'Big Dawg' vs. Madden lawsuit dismissed
by Richard Mitchell 
{ Oct 16th 2009 at 5:00AM }
According to a report on Cleveland.com, the lawsuit filed against Electronic Arts by Cleveland Browns fan John "Big Dawg" Thompson has been dismissed. The suit had been filed on the grounds that EA featured Thompson's likeness in Madden NFL 09 without his permission. More specifically, the game featured the likeness of Thompson wearing a dog mask and orange hat, a costume he's worn to Cleveland Browns home games for years.Thompson's lawyer, Alan Parker, noted that his client was happy the matter was closed, but noted that details of the dismissal are confidential. Thompson had been seeking damages "in excess of $25,000," so that's one thing he might be happy about. If his Big Dawg mask is sporting some gold teeth and a diamond encrusted hat during the next Browns home game, we'll know for sure.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
nighttime @ Oct 16th 2009 5:16AM
What a fucking loser.
AlphakirA @ Oct 16th 2009 5:36AM
Well that's just not very nice Mr.
nighttime @ Oct 16th 2009 6:56AM
It might not be nice, but this sort of behaviour encourages other people to follow suit.
Does America really need more asinine lawsuits?
My coffee was too hot, it burnt my lip = $$$
You imitated my likeness and I didn't get my reparations! I know I should be greatly flattered! but to hell with that that phrase! I want money!
Courtney @ Oct 16th 2009 11:07AM
Why should he be flattered that a major corporation stole his likeness without asking him? This isn't some douche who spilled coffee on himself, it's a guy who has built up a recognized public image and used that image nationwide. From Wikipedia:
"One of the more famous Dawg Pound season-ticket holder is John Big Dawg Thompson (he had a name change to include his nickname), known as the "Canine-in-Chief." Television cameras often showed the offensive-lineman-sized man in his dog mask and No. 98 jersey, although recently he has undergone gastric bypass surgery and lost considerable weight. In 1995, Thompson became an unofficial spokesman for Browns fans fighting the move of the team to Baltimore. He testified before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary and appeared on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher."
Does America really need more corporations trampling on the rights of individuals and doing whatever they want?
nighttime @ Oct 16th 2009 11:31AM
Yes, he is being so disadvantaged here! EA at least should have asked his permission.
And while I agree with corporations "trampling on the rights of individuals", I also must add that he doesn't work in a sweat shop, nor does he earn below minimum wage whilst working double to triple shifts, he isn't fighting for maternity leave or unfair dismissal based on his race/religion/sexuality. When I think of corporations trampling on the rights of individuals, I think of those things.
he is fighting for $25,000 for receiving FREE exposure (something he needs I would say, since he makes "appearances") in one of the biggest selling video game franchises of all time.
Those rights should be reserved for those that have truly been taken advantage of.
This is just a guy trying to get more money because he can.
AirIntake @ Oct 16th 2009 11:35AM
@Courtney - In order for the NFL to steal his likeness, he'd have to own the rights to the dog mask. I doubt he made the mask from scratch himself, so he doesn't own the rights to the image of the mask, therefore, EA stole nothing. If anything, the mask manufacturer would have to go after EA.
nighttime @ Oct 16th 2009 11:41AM
@AirIntake
Spot on!
Courtney @ Oct 16th 2009 12:15PM
@airintake, okay, so who makes that mask and where can I buy it? You have absolutely no clue where that mask actually comes from, you're just making an assumption. Also, is the mask actually trademarked, copyrighted or protected in anyway? A surprising number of products aren't. You don't know that, so again, you're just making assumptions.
@nighttime It's absurd to argue that only the extremes count as an individuals rights against a corporation. We are in an era when an increasing number of people have the right of publicity for their own image, thanks to social media and the impact of the web and traditional media. You are arguing that corporations should not have to respect the rights and images of individual people, allowing them even greater control than they have now.
I'm basing my argument from more than just the mask. The guy's total image is based more on just that mask. It's his physical size, the mask, his helmet, the jersey, his persona...the total package. If it was a skinny guy with no helmet wearing that mask in the game, I doubt this would have come up at all.
It doesn't matter whether the free exposure benefits him or not. Period. What matters is that he wasn't allowed to control his own image, and a corporation used it in a for-profit product.
And for those arguing that he's not known outside of Cleveland, or isn't a public persona at all, he is permanently entered into the Congressional record, both because of his testimony and thanks to a motion to honor him from Denis Kucinich.
"John Big Dawg Thompson, legendary Cleveland Browns superfan, is the heart and soul of the Cleveland Browns and the Cleveland Browns' Dawg Pound. Nationally recognized, Big Dawg's passion for the Cleveland Browns has touched the spirit of football fans everywhere. Members of Congress have even felt Big Dawg's devotion when he testified before a House committee as the Browns fan who could best convey the trauma to fans from the teams' sudden move to Baltimore."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r106:2:./temp/~r106aALZni::
vidGuy @ Oct 16th 2009 1:13PM
"In order for the NFL to steal his likeness, he'd have to own the rights to the dog mask."
100% incorrect. It's the use of the image in a specific context that matters.
Turkey @ Oct 16th 2009 6:57PM
I dont know about US law and the like but I think this boils down to "Personally Identifiable Information" (information that can be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person) as in it does not matter who owns what, that visual identity is widly regarded as him and as such its been stolen without his permission. Roles revesed and this dude was selling something that looked like a madden game and ea would have shafted him with a blunt instrument and spared the lube.
That said I think EA rolled and payed up for him to shut up and a good result for all involved.
Arcaria @ Oct 16th 2009 7:06AM
Every Browns fan wears a dog mask and jersey at the games. You see tons of them on TV. It's generally more interesting than the game.
Hopefully he's happy that the judge dropped the suit instead of EA counter-suing his ass for being a money hungry douche filing frivolous lawsuits. I seriously hope nobody paid him.
...and I hate EA.
Meh @ Oct 16th 2009 9:10AM
Hey, hey, EA are the good guys now.
BloodShot Robot @ Oct 16th 2009 8:01AM
The post seems to speculate that he may have recieved a settlement. I always thought there was a difference between "settled" and "dismissed". Maybe I'm wrong.
Lawya @ Oct 16th 2009 8:23AM
A settlement often involves the parties agreeing to the entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice, so a dismissal does not necessarily mean there wasn't a payment to Big Dawg.
nighttime @ Oct 16th 2009 8:46AM
@Lawya
I love that your name is spelt the way it is and that you ended your sentence with "Big Dawg"
Sweets @ Oct 16th 2009 12:19PM
They'll will probably show him on camera in Madden '11, then he'll go and try to get endorsements, or his own reality TV show.
Everready @ Oct 16th 2009 8:39AM
DAMAGES?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA
BloodShot Robot @ Oct 16th 2009 8:55AM
Thanks Lawya
Knowing is half the battle
Vcize @ Oct 16th 2009 9:00AM
I really hope this guy didn't get any money...
Orion @ Oct 16th 2009 9:20AM
I can't wait to see him at the next game...when everyone is beating him up.
vidGuy @ Oct 16th 2009 9:35AM
Wow, guys, pretty harsh on Big Dawg. The fact is, if he is sufficiently well known to get celebrity status, he may have a right of publicity in controlling the use of his image. This wasn't a "frivolous" or "asinine" lawsuit. And the requested damages seems reasonable - it is supposed to be the amount Big Dawg could have extracted from EA had they licensed his image.
Vidikron @ Oct 16th 2009 9:58AM
But it's not even his image. It's a freaking costume he bought at a store. He doesn't deserve a dime.
Arcaria @ Oct 16th 2009 11:36AM
And sorry, he's not a celebrity. Nobody outside of Cleveland had ever heard of him until this stupid story and even in Cleveland probably only a select few who go to home Browns games know who he is.
He's a wanna-be celeb.
AirIntake @ Oct 16th 2009 11:37AM
Except he doesn't own the rights to his 'image'. The dog mask manufacturer does, and it doesn't look like they're complaining. If I wear a Darth Vader mask around town, do I now have the right to stop Lucasarts/film from featuring Darth Vader?
vidGuy @ Oct 16th 2009 1:12PM
If you dressed up in a Darth Vader mask, wearing a tutu, and went to every Boston Celtics game in the outfit, you probably would have the right to prevent the use of your image in an NBA game.
@Arcaria,
I'm a Green Bay fan and I heard of the guy years ago. I think his celebrity status is thin and limited, but that doesn't mean he has no claim here.
aristokrat @ Oct 16th 2009 10:05AM
For all the hate he's gotten, I've got to applaud him for his reasonableness in the damages he was seeking. $25,000? EA probably just cut him a check to get it over with, because that's so little compared to the outrageous sums most people go after. I think he has a right to publicity since he seems to make appearances for money around the Cleveland area, so he's got to act if he wants to retain his rights (similar to when Square has to stop fan projects due to copyright protection).
Zombie Jesus @ Oct 16th 2009 11:02AM
Dogs should sue Big Dawg for using his likeness which is an obvious ripoff of their likeness to gain profit from EA. Dogs have had that dog look going well before Big Dawg.
Sue him dogs of the world, sue him hard!
Shimrra @ Oct 16th 2009 11:07AM
Chances are he settle on a small payout and chances are he might have agreed on a smaller percentage of profit from this Madden with his likeness.
Dizzysit @ Oct 16th 2009 3:14PM
The question is, is it worth $25k to be a Browns fan? LOL
skyrous @ Oct 18th 2009 11:19PM
This is hilarious! You people have lost massive amount of respect
If anyone tried to use an EA character in a video game or a work of fiction, or in any other way you can think of and then (this is the important part) made money from the endeavor EA's lawyers would at the minimum hit you with a cease and desist and at worst sue you into oblivion. EA does this all the time, it's the reason they keep the lawyers around.
Now the shoe's on the other foot and everyone on their knees kissing EA's backside and defending them?
If you watched browns football or watched NFL highlights every week at any time in the last 20 years you've seen John "Big Dawg" Thompson in the stands. This is THE reason EA put him in the game, so the game would be more realistic. If he wasn't celebrity, EA wouldn't have bothered would they?
blastcashback @ Oct 19th 2009 11:15PM
Good article I would definitely BlastCashBack from it