Support NeoGAF

[Smiles and Cries]

Your Cheating Heart <-- an ad like this is in his future. Sony has just guaranteed this guy getting hired by someone else to promote gaming products in the future. It may not be Nintendo because they don't normally go down this path but Microsoft could pull it off or even (can't believe I am saying this) Ouya.

 

[Zoe]

I saw this article and rushed to GAF to see if there was a topic, thank goodness.

My mind is blown, how can a company sink so low, it's like the man is acting in commercials for Gods sake, it's not like he earns buttloads of money, and he was promoting Bridgestone not Wii, it just so happened Bridgestone was giving away Wiis to people who buy tires that month. Sony gets upset, Bridgestone does what they can to give them what they want and take good ol' KB out of the commercial, Sony I guess smells weakness and hits the lawsuit button.

Bridgestone didn't start pulling stuff down until after the lawsuit was filed.

 

[Oxirane]

I thought Sony didn't view the Wii as a competitor, therefore it should be okay.

"It's difficult to talk about Nintendo, because we don't look at their console as being a competitor" - Kaz Hirai

 

[Im_Special]

I like how people here say "Sony can't do that! Man are they dumb!" meanwhile they have an army of lawyers and specialists on hand to make sure they actually CAN do that.

If his contract forbid him from appearing in commercials with competitors' products, he could very well be sued for breach of contract.

 

[MaxwellGT2000]

Bridgestone didn't start pulling stuff down until after the lawsuit was filed.

Ahh I see that now, filed on September 11th, that was also before any PR firing, so can't really blame it on the PR team telling them it would be terrible for their image. I didn't notice the date. Still it seems rather silly to me.

 

[Graphics Horse]

If his contract forbid him from appearing in commercials with competitors' products, he could very well be sued for breach of contract.

Yes he could, but that's not what's happening here.

 

[Hellsing321]

The fact that the same actor who promote Playstation product goes to promote a Nintendo product may cause confusion and lead the public to think the the Wii is a Playstation product or that the Ps3 is a Nintendo product. It is against this passage of the trademark law.

Sony isn't suing for breach of contract. They're claiming Bridgestone violated their trademark of Kevin Butler because the actor who played Kevin Butler looks like Kevin Butler.

 

[The Adder]

The fact that Bridgestone went through the trouble of removing Lambert from the commercial is enough to suggest they believe Sony has a case.

I think this is less about an admission of guilt and more about being served a cease and desist. It makes no sense to censor it after the fact in this day and age if you're trying to cover something up. What's more likely is Sony filed this lawsuit and the courts ordered Bridgestone to pull or modify the commercial

 

[Shaheed79]

Who?

That was suppose to be vip's.

 

[Afro Gunsou]

Sony's not making any money on Vita so they have to make money somehow.

 

[Skyzard]

Don't actors sign contracts? Probably had a clause where he couldn't promote the competition for a while.

 

[not_so_special]

Which is the point. Their spokesman made a commercial which indirectly also promoted a competitor's product. We already had a great laugh at it. Whether their working relationship had been terminated prior to this ad being made or not, his participation in that Bridgestone promotion compromises their ability to continue using Lambert as their spokesman. Maybe it seems heavy-handed, but if Sony intended to continue making Kevin Butler ads, this was a huge slight from Lambert. It's no laughing matter.

stop triying to make sense and laugh at sony man

 

[jstevenson]

If there WAS a no-compete clause (assuming there would be) my guess is that Kevin Butler and the agent thought they were ok since this was a Bridgestone commercial. you could see how it might be a gray area with the Wii being prominently featured

Even then, if you are the actor or the agent, you have to be crazy to do this after basically being made the face of a national campaign for three + years. That's serious cash for an actor, even if Sony doesn't run their ads for games that long.

 

[OrangeYouGlad]

Don't actors sign contracts? Probably had a clause where he couldn't promote the competition for a while.

Which is similar to a non-compete clause and they're very iffy when used in court. If Jerry can prove they were infringing on his right to earn an income, then they'll lose.

 

[Spinluck]

So, that whole joke about Sony being ran by a bunch of monkeys in suits is true then?

 

[Zoe]

Which is similar to a non-compete clause and they're very iffy when used in court. If Jerry can prove they were infringing on his right to earn an income, then they'll lose.

Considering it's his company being sued, not himself, I think it's safe to say he would have been paid regardless of appearing in the commercial.

(assuming his company isn't just a front for him as an individual)

 

[Respawn]

Yeah, I don't think there's an actual case here.

This is the danger of making a common actor your spokesperson. Kevin Butler was a great idea, but actors are actors, they find jobs where they're offered. It's not even like he went straight to nintendo, he went to a completely unrelated company who happened to have a promotion WITH nintendo.

It's a shame though, the Kevin Butler stuff they did was by far their best ad campaign to date. They should have rode that a lot harder than they did.



Oh BOY, is Sony actually going to make the argument that Jerry Lambert's likeness is property of SCEA?

Strap in kids, this one is going to be interesting.

You mean like Apple's curved corners? Welcome to the United States.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

This is my core point. Nobody should be looking at this as bad publicity. This is only "bad PR" in the minds of forum posters who can't articulate why it's bad PR. The courts will decide if Sony have a valid case or not. If they decide in Sony's favor, will everybody flip flop on their position? Probably not, because their fundamental position is irrational and they've already decided Sony is wrong to defend their brand even if they turn out to be right.

Defending their brand? All Sony is doing with this Lawsuit is further spotlighting that they don't know how to properly manage their brand or even what to do with it moving froward.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

so

-instead of just letting this go quietly, scea decided to raise public awareness about the guy doing this
-scea didn't have any more pressing matters to attend to?

Because the entirety of Sony is focused on this one lawsuit?

 

[Platinumstorm]

So stupid.

 

[Wii Tank]

Rather than spend money marketing or developing new games for the dying PS Vita, Sony thinks the best option is to sue another company for something meaningless.

Why you do this Sony?

 

[AGITΩ]

Should've sued Bobb'e Thompson as well, since Marcus didn't even remotely save the PSP in the west, considering most retailers stopped carrying PSP's last November.

 

[Afro Gunsou]

As an actor myself, unless Jerry Lambert had it in his contract that he could not do commercials for other video game companies, Sony has no case here.

Even if it was in his contract, the commercial is for Bridgestone, NOT Nintendo, thus making the case null and void again.

Seriously between this, the PS All Stars PR screw-up with Paul Gale and Vita's consistent lack of content it's like they want me not to buy their products.

 

[staticneuron]

If this suit is due to Lambert having a clause in his contract stating he cannot advertise a competitors product, which he almost certainly does have, and if he is the president of the company that made the Bridgestone/Wii ad, then contrary to what most people are saying here Sony definitely appears to have a case. In fact, that the agency went to the trouble of digitally blocking or removing Lambert from the ad entirely makes it plainly evident that they KNOW they messed up by using Lambert in that ad. It's not that Lambert can't work or that Sony owns his face, you simply can't have your spokesman promoting a competitor, which he most certainly was doing (albeit, somewhat indirectly).

Didn't a similar thing happen with Daniel Pesina (actor who played Johnny Cage) promoting another fighting game in the 90s?

I imagined that would be the case as well. There must have been some time based clause that should have prevented him from doing such a thing.

If he owns the company that did the add then this is going to be a big issue for him.

As an actor myself, unless Jerry Lambert had it in his contract that he could not do commercials for other video game companies, Sony has no case here.

Even if it was in his contract, the commercial is for Bridgestone, NOT Nintendo, thus making the case null and void again.

Seriously between this, the PS All Stars PR screw-up with Paul Gale and Vita's consistent lack of content it's like they want me not to buy their products.

1. Do you really think that type of clause wouldn't be in a contract especially since he was the face of an entire ad campaign?

2. PSABR and Vita issues make you not want to purchase their stuff? Do you normally purchase sony consoles?

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Sony didn't care when he was doing credit card commercials. This is all about him being in a commercial involving another videogame company.

 

[Margalis]

In other news Sergio Leone's estate is suing Clint Eastwood for appearing in Unforgiven and The Outlaw Josey Wales, since those are competing westerns and they have a trademark on Clint Eastwood looking all westerny*

Seriously...the number one rule of acting is you try your best to do steady work. It's why even famous actors have appeared in a bunch of terrible movies you've never heard of. The idea that Sony somehow owns the likeness to an actor is ridiculous.

Even then, if you are the actor or the agent, you have to be crazy to do this after basically being made the face of a national campaign for three + years.

Really? It's crazy for an actor to get work acting? Especially an actor who appears mostly in commercials and probably doesn't get paid very much?

This is like some sort of bizarre kayfabe in wrestling. Any member of the public over the age of 7 hopefully realizes the guy is an actor.

* = This is a legal term.

 

[Takao]

Here's a chronological order of events:

September 3, 2012 - SkiesofWonder posts a screenshot of Bridgestone's Game On promotion featuring Jerry Lambert egging on some of his Bridgestone friends while playing Mario Kart Wii. Jerry's been doing Bridgestone commercials for a few months now, but this one was for a promotion regarding tire purchases leading to a free Nintendo Wii. A few hours later the promotion's website reveals Jerry with the group playing Mario Kart.

September 4, 2012 - Videoman discovers video of the ad on Facebook, I upload it to Youtube. Video goes viral with stories posted by major sites mocking the fact that the actor formerly known for hawking PlayStation products is indirectly helping the other team.

September 11, 2012 - Sony Computer Entertainment America files a lawsuit against both Bridgestone, and Wildcat Creek. Wildcat Creek is the company that produced the commercial, and just so happens to be the company Jerry Lambert is president of. gumby_trucker discovers the lawsuit today and posts it on GAF.

September 14, 2012 - Bridgestone removes the video from Youtube with a copyright notice. Presumably this is when Bridgestone put their own upload of the video on private, and removed Jerry from their Game On site. Google cache shows he was removed from the site by September 27. The image with Jerry is still hosted on their site.

September 21, 2012 - alr1ght posts about an alternate version of the ad circulating that no longer features Jerry at all. Drago posts this alternate version on Youtube.

September 30, 2012 - The Game On campaign concludes.

The judge on the case was changed on September 20th, and something happened yesterday regarding the plaintiffs but I don't understand legalese to provide a good grasp of what happened there.

If there WAS a no-compete clause (assuming there would be) my guess is that Kevin Butler and the agent thought they were ok since this was a Bridgestone commercial. you could see how it might be a gray area.

Even then, if you are the actor or the agent, you have to be crazy to do this after basically being made the face of a national campaign for three + years. That's serious cash for an actor, even if Sony doesn't run their ads for games that long.

Well, the damning thing for Jerry here is that his own company produced the commercial. While I feel this lawsuit is uncalled for (him appearing in this ad hasn't hurt Sony, the "VP of betrayal" comments were jokes) he should've also known better.

Sony's not making any money on Vita so they have to make money somehow.

Obviously they're making money somewhere if they keep paying you. ;P

 

[Figboy79]

Of course, the kneejerk reactions tackle this full on, but before I go, "Hurr hurr, why you so dumb, SONEE?" I'll say that it's more than likely that there may have been some kind of clause in Jerry Lambert's contract that stipulated that he could not promote any competitor's products, perhaps for a span of time (like a year or something).

The Bridgestone stuff was probably fine, up until it cross promoted with Nintendo.

I doubt they're trying to say that they own Lambert's likeness, more that they feel his inclusion in that promotional commercial for a Nintendo product violated their terms.

Who knows. Who cares. They'll sort it out in the end. If there is no merit to this case, it will be thrown out. If there is, well, then Bridgestone has already removed Lambert from the commercials.

Now: "Hurr hurr, why you so dumb, SONEE?!" Carry on.

EDIT: And as silly as it is, Jerry is recognizable as Kevin Butler, the VP of PlayStation commercials. In the public's eye, he is a face now attached to PlayStation. Seeing him promote Nintendo is jarring for a public that is accustomed to seeing him be promoting PlayStation. I think it's silly, but the public associates things in silly ways when it comes to what they see on TV.

 

[bengraven]

Really fucking stupid lawsuit.

Their "character" is so generic that no matter what Lambert does in the future it will be similar to Kevin Butler.

 

[Cyber Caesar]

They sued KB. Say it ain't so Sony. SMH...This is some funny shit right here. lol

 

[Takao]

Does anyone know if Jerry's company was involved with the production of the Kevin Butler campaigns or if it was simply him as an actor?

 

[snorggy]

I'm as big of a corporate apologist as they come but this just seems so dumb.

 

[Graphics Horse]

Does anyone know if Jerry's company was involved with the production of the Kevin Butler campaigns or if it was simply him as an actor?

I'm assuming yes because that company is simply his own individual company for accounting porpoises, but I could be wrong. It's not a company with any sort of online presence.

 

[clay_ghost]

So Sony thinks they owns his face? WTH? Lol....... What happens if Sony wins? He cannot appears using non Sony products? what about tv and phones and stuff, guess he can only promote food products....

 

[Margalis]

Of course, the kneejerk reactions tackle this full on, but before I go, "Hurr hurr, why you so dumb, SONEE?" I'll say that it's more than likely that there may have been some kind of clause in Jerry Lambert's contract that stipulated that he could not promote any competitor's products, perhaps for a span of time (like a year or something).

Then he should be sued for breach of contract rather than trademark / IP stuff no?

 

[To Far Away Times]

Apparently in Sony-land if you are an actor in a commercial, even though you are playing another character, your likeness is property of Sony forever.

 

[Haunted]

I thought Sony didn't view the Wii as a competitor, therefore it should be okay.

"It's difficult to talk about Nintendo, because we don't look at their console as being a competitor" - Kaz Hirai

So they can't claim a non-compete clause!

This is fun.

Spoiler

I know that's not how it works.

 

[Zoe]

Then he should be sued for breach of contract rather than trademark / IP stuff no?

The gaming community made their case for them with all of the hoopla over betrayal. They can't effectively use the Kevin Butler character anymore.

 

[Traumahound]

Since Sony filed this in California, it is probably extremely relevant that Non-compete clauses are invalid in the state of California.

 

[MikeE21286]

Either very relevant or Sony has no clue. Either is very possible lol

 

[thepotatoman]

The commercial seemed to became known just 3 days after the Kevin Butler twitter account tweeted about his preorder bonus for LBP Karting and that game isn't being released until November 6th. Knowing that it was clear that Sony intended to use him as a spokesperson until at least November 6th. I'm sure he was still under contract. And usually the don't work for our competitors clause doesn't expire until at least a few months after employment ends.

I don't know if this will result in a net gain for Sony overall or not. But I don't see how you can fault Sony for protecting its contract. Sony obviously can't just let the actor continue to praise the competition in advertisements. If Sony didn't do anything, then the Bridgestone commercial would probably gone on unedited, and that would have been disastrous.

Maybe he can get off on the argument that he wasn't technically working for Nintendo, but do we know whether or not Nintendo was involved in this promotion? It feels like it by just watching the commercial. If it was a joint promotion, then it seems like the Kevin Butler actor was working for Nintendo.

Even without being sued, I can't believe that Jerry Lambert was stupid enough to go through with the commercial. Not when it seems like Sony was still going full steam ahead on the Kevin Butler campaign as that commercial was being made.

 

[Kurod]

I'm no legal expert but it looks like according to the second court filing that the parties had come to, or were close to coming to, a resolution. The date mentioned on the document, Sept 26'th, coincides with the removal of Jerry from the ads the following day.

So it looks to me like Sony will likely withdraw their motion against both Bridgestone Tires and Wildcat Creek Inc.

 

[Graphics Horse]

I'm no legal expert but it looks like according to the second court filing that the parties had come to, or were close to coming to, a resolution. The date mentioned on the document, Sept 26'th, coincides with the removal of Jerry from the ads the following day.

So it looks to me like Sony will likely withdraw their motion against both Bridgestone Tires and Wildcat Creek Inc.

Yes you might be right.

 

[phosphor112]

Really fucking stupid lawsuit.

Their "character" is so generic that no matter what Lambert does in the future it will be similar to Kevin Butler.

I don't think you understand the problem. He's acted in several other things, it's not him in the bridgestone commercial that caused the problem, it's what was in the commercial, him promoting Nintendo's product.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm no legal expert but it looks like according to the second court filing that the parties had come to, or were close to coming to, a resolution. The date mentioned on the document, Sept 26'th, coincides with the removal of Jerry from the ads the following day.

So it looks to me like Sony will likely withdraw their motion against both Bridgestone Tires and Wildcat Creek Inc.

Nice find. In other words sony was only doing the bare minimum in order to ensure that their spokesperson wasn't to appear promoting the Wii.

So can we agree now these kneejerk reactions about "how stupid can sony get" were a little too quick on the trigger.

 

[Donthizz#]

this is good entertainment..

 

[Takao]

I'm no legal expert but it looks like according to the second court filing that the parties had come to, or were close to coming to, a resolution. The date mentioned on the document, Sept 26'th, coincides with the removal of Jerry from the ads the following day.

So it looks to me like Sony will likely withdraw their motion against both Bridgestone Tires and Wildcat Creek Inc.

Yeah, reading that it appears something will be announced by the 12th. Either the law suit continues or they'll settle:

On September 26, 2012, the court&#8217;s courtroom deputy received a telephone call from Plaintiff&#8217;s attorney, Timothy Cahn, who told her that the parties either had resolved, or were close to resolving, the discovery issue underlying Plaintiff&#8217;s motion. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff, by October 12, 2012, to either: (1) withdraw the ex parte motion; or (2) file a status update describing the current status of the dispute and whether a ruling on the motion will be necessary.

 

[Cipherr]

Nice find. In other words sony was only doing the bare minimum in order to ensure that their spokesperson wasn't to appear promoting the Wii.

So can we agree now these kneejerk reactions about "how stupid can sony get" were a little too quick on the trigger.

Naaaaaaaah, I still find the whole thing dumb as hell. And the idea of it still makes me laugh. The fact that they couldn't resolve this without stroking the embers of a suit is just downright ridiculous. Its not so much the Lambert part of the suit that throws me, its that they pulled Bridgestone into it. I'm having alot of trouble trying to understand what they expected to do/argue in order to explain Bridgestones liability here.

 

[zashga]

This is hilarious and all, but I have to ask. What does Sony gain by filing this lawsuit? Even if they win, "Kevin Butler" is over. Any remaining unburnt bridges will be thoroughly razed when they go to court. Is it just about revenge now? Surely it would've been better for Sony to be content that the original ad was redacted at their request. This resolution seems a lot uglier than it needed to be.

 

[Afro Gunsou]

1. Do you really think that type of clause wouldn't be in a contract especially since he was the face of an entire ad campaign?

2. PSABR and Vita issues make you not want to purchase their stuff? Do you normally purchase sony consoles?

1. You'd be surprised at how many things get overlooked in these types of contracts.

2. I've been a Sony/Nintendo fanboy my entire life. I own three PS1s (JPN, American and European), four PS2s (FF special edition, 1st run JPN, 1st run American, Slim), four PS3s (1st run American, Slim, One Piece Gold, and FFXIII), two PSPs (special edition Monster Hunter, PSP Go) and a PS Vita. Recent incompetence and the Vita issues have made me question my love, yes.