By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Bridgestone Americas Inc

fillet on 07 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
fillet said:
techhunter80 said:

No I just meant the guy who was the actor for him. And of course Santa Claus is real I saw him getting chase by a man at night last christmas. The man chasing him was trying to show him his new baseball bat, and was yelling something about being with his wife. It was a very odd christmas.


Lol genuinely laughed out loud :D

Ahhhhh I dunno, what's real and what isn't / just don't know anymore!!!

 

...I'm not sure which side of the fence your on with this, my thinking though is that Jerry Lambert was employed to portray a character that Sony may or may not have the rights of "likeness" to. However, and I wasn't aware of this, someone here has said that Jerry Lambert has portrayed this character before but without the Kevin Butler name for the "Holiday Inn" chain. If that's the case, then it's possible Jerry himself owns the rights to the likeness of Kevin Butler, but obviously not the name itself. The name itself wasn't used in the Wii advert. It's arguable the likeness wasn't ever as that could just be "Jerry Lambert" being "Jerry Lambert".

There was no "spokesman" in my view, the idea of Jerry or Kevin Butler being a "spokesman" is just marketing spin in a fictional advert universe created to sell more PS3s...

In all honesty I don't really know who's right and who's wrong, but I can only really say from a common sense point of view it wasn't really a fight worth fighting for Sony because 1. Damage has already been done and 2. Aggresively defending a copyright of this nature isn't going to win friends 3. Makes company look petty and arrogant 4. Reminds people that "Kevin Butler" isn't real....I mean the list goes on, Sony is known for suing everyone in sight and not being particularly customer friendly with some of their policies.

Going at something so trivial as this with a chainsaw is just re-affirming people's beliefs that Sony is run by people in black suits devoid of personality and with blood at about room temperature.

Likeness wouldn't really fit... I mean, he doesn't even wear the same clothes.

Unless the arguement is that sony can trademark a dudes real life face.

Which is ridiculious.

As for the Holiday Inn stuff.... you tell me.

 

 

Same thing right?


lol, I couldn't possibly comment without bias. Jerry Lambert's face will be forever etched in my mind as "Kevin Butler". So even if he comes wearing a red nose and a clown outfit, a silly smile will still appear on my face and a squinting of the eyes as I think "That's Kevin Butler"...and I don't like clowns.



Around the Network
forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
VicViper said:
forevercloud3000 said:

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.


Looks nothing like Kevin Butler... but people see what they want.

By the way, have you seen the ad in my post. A business guy, behind a desk, reading requests from their fans with a big ass pic of himself behind him?

Where have I seen that... hmm

What do you mean? Jerry Labert IS KB so they look exactly alike. I have not seen whichever ad you are referring to, but if you post it again I'll take a look. Irregardless, these clauses are put in place for a reason. No company wants to funnel millions into a spokesperson only to have them go and advertise for the enemy who would jump at the opportunity to undermine their efforts. This is a real "thing" people, people get sued for this a lot, and usually come to terms or lose. As I said earlier, there are only two things he could have been forbidden to advertise in the WORLD, Xbox and Wii. Yet he STILL got put in a commercial where the Wii is in it, this is no accident. It is blatently obvious they chose him BECAUSE of his pedigree as PS spokesman.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

VicViper on 07 October 2012
forevercloud3000 said:

What do you mean? Jerry Labert IS KB so they look exactly alike. I have not seen whichever ad you are referring to, but if you post it again I'll take a look. Irregardless, these clauses are put in place for a reason. No company wants to funnel millions into a spokesperson only to have them go and advertise for the enemy who would jump at the opportunity to undermine their efforts. This is a real "thing" people, people get sued for this a lot, and usually come to terms or lose. As I said earlier, there are only two things he could have been forbidden to advertise in the WORLD, Xbox and Wii. Yet he STILL got put in a commercial where the Wii is in it, this is no accident. It is blatently obvious they chose him BECAUSE of his pedigree as PS spokesman.


It's in my post you quoted. It's pre-playstation too. But here it is again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBD8A8pAtU . Tell if that's not Kevin Butler.

The actor acts like that... always had, always will. Sony can't copyright that. Really dick move, don't want him anymore, fine, but don't stop the guy from being funny especially in an ad that is not related to Nintendo, it's a tyre ad with a a Wii, period.

Whatever happens, bad PR, imo. But I hope they lose, because it's too preposterous to think you can copyright the way a person is (and was before playstation, he "created" that, not Sony). Like I said before too, the guy Sony fans loved, is now burned by Sony themselves.



Kasz216 on 07 October 2012
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.



forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
VicViper said:
forevercloud3000 said:

What do you mean? Jerry Labert IS KB so they look exactly alike. I have not seen whichever ad you are referring to, but if you post it again I'll take a look. Irregardless, these clauses are put in place for a reason. No company wants to funnel millions into a spokesperson only to have them go and advertise for the enemy who would jump at the opportunity to undermine their efforts. This is a real "thing" people, people get sued for this a lot, and usually come to terms or lose. As I said earlier, there are only two things he could have been forbidden to advertise in the WORLD, Xbox and Wii. Yet he STILL got put in a commercial where the Wii is in it, this is no accident. It is blatently obvious they chose him BECAUSE of his pedigree as PS spokesman.


It's in my post you quoted. It's pre-playstation too. But here it is again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBD8A8pAtU . Tell if that's not Kevin Butler.

The actor acts like that... always had, always will. Sony can't copyright that. Really dick move, don't want him anymore, fine, but don't stop the guy from being funny especially in an ad that is not related to Nintendo, it's a tyre ad with a a Wii, period.

Whatever happens, bad PR, imo. But I hope they lose, because it's too preposterous to think you can copyright the way a person is (and was before playstation, he "created" that, not Sony). Like I said before too, the guy Sony fans loved, is now burned by Sony themselves

@Bolded: They can and they did, that is how companies safe gaurd themselves from bad press from similar situations. Coke doesn't want the same person who advertises them going off to undo that by working for Pepsi, same exact thing. If they let him go, or contract was just up, doesn't matter. The clauses will always say you cannot advertise for direct oppositions for a certain amount of time. He could have done commercials for ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD.....except for Wii and Xbox.

That is a lot of wiggle room to still be bumping elbows, had to be on purpose. They obviously chose him BECAUSE of his stint as PS spokesperson. He is well known in the gaming world and they were trying to take advantage of that by putting him in there. Dumb, dumb, dumb! He can act just like KB wherever else he wants, but the only reason Sony was threatened was because the Wii connection. You guys want to jump down Sony's throat but they are soley in the right in this situation, at least legally speaking. Jerry Lambert broke contract by participating in advertising Wii, end of story.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Around the Network
VicViper on 07 October 2012
forevercloud3000 said:

@Bolded: They can and they did, that is how companies safe gaurd themselves from bad press from similar situations. Coke doesn't want the same person who advertises them going off to undo that by working for Pepsi, same exact thing. If they let him go, or contract was just up, doesn't matter. The clauses will always say you cannot advertise for direct oppositions for a certain amount of time. He could have done commercials for ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD.....except for Wii and Xbox.

That is a lot of wiggle room to still be bumping elbows, had to be on purpose. They obviously chose him BECAUSE of his stint as PS spokesperson. He is well known in the gaming world and they were trying to take advantage of that by putting him in there. Dumb, dumb, dumb! He can act just like KB wherever else he wants, but the only reason Sony was threatened was because the Wii connection. You guys want to jump down Sony's throat but they are soley in the right in this situation, at least legally speaking. Jerry Lambert broke contract by participating in advertising Wii, end of story.


We'll see about that. Pretty sure they'll will lose. But either way, like I said, dick move, bad PR - it'll ressonate as Sony being greedy/evil for some time, you'll see. They tried to settle this privately for those exact reasons, but since they couldn't (http://kotaku.com/5949607/sony-is-suing-kevin-butler ) now the cat is out of the bag, and makes them look bad.

And yeah, keep believing he advertized a Wii...



forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
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... :/



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Kasz216 on 07 October 2012
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... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California



richardhutnik on 07 October 2012
zumnupy10 said:

Then I think Bridgestone has nothing to fear.  But Jerry Lambert can be in trouble .

There must be a clause in his contract with Sony which doesn't allow him to be part of commercials that directly or indirectly promotes competitors.

honestly, I can't believe Sony would not include this clause in a contract. But at the same time , I can't believe Jerry and Bridgestone would not be aware of it.

Unless Jerry Lambert happened to actually write the ad, why would he be in trouble personally?  I can see Bridgestone and the ad agency possibly being in trouble, for being cute like this.  But, I would say very likely it is Sony who has issues, probably not realizing how big the Kevin Butler character is, as portrayed by Lambert when they didn't renew him.



forevercloud3000 on 07 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
forevercloud3000 said:

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... :/

That's not a trademark.  That's a non-compete clause.   That's a totally different thing.

Also, such agreements are illegal in California.  Which is where Sony does all it's legal work and the Lawsuit is filed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California


In this case, they are the same topic at hand. There are always ways around such laws. In the Wiki it states that there is a lot of vague areas where this can be abused for either side. The fact that Playstation is part of Sony Corporation and  works in all territories, they can technically try him anywhere. KB commercials were also in Japan and a few other countries you know. If this is the case, California will have to play middle man for multiple territories. I am not saying this will work, but I am sure Sony will try.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)