kowenicki said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Kynes said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Kynes said:
deskpro2k3 said:
I have to agree with Turkish here.
You may hate me and disagree all you like but this is how I see it.
Take this into consideration. I'll explain it as simple as possible. A well known coca-cola mascot wearing a nike logo is seen promoting a nike commercial that is also giving away free pepsi with every purchase.
For coca-cola that is like a low blow.
|
An actor is not a mascot. You can't trademark an actor.
|
Last time I checked a mascot is a representative symbol. He is an actor, and mascot.
|
Sony can't trademark his look and his acting style, it's absurd. Imagine the implications this would have for every actor that makes an ad.
|
there is nothing wrong with him acting in commercials. the only problem here is that it was with a wii, and everyone's first reaction was "that is kevin butler" and not jerry lambert. lol
|
In your example you cited people who were still under contract. He hasn't worked for Sony for 12 months. Is he to be barred from doing anything gaming related for the rest of his life. I tell you now that 12 months would already be seen as unreasonable by a court let alone his lifetime.
|
his contract ended 3 days before this commercial aired. for sony suing lambert i think the problem is he made the comercial while still being contracted by sony. for bridgestone i think the problem comes from being similar characters
