| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 11:34PM Reddjoey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Aren't retired players covered by the NFL Players Union, who has a contract with EA?

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 11:38PM Reddjoey said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Reddjoey

Nevermind, turns out they were found to be screwing them over with EA a few years ago

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/29/nfl-must-pay-28-million-to-retired-players-in-madden-royalty-di/
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 1:35AM Ziekk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Reddjoey

Makes me wonder, if the decision, so far as we read here, was a 1st Amendment Right ruling, then how come Backbreaker and other games can't use NFL names themselves?

I'd like to go read the ruling and see if this opens EA up for a backlash of the sort.
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 3:32AM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ziekk

That's an interesting interpretation, and companies have hurt themselves by "winning" a lawsuit before. Look up the history of King Kong sometime to see one of the more ridiculous media court cases ever fought over.
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 2:33PM Enduro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Courtney Yeah, this seems like huge news for any other sports game maker. They can start making games with NFL players but without the official team names? Are the team names now unprotected too?
Reply

Posted: Jul 7th 2010 11:44PM Mouthsmasher said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
"Waaaaa waaaa waaaa! My likeness was used in a football video game so I'm going to sue!"

Stupid baby.

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 12:01AM Jason B said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see a pair of floating teeth in that picture above. Is that the likeness he is suing over?

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 12:10AM ticklefist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 1:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
jim brown is enough of a legend that ea should respect his wishes either way

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 2:34PM Enduro said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) ...and one of the all-time bad asses. I would not want to offend him.
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 1:25AM themisanthrope said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How exciting!

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 1:29AM themisanthrope said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@themisanthrope Ahh my god I am so not used to this new format! Not exciting! I hate sports games and don't give a poop about this article!!
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 2:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'd be angry too if a company was using my likeness without permission. Seriously, EA. :\

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 2:03AM War Machine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think this article would benefit from including how using someone's likeness in a video game without permission is protected by the 1st amendment, or rather, why the court thought it was protected.

You only gave us half of the news here, Mr. McElroy.

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 2:09PM Nobledevil Gaming Optimist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@War Machine

That's the same stuff I was wondering. I want details on how a court says:

"Well, they were supposed to pay for the license to have you as a playable character and they didn't, but we don't care."
Reply

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 3:34AM Courtney said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm usually one who is almost always for First Amendment arguments, but this is one that I can't buy into. If they have to license 95 percent of the rest of the stuff in the game, why do they get a First Amendment pass on an old player?

Posted: Jul 8th 2010 12:01PM Rotogar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Courtney

That is a really good question. There is also an interesting line between history and image. Is Jim Brown really trying to say EA cannot accurate report that he played in the league? 'Cause he's a public and historic figure. But does that give them the right to use his image as well?
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW