EnigmaNemesis @ 09/10/11 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
While the video game fan in me is happy about this, i still gotta side with the players on this one. If it were us we'd be pissed too that schools and corporations cash in from using the likeness of players. Because think about it, if someone uses, lets say Kim Kardashian's image without her permission, she'd sue and win. But if Oregon sells LaMichael James posters with his image on it, he can't do anything about it.
I disagree. The players agreement to being recruited at that school (basically a contract) is a free ride. Some of these schools are $40K a year. They can choose whatever major they want, and get a nice education. If they do not make the Pros, which chances are more that you wont, they can get a nice job with a the proper education, and not worry about paying back student loans for the rest of their lives.

40K times 4 years on average?

And they are "more than taken care of" as an athlete for the school as well. More so than your average student.



And if they use Kim Kardashian's likeness she will sue and lose. As long as the name is not used. Hell even pictures are used and celebrities lose in court. All these trashy magazines would not exist then. But used in a form of art like a video game or TV show, a likeness can be used down to the T, as long as the name (which your name is a legal contract under the Constitution) is not used.

TV shows, music, books, and movies have been doing this longer than you or I were on this planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan
Money talks in litigation, no way EA should have won such a case on its merits.
Negative... the judge waited till after the Supreme Court ruling of games being protected under the same First Amendment as are movies, books, music, etc. So her decision was just and sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblowsoup
I don't know how in the world your First Amendment Rights apply to a company. They are not people...sorry to be all political but the Bill of Rights protects American Citizens, not Companies operating in the US. This ruling essentially protects any company from using your likeness, and as long as they don't use your name, they won't have to pay you anything for it. So..essentially they can get filty rich off of you. Yeah, sounds just about right...right?
A company is owned by the public. Hence stocks and bonds, private companies are a different story. And Hollywood has been doing this for over 50 years. See what I wrote above. You do not "own" your likeness (since it is visual and anyone can look upon you in public), you "own" your name since it is considered a "contract".


As a note: Gamers want games protected under the First Amendment, and clamor to have their precious hobby "free speech" just like every other form of media. This GOES with the territory. Other forms of media are allowed to do this very thing. And have been doing it for over 50 years now. You people can not pick and choose what you want to be protected in parts. It does not work that way. I can bet if this was not EA, and was a more "beloved" game company, people would not be so hard pressed to want those very rights diminished.

This is great news as a sports gamer. And roster makers!

"This isn't "corporation vs individual". This is "commercial speech or artistic expression". The judge made that explicitly clear.

If the SCOTUS had ruled against ESRB in the ruling against California the case would have went the other way. She waited to rule specifically until after that case was decided. But games were ruled to be artistic expressions. That allows ARTISTS, or *ahem* "Corporations", far more leeway than they'd otherwise have when making a commercial product.

We don't get to have it both ways. Either games are art or they're not. You don't get to have them protected as art on the retail side but not considered art on what they choose to depict."
 
# 15 EnigmaNemesis @ 09/10/11 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseySuave4
and how about all those Non-Scholarship Athletes? Not every player on a college football team has a scholarship. There are plenty of walk ons in college football who still get in the game and play.
And playing sports in school is a choice for a non-scholarship athlete. You go to school to learn to get and education to make a career for yourself to make money.

You do not go to "get paid". That is where "student athletes" are losing touch with. I would have been proud if my likeness was used in an NCAA Baseball game. But man has our society gotten greedy.

But that is a different debate than what this topic is about. Which was the proper ruling under the protection of the Constitution.
 
# 16 Goblowsoup @ 09/10/11 03:49 PM
Enigma- Companies are only partially owned by the public, and not just the general public but those who have the financial means to do so. And their only reason to own stocks is to gain income and revenue. Plus stockholders are simply a board of directors not the ones making the decisions but the ones who can influence decisions. I guess what so many people in this world see is that stock=public ownership. That's just not the case. I don't care how you turn it, the company still wholly owns its property, not the individual shareholders. Those who own the company don't care about how they make money, they just want to. The individuals who were suing EA don't own any part of EA, they aren't reimbursed and neither is anyone in the general public who could be affected by this ruling in the future.

What the ruling essentially says is that NCAA and the respective school owns the rights of the people who play for them...which is what slaves were to plantation owners. That's not America...and don't call me a troll or tell me I'm being ridiculous, because we have freedoms in this country and they were put in place to protect the individual, not the organizations and companies. This arguement is the exact reason our Economy is in the pits and is better served on a non-gaming site. While I as a sports gamer am excited that our rosters can be accurate, I would have been more pleased to see these guys get a little reimbursement since not only do their schools make millions of dollars off of their hard work, but EA makes millions of dollars off their work while they get a couple thousand dollar scholarship and have to watch everything they do to make sure they don't lose that.

This isn't an arguement over art and whether games are art or not, in any form of art if the likeness replicates the individual down to something as unique as a way a person dresses you start to cross a line of making money off of a person without paying them. That's like taking my friends picture and selling it as pornographic material without reimbursing them, but so long as I don't use their name...I'm in the clear...right? That's what I take from this....not this arguement that it's art or not. That's not what makes me upset over this.

I don't think you're wrong that art must be protected, but I think in any other form you have to keep somethinngs protected. Like Mike Tyson requesting a tatoo of one of the main characters in the Hangover 2 be removed because it is unique to his likeness. If removal happens, that proves enough that likenesses must be protected as well. Previous movies have had instances where they represent a likeness and they place a disclaimer that this may look like someone, but it isn't or it is losely based off of them. I'd be ok with that disclaimer at the beginning of a college sports game, just as I would be if they could name the rosters and pay the players. But a name doesn't make you who you are, it's what you do that makes you a person. They don't put me in the game because I wouldn't sell the game. They put big name players in without their names.

*Note- It could have been 505 Games, Techland, Team MEAT....I don't care who the company is, I'd still feel the same way. Individual rights far exceed that of an international company,
 
# 17 EnigmaNemesis @ 09/10/11 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan
I can tell you're neither a lawyer, nor even a law student. To opine EA's usage is "free speech" and not "commercial"? C'mon.
Never claimed I was ::

But the fact remains they (EA/"artists") are protected under the First Amendment.

Movies and books and music have using it commercially for decades. Profiting off of likenesses. And it is accepted. Games are now put in the same category, and rightfully so.

Whatever the moral quandary people have with this is a whole different story however.
 
# 18 RedZoneD25 @ 09/10/11 11:07 PM
Ryan Hart should be honored a video game would even attempt to re-create his likeness.

-A lifelong Rutgers fan
 
# 19 EnigmaNemesis @ 09/11/11 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblowsoup

What the ruling essentially says is that NCAA and the respective school owns the rights of the people who play for them...which is what slaves were to plantation owners.
This is the only thing I am pulling out because this is one of the most asinine things I have read.

Everything else is not worth touching on because the ruling is the ruling, and came in effect after games are now viewed in the same medium as music, books and movies. Art. Protected under the FA, thus likenesses can be use in the expression of art.

And some is also your moral opinion which you are rightfully entitled to, whether I agree or not.

But to compare college athletes, where most of which get a free ride in some high cost schools, is laughable. They are playing sports in return of an all expense paid education to whatever major they so choose. And then there is the ones that are not on scholarship, but nobody is forcing them to play, since it is "optional".

Slavery was not "optional".

Good grief. SMH
 
# 20 mirrored32 @ 09/11/11 10:31 AM
on where the efforts of these college athletes, why are they wasting their time trying to hurt a game that allows people to appreciate them, when they should be concentrating on getting a good degree, a job, or perhaps practicing to get in the NFL. What a wasted misdirection of efforts IMO. NCAA IMO has never violated the players. I personally see it as a respect to them. I wouldn't even know any of there players in college football without EA's game. I wouldn't even care about College football. So for those like me, this brings people into College football. So for players to sue, IMO is hurting not just EA but College Football.
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.