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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 'That isn't Kevin Butler', Bridgestone claims

J_Allard on 10 October 2012

In the works = irrelevant.

Common sense would tell me if Lambert had any exclusive clause that extended passed the expiration of his actual contract, he wouldn't have appeared in this ad. Also there is the fact tat Sony is arguing in the complaint that commercials often take months to plan and shoot. That also tells me that no, their exclusive agreement did not extend out past the actual contract itself. Otherwise how long it would take to shoot the commercial would be irrelevant.

So basically they are arguing that yes, his exclusive contract was over by the time the commercial actually aired, but it was done before the contract ended, and that Kevin Butler is in the ad itself.



Around the Network
fordy on 10 October 2012
IvorEvilen said:
fordy said:
IvorEvilen said:


Blindly defending Jerry Lambert, with no knowledge of contract or copywrite law (I don't mean just reading things randomly on wikipedia or on websites) just paints you as the fool. The big guy isn't always the bad guy.


Remeber, it's Sony who is suing HIM. Sony in this case is the aggressive one.

And your stance is really blindsiding the "innocent until proven guilty" stance that should be taken. Siding with the aggressor. Who is the fool again?

Oh, and helpful hint, the commercial was paid for by Bridgestone. they're in it to sell tyres, not Wiis. kthx.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the legal system and the final outcome.  You can't use that as an argument to not sue someone... that would accomplish absolutely nothing.  If I murdered someone, and everyone one knew it, I would still be "innocent until proven guilty" in the courts, but everyone would hate me and want me dead.  I'm only saying to do more research before throwing support behind one side or the other.

And yes, I know they're into selling tires... I fail to see why that would matter.  They're using Wiis as a promotional item, which means they're in a partnership with Nintendo, which also could also mean that Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert, but that would only be hypothetical.  The Wiis being present is what makes this a violation of contract and a potential copywrite violation.  It doesn't matter what kind of merchandise Bridgestone sells.


For someone who's talking about jumping the gun with throwing support behind one side, you seem to have done a good job of doing that yourself. Really? Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert to star in a tyre commercial? I'm sure you have proof of this, since, you know, jumping the gun and throwing support behind one side or the other...



happydolphin on 10 October 2012
fordy said:

For someone who's talking about jumping the gun with throwing support behind one side, you seem to have done a good job of doing that yourself. Really? Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert to star in a tyre commercial? I'm sure you have proof of this, since, you know, jumping the gun and throwing support behind one side or the other...

Dude, take a chill pill.



richardhutnik on 10 October 2012
happydolphin said:
IvorEvilen said:

I'm not particularly upset, so I'm sorry if it came across that way.  I'm not particularly picking sides on this issue either, but I did get frustrated by a number of individuals simply targeting Sony without much reasononing than Sony being the larger, more powerful party.

As for your loaded question, the burden of proof is on Sony, and I do not particularly think they can win that claim.  It doesn't change the fact that Bridgestone is trying to cash-in on Sony's success with Kevin Butler.  Jerry Lambert is a face many gamers/consumers would recognize and respect, which would psychologically project onto Bridgestone.  That is the argument that I would expect Sony is trying to make, the problem is that Sony would have prove that the character he is playing is similar or the same as Kevin Butler to win any sort of copywrite infringement, which I do not believe can be done, personally.

Ultimately what this comes down to is contract violation.  Did Lambert's contract include a non-compete clause or not?  Bridgestone might get in a little trouble for perpetuating the situation, but ultimately a contract violation is much more damaging for Jerry Lambert than a copywrite violation would be.

Okay, you may have misunderstood the situation.

There are two situations at hand.

1) The headline accusation:  "based on violations of the Lanham Act, misappropriation, breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual relationship".

2) The supporting violations: "The company went on to allege: '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.'

 

 

So item 1 has to do with violation of a contract and of an intellectual property (lanham act, misappropriation). The argument against that is should Jerry Lambert scrape off his face? The answer is no. What else about him makes him Kevin Butler? The maneurisms, but are those even purely Sony's creation, or did he use those maneurisms before? He used them with Geiko. What about his likeness (suit and tie)? Already used.

The thing you're talking about relates to item 2, where Sony makes a support accusation saying (in loose terms) that associating with competing products confuses consumers. Well this would be true if it were Kevin Butler playing Wii in the Bridgestone commercial, but it's not, it's Jerry Lambert. Bridgestone could be using the likeness of Kevin Butler to push the promotion of a video game console promotion FOR bridgestone, but that would not be against the law. Had Jerry Lambert played Kevin Butler and done that, that would have been against the law.

I have to wonder if Sony tried to build something into the Kevin Butler character that has them now trying to plead that Jerry Lambert can't show up with any other company.  Kevin Butler apparently left Sony for "Economy Flooring" and doing an ad for a fake flooring company.  If Sony is thinking that would lock down the Kevin Butler character, and make it so they didn't need to compensate or have Jerry Lambert on their payroll, they are freakin' daft.  This is the ad I am referring to:



happydolphin on 10 October 2012
richardhutnik said:

I have to wonder if Sony tried to build something into the Kevin Butler character that has them now trying to plead that Jerry Lambert can't show up with any other company.  Kevin Butler apparently left Sony for "Economy Flooring" and doing an ad for a fake flooring company.  If Sony is thinking that would lock down the Kevin Butler character, and make it so they didn't need to compensate or have Jerry Lambert on their payroll, they are freakin' daft.  This is the ad I am referring to:

Looool, I forgot about that. He had already stopped selling playstations, so what would consumers be confused about?? :)



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 10 October 2012
happydolphin said:
richardhutnik said:

I have to wonder if Sony tried to build something into the Kevin Butler character that has them now trying to plead that Jerry Lambert can't show up with any other company.  Kevin Butler apparently left Sony for "Economy Flooring" and doing an ad for a fake flooring company.  If Sony is thinking that would lock down the Kevin Butler character, and make it so they didn't need to compensate or have Jerry Lambert on their payroll, they are freakin' daft.  This is the ad I am referring to:

Looool, I forgot about that. He had already stopped selling playstations, so what would consumers be confused about?? :)

Apparently the backlash on the InterWebs caught Sony off guard.



binary solo on 11 October 2012
Legend11 said:
binary solo said:
It really comes down to 2 things:
Was there a restraint of trade clause in Lambert's contract, and had it expired?
Did Bridgestone's ad agency knowingly hire Lambert for a Wii promotion because he's a familiar gaming face?

The first is pretty easy to sort out. The second is very difficult to prove unless someone wrote it down at some point, and even then is it an actionable motive? I suspect not given Bridgestone isn't selling game consoles. Might be a slightly different story if it was a direct Wii add.

Silly and frivolous of Sony to sue, even if they end up being legally in the right.

Actually the second point is pretty easy to prove as well.  Lambert has been in Bridgestone commercials long before the Wii promotion.  In fact here's one that was posted to YouTube by Bridgestone on Jan 27th, 2012 that has Lambert in it (in which they refer to him as a Bridgestone Engineer):

I fail to see how that would prove the case for Sony. It's a good dis-proof though.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix