SCEA sues Bridgestone and Jerry Lambert (Kevin Butler) over Game On promotion

  • 157 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by super600 (30819 posts) -

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

wth... sony is suing him for enjoying the wii after playing the playstation.

sony are dead serious about gamming :lol:

tormentos

No probably because he broke his contract with sony which probably prohibits him from doing other commercial with the competition or with any gaming platforms other than the sony's ones,it is a serious thing,is like breaking and NDA.

He was promoting a special deal and didn't even work with ninty on the deal.

#102 Posted by Solid_Tango (8609 posts) -
I think the real question here is why did sony left kevin go? i mean it was one of the best if not the best spokeman company could ever have.
#103 Posted by SUD123456 (4506 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blabadon"] The character in the advertisement isn't Kevin Butler though. So this is all smoke and flames. Why can't you get this in your head?tormentos
Maybe you should get into your that you don't know the grounds of the law suit,sony is the big abusive company by default here,they sue because they like it apparently in your mind.

You are such a huge hypocrit since that is exactly how you have acted innumerable times when MS is involved. :lol::lol::D

#104 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17930 posts) -

[QUOTE="super600"]

Sony's suing over intellectual property.

I assume "Kevin Butler" is Sony's intellectual property and Bridgestone portraying Jerry Lambert as "Kevin Butler" would infringe their IP.

Nonstop-Madness

[QUOTE="super600"]

This is just funny if he did this after he left sony.Sony can't sue him for this if he did this after he left sony.

JohnF111

He could have a non-compete agreement saying he can't work for a rival directly or indirectly for say... 1 year after he leaves.

Yup.
#105 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17930 posts) -
I think the real question here is why did sony left kevin go? i mean it was one of the best if not the best spokeman company could ever have.Solid_Tango
Too much of a good thing get's old. Ad campaigns, even successful ones, have a short life span. Look at how successful APPLE was with those PC vs APPLE ads but they stopped cause as popular as they are the public get's tired of them very quickly.
#106 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17930 posts) -

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

wth... sony is suing him for enjoying the wii after playing the playstation.

sony are dead serious about gamming :lol:

super600

No probably because he broke his contract with sony which probably prohibits him from doing other commercial with the competition or with any gaming platforms other than the sony's ones,it is a serious thing,is like breaking and NDA.

He was promoting a special deal and didn't even work with ninty on the deal.

Still, the connection aint making Sony happy,and probably is borderline infringement. If I was a Sony exec I'd be mighty upset too. This probably is not Kevin Butler's fault so I don't see him getting into much trouble when it's all over. Firestone will probablly just pull the ads or end their deal with Nintendo Wii.
#107 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

Still, the connection aint making Sony happy,and probably is borderline infringement. If I was a Sony exec I'd be mighty upset too. This probably is not Kevin Butler's fault so I don't see him getting into much trouble when it's all over. Firestone will probablly just pull the ads or end their deal with Nintendo Wii. Bread_or_Decide

Bridgestone(not Firestone...) already pulled the advertisements and edited him out... This was prior to any legal action by Sony.

Sony filed the lawsuit anyway.

Also, before someone who know absolutely nothing about the legal implications of anything makes a statement about it, Bridgestone pulling the advertisements and editing Jerry Lambert out of them is NOT(I REPEAT NOT) an implication of guilt or even any form of wrong-doing... Bridgestone is a risk averse company and given that the commercial does not rely on the Jerry Lambert character, and ultimately doesn't need him to accomplish the same goal, removing him from the commercial does them no harm and removes any contention from the situation.

Sony decided that it was not good enough(because lord knows that Sony PR doesn't have a single intelligent person working for them), and filed a useless and frankly ridiculous lawsuit anyway...

Simple fact is, the only thing that Sony can argue is that Jerry Lambert = Kevin Butler, therefore Sony owns Jerry Lambert's likeness. And that is frankly a preposterous argument.

Non-Compete Agreements are not valid in California, they are not filing for Breach of Contract, and their use of the Lanham Act wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of holding up in court.

Considering that it appears a settlement was already reached, my guess is that Sony settled for less than the legal fees of taking this to court and effectively commited legal extortion.

There is no way that Sony comes out of this looking anything less than slimy...

#108 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28437 posts) -

wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face? thats basically what we are getting here.

I wanna personally see Sony take this to court and get laughed out of court for it.

#109 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -
[QUOTE="Solid_Tango"]I think the real question here is why did sony left kevin go? i mean it was one of the best if not the best spokeman company could ever have.Bread_or_Decide
Too much of a good thing get's old. Ad campaigns, even successful ones, have a short life span. Look at how successful APPLE was with those PC vs APPLE ads but they stopped cause as popular as they are the public get's tired of them very quickly.

Which would make sense if they'd replaced the ads with anything else. I haven't seen a PS3 commercial since the Kevin Butler ads ended. I hate Playstation 3, but I loved the hell out of those ads.[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face?/QUOTE] Ther certainly appears to be their claim.
#110 Posted by KingsMessenger (2570 posts) -

wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face? thats basically what we are getting here.

I wanna personally see Sony take this to court and get laughed out of court for it.

WilliamRLBaker

Sony doesn't own the actor's face, but they sure think they do given that they are making the claim that their Trademark was infringed upon by his appearance in another commercial. They seem to think that they have a Trademark on Jerry Lambert's face.

#111 Posted by gago-gago (9568 posts) -
The self destruction of Sony continues.
#112 Posted by rjdofu (9171 posts) -
The self destruction of Sony continues.gago-gago
SSDC indeed.
#113 Posted by sts106mat (20001 posts) -

wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face? thats basically what we are getting here.

I wanna personally see Sony take this to court and get laughed out of court for it.

WilliamRLBaker

actually yes, there is something like that with "image rights" used by sports stars etc, meaning they cannot advertise anything else without permission / payment etc. though i doubt sony has image rights on this dude.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1808779.stm

#114 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face? thats basically what we are getting here.

I wanna personally see Sony take this to court and get laughed out of court for it.

sts106mat

actually yes, there is something like that with "image rights" used by sports stars etc, meaning they cannot advertise anything else without permission / payment etc. though i doubt sony has image rights on this dude.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1808779.stm

Pretty dumb though. He did plenty of roles before he was ever Kevin Butler VP. Same look, same personality and all.

#116 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -
... nobody here knows enough about the details to be making stupid comments. TheWalkingGhost
When has that ever stopped The Internet?
#117 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

Does anybody in this thread hear of a contract? If his contract states he can't do any advertisements that promote Sony's competition they do indeed have a case. If he did any ad not involving the Wii or Xbox 360...maybe the DS/3DS we wouldn't being hearing about this. But nobody here knows enough about the details to be making stupid comments. TheWalkingGhost

But you see, thats a big if. However, the contract does not say that.

You may want to take your own advice and read the details before accusing others of making stupid comments.

The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and hes become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sonys intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.

Sony owns the Kevin Butler character. They do not own Jerry Lambert and his personality. Bridgestone has since edited him out of the ad to avoid legal nonsense, but at no point did they label, or portray him as Kevin Butler.

Did Sony jump on this because of the Wii promotion? Most likely, yes. But they had no contractual grounds to do so.

#119 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]... nobody here knows enough about the details to be making stupid comments. TheWalkingGhost
When has that ever stopped The Internet?

Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

#120 Posted by sts106mat (20001 posts) -

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

wow....wow....so sony owns the actors face? thats basically what we are getting here.

I wanna personally see Sony take this to court and get laughed out of court for it.

Wiimotefan

actually yes, there is something like that with "image rights" used by sports stars etc, meaning they cannot advertise anything else without permission / payment etc. though i doubt sony has image rights on this dude.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/1808779.stm

Pretty dumb though. He did plenty of roles before he was ever Kevin Butler VP. Same look, same personality and all.

it is dumb, but look at it from SONY's point of view, i can see why they would say it is damaging. the fact that this actor guy actually runs the advertising company and signed up for the deal with bridgestone himself makes it all the more funny.
#122 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.TheWalkingGhost

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

Can you do me a favor and shut it? I know you like making stupid comments, but I get tired of hearing them. I didn't call anybody stupid, it was about the comments. Funny thing is I made no assumptions, just provided an possible reason, you even bolded where I said IF, meaning I didn't promise it was that. I guess reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours. So yes, you are shooting your mouth off. BTW...
But you see, thats a big if. However, the contract does not say that.WiitMoteFan
The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and hes become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sonys intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.WiiMoteFan
Hmmm......I guess you read his contract huh? Lets ignore that and play spot WiiMoteFan's error.

:lol:

Man, listen. There is nothing wrong with admitting that YOU WERE WRONG. Cool? This is twice in a week now that you got ahead of yourself, said some dumb stuff and tried backpedaling.

And here you are again trying to gloss over they fact that you were way off and instead of just moving on, you get mad at me. Focusing insults towards me doesn't make your "argument" work. It just makes you look worse.

Really man, you're too much.

#123 Posted by ConanTheStoner (5974 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.TheWalkingGhost

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

Can you do me a favor and shut it? I know you like making stupid comments, but I get tired of hearing them. I didn't call anybody stupid, it was about the comments. Funny thing is I made no assumptions, just provided an possible reason, you even bolded where I said IF, meaning I didn't promise it was that. I guess reading comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours. So yes, you are shooting your mouth off. BTW...
But you see, thats a big if. However, the contract does not say that.WiitMoteFan
The claims are based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. We invested significant resources in bringing the Kevin Butler character to life and hes become an iconic personality directly associated with PlayStation products over the years. Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sonys intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.WiiMoteFan
Hmmm......I guess you read his contract huh? Lets ignore that and play spot WiiMoteFan's error.

Your a f*cking idiot. :lol:

#124 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"] When has that ever stopped The Internet?Wiimotefan

Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

The two of you appear to be arguing different points- on the one hand, we know exactly what the SUIT says, but on the other, we have no idea what Lambert's CONTRACT as Kevin Butler says. For my part, I don't necessarily believe the contract enters into it, unless it's way more specific than I expect it to be. From the information on the suit, it sounds to me like Sony is suing the guy just because he appeared in a commercial along side a Wii. But it also isn't the first or the only Bridgestone tire commercial he's been in, and never was he identified(that I'm aware of) as being named "Kevin Butler" or as having either of those names.
#125 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

Your a f*cking idiot. :lol:

ConanTheStoner

You're. (not a grammar nazi, but if you call someone an idiot you may want to watch out.)

And thats a bit much. :P

I choose to believe hes just a bit uneducated. Probably a kid.

#128 Posted by sts106mat (20001 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.El_Zo1212o

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

The two of you appear to be arguing different points- on the one hand, we know exactly what the SUIT says, but on the other, we have no idea what Lambert's CONTRACT as Kevin Butler says. For my part, I don't necessarily believe the contract enters into it, unless it's way more specific than I expect it to be. From the information on the suit, it sounds to me like Sony is suing the guy just because he appeared in a commercial along side a Wii. But it also isn't the first or the only Bridgestone tire commercial he's been in, and never was he identified(that I'm aware of) as being named "Kevin Butler" or as having either of those names.

thats right, but what sony are saying is that because his face is so well known that him appearing with another console causes confusion and is damaging to Sony.

it is highly likely that the guys contract will have a clause in it saying that he shall not directly promote or be seen to promote a direct competitors produce for x number of years.

Its a standard clause in many a contract of employment that an employee cannot go and work for a direct competitor within xx mile radius until xx number or years have passed. though actually legally pursuing someone in breach of that contract probably doesn't happen too often.

#129 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]Never. Like the guy above me shooting his mouth off.El_Zo1212o

You tell everyone they're stupid for commenting without knowing the details of the suit when in fact it is you making assumptions.

I present the main excerpt to you, proving that you're wrong.

Yet somehow I'm the one "shooting his mouth off".

Makes sense.

The two of you appear to be arguing different points- on the one hand, we know exactly what the SUIT says, but on the other, we have no idea what Lambert's CONTRACT as Kevin Butler says. For my part, I don't necessarily believe the contract enters into it, unless it's way more specific than I expect it to be. From the information on the suit, it sounds to me like Sony is suing the guy just because he appeared in a commercial along side a Wii. But it also isn't the first or the only Bridgestone tire commercial he's been in, and never was he identified(that I'm aware of) as being named "Kevin Butler" or as having either of those names.

The only fact we have is that Sony does not want the Kevin Butler IP being used in any non-Sony adverts. I'm sure its safe to say the Wii involvement is what prompted Sony to seek action, but on their end they havent put forth any information saying Lambert is out of bounds for doing so.

If it were part of their contract they would surely be putting that forward rather than arguing over whether or not this character portrayal sits too close to Kevin Butler.

#131 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

I really hate to adblock people. :?

But I'm really close to adding a 3rd to the list. The other two got banned so maybe lighting will strike three times.

#134 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

I really hate to adblock people. :?

But I'm really close to adding a 3rd to the list. The other two got banned so maybe lighting will strike three times.

TheWalkingGhost

I am doing that to you now. Next time, try debating errors in comments.

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

#135 Posted by sandbox3d (5120 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

I really hate to adblock people. :?

But I'm really close to adding a 3rd to the list. The other two got banned so maybe lighting will strike three times.

Wiimotefan

I am doing that to you now. Next time, try debating errors in comments.

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

Again! :lol:

Are you still a Nintendo troll. :P

#137 Posted by Wiimotefan (4094 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] I am doing that to you now. Next time, try debating errors in comments. sandbox3d

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

Again! :lol:

Are you still a Nintendo troll. :P

What can I say?

I'm a magnet for nonsense posters.

And yeah, by the end of that "discussion" he still thought I was bashing Nintendo lol.

#138 Posted by sandbox3d (5120 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] I am doing that to you now. Next time, try debating errors in comments. TheWalkingGhost

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

HAHAHAHA!!!! This is just too much. Funny you have never proven me wrong anything, because you can't seem to. Oh and btw, Breach of contract is the part I was referring to in your post. Well, adblock for you. At least now I don't have to read any of your posts anymore. Good lord, funny guy you are BTW.

Do the board a favor and adblock your account.

#139 Posted by sandbox3d (5120 posts) -

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

Wiimotefan

Again! :lol:

Are you still a Nintendo troll. :P

What can I say?

I'm a magnet for nonsense posters.

And yeah, by the end of that "discussion" he still thought I was bashing Nintendo lol.

I know, I read it lol.

#141 Posted by sandbox3d (5120 posts) -

Is WiiMoteFan still running his mouth about that other thread? You should read it, I told him multiple times I didn't buy into his trolling. Of course, no matter how many times I tried to tell him that I wasn't buying it, he kept trying to convince himself I was. LOL. Some people never learn. TheWalkingGhost

Nah, I read it. And you were severely butthurt. That text doesn't just disappear after you type it.

#142 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6029 posts) -
it is highly likely that the guys contract will have a clause in it saying that he shall not directly promote or be seen to promote a direct competitors produce for x number of years.sts106mat
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Assuming that's the case, he goes job hunting after the Kevin Butler ads are done and signs up with a tire company, and contracts out for, say, half a dozen commercials. What's further from videogames than tires, right? Well, for commercial 3, the Bridgstone guy tells everyone that they're promoting a "buy tires, get a Wii" campaign. Isn't he contractually obligated to act in that commercial? It's not his fault he's doing it. And is he obligated to disclose to any future employers that he still has restrictions imposed on him by a previous contract? It sounds like a conflict of interests, but potentially with no one at fault. I don't know much(if anything) about this kind of dispute, but it just seems like a losing battle for Sony.
#144 Posted by sts106mat (20001 posts) -

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]it is highly likely that the guys contract will have a clause in it saying that he shall not directly promote or be seen to promote a direct competitors produce for x number of years.El_Zo1212o
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Assuming that's the case, he goes job hunting after the Kevin Butler ads are done and signs up with a tire company, and contracts out for, say, half a dozen commercials. What's further from videogames than tires, right? Well, for commercial 3, the Bridgstone guy tells everyone that they're promoting a "buy tires, get a Wii" campaign. Isn't he contractually obligated to act in that commercial? It's not his fault he's doing it. And is he obligated to disclose to any future employers that he still has restrictions imposed on him by a previous contract? It sounds like a conflict of interests, but potentially with no one at fault. I don't know much(if anything) about this kind of dispute, but it just seems like a losing battle for Sony.

he OWNS the advertising company that signed the deal, its his thing, whether he IS the just an actor in the ad or if he thought up the entire idea behing the advert i dont know (if he did F*** me, what a doughnut, unless he is trying to p1ss sony off over something we dont know about).

the fact that he is a tyre advert is irrelevant if that particular advert shows them using a nintendo wii, that is classed as product placement. Its ages since i saw it, but i dont remember actually seeing any tyres.

#145 Posted by rjdofu (9171 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

There is no debate with you son.

You say flamboyant things, jump to conclusions, get proven wrong over and over again, never admit to mistakes and then resort to insults out of anger.

You're not a pleasant person and you don't have the ability to debate.

sandbox3d

HAHAHAHA!!!! This is just too much. Funny you have never proven me wrong anything, because you can't seem to. Oh and btw, Breach of contract is the part I was referring to in your post. Well, adblock for you. At least now I don't have to read any of your posts anymore. Good lord, funny guy you are BTW.

Do the board a favor and adblock your account.

He deleted his comment lol, probably too embarrassed.
#149 Posted by sandbox3d (5120 posts) -

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] HAHAHAHA!!!! This is just too much. Funny you have never proven me wrong anything, because you can't seem to. Oh and btw, Breach of contract is the part I was referring to in your post. Well, adblock for you. At least now I don't have to read any of your posts anymore. Good lord, funny guy you are BTW. rjdofu

Do the board a favor and adblock your account.

He deleted his comment lol, probably too embarrassed.

:lol: Probably.

Hes an interesting personality, I'll give him that.

One of those "everyone else is crazy and I'm the only one that's right" kind of guys. You could have a more coherent conversation with Shadow Moses 900.

#150 Posted by sts106mat (20001 posts) -

Bridgestone have now officially responded by saying that Butler does not appear in the adverts and most interestingly of all, that even if it was him in those ads, SONY has failed to register any trademarks on the use of the Kevin Butler character anyway lol

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/bridgestone-denies-kevin-butler-complaints/0104192