forevercloud3000 said:
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:
VicViper said:
IMPORTANT for the thread!
Sony comments on lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek
October 7th, 2012 Posted in General Nintendo, News, Posted by Valay | No Comments »
Unsurprisingly, Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat steps from the company’s dissatisfaction that actor Jerry Lambert appeared in the “Game On” commercial.
Senior director of corporate communications Dan Race provided a comment to GamesBeat. Race said that “Use of the Kevin Butler character to sell products other than those from PlayStation misappropriates Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.”
“Sony Computer Entertainment America filed a lawsuit against Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek, Inc. on September 11. 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 he’s 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 Sony’s intellectual property, creates confusion in the market, and causes damage to Sony.”
--------------------
Bolded: Sony lost this. There's no mention of Kevin Butler in the ad at all - in fact I don't even know why people say it's similar (check this ad for similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBD8A8pAtU ) and it's not even an Wii Ad, it's a bridgestone ad featuring the Wii.
Seriously, they must lose... this is simply a dick move.
|
OMG, look at that. Exactly what I have been trying to tell all of you. It sounds far fetch but you CAN trademark a person's physical likeness and personality, media does it all the time. Had the Wii not been in the commercial this would not have been a breach, but it was so IT is.
|
Uh. No you can't.
Outside which, even if they wanted to trademark his physical apperance like if he was a cartoon person and that was legal, they would have to demonstrate "First use".
Which obviously he was in other commercials before.
I mean holy shit. If you could trademark someones physical apperance, acting wouldn't be a career, because whoever you worked for first would own the rights to your apperance.
|
Yes, you can. These things are almost always under timed guidlines though, a few years and actors can do what they want. Depending on the contract you can completely ban an actor from appearing in certain mediums. In this case It doesn't seem to be THAT strict, simply that he can't advertise PS's direct competitors.......then he goes and advertises the Wii... :/
|
It became clear with this post after the 3 or 4 before that you are making an argument to fit your decision. Not looking at the situation, coming to a conclusion based on points that can be argued.
Can you provide anything solid to show what you are saying is true apart from your gut feeling. My thoughts are quite the oppoiste of yours. For example, you say that Jerry can advertise anywhere he likes apart from a competing games console? How do you know that is the case? Sony are a diversified company, what if he was advertising, let's say basically any electronic device ever made (since they would be competing with Sony), along with maybe a film, considering Sony has a film studio, or maybe a financial product, considering Sony has a finance business... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Business_units
So that's 1 point I'm interested in hearing your view on, another would be about the "timed guidline". Now, Kowenicki has mentioned that these things from his own actual experience are quite rare and can't last longer than 6 months from end of use. Considering Jerry hasn't portrayed his character in a Sony advertisment for at least 12 months, that's another point.
