Haunted
Member
Which might've given Sony the angle it needed to believably claim confusion in the marketplace.Dumb people believe characters they see in ads are real.
Which might've given Sony the angle it needed to believably claim confusion in the marketplace.Dumb people believe characters they see in ads are real.
He probably thought that it would fly because his contract with Sony didn't cover this situation.
He's a jobbing actor, he has to eat. So he took the job.
Now Sony are pissed at him (and probably at their own legal dept too) for exploiting the leaky contract.
Sony probably know they have little chance of winning on breach of contract with Lambert because of the holes in his contract. So have decided to play the Kevin Butler IP infringement angle instead.
This could be because Sony:
- Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
- The IP infringement option is most likely to cause Lambert/Bridgestone to fold and do their bidding.
A long protracted IP infringement case will time/resource consuming and costly for all parties involved. The smaller party even if they are in the right will usually fold in situations like this. The small fish will have little chance of meeting their legal costs to see the case to it's conclusion against a behemoth like Sony and it frightens the shit out of them. So typically the smaller party just folds before it even begins.
This type of bullying tactic is used all the time by larger companies.
No matter how this pans out, I think it will kill off the Kevin Butler character.
Sony and Lambert will both feel slighted by this and I doubt there will be any working relationship in the future once current obligations have been fulfilled.
Jerry Lambert, VP of Betrayal.
Oh, that wasn't the thread name?
Is it because everyone knows him as Kevin Butler?
Most people do... so yeah...
Paramount should have sued Fox after they got Captain Picard to lay someone in their Xmen movie.
Oh yes, because you can't associate roles with an actor.
"Pam" from the Office played in a couple episodes of Mad Men, and even though she played a different character, I associated her as "Pam."
In nearly ALL 56 of Lamberts roles in other shows and movies, only 1 of those is of a "significant" character.
In fact, that character he played was known as "Morgan's Dad" in Bad Teacher, and that's HIGHLY stretching it.
Look up his IMDB profile. He's been a side character in EVERYTHING he's played and most didn't know of him until this Kevin Butler ad campaign.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1208801/
EDIT: One role is missing from IMDB. He played as a guest character on Everybody Loves Raymond. (was looking up "kevin butler" commercials and found it on youtube.)
I was making a joke that many actors are known for one role.
Look up his IMDB profile. He's been a side character in EVERYTHING he's played and most didn't know of him until this Kevin Butler ad campaign.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1208801/
Does that mean he shouldn't be seen anywhere near video game products in any commercial or movie he will be in for the next few years?
As was Bayonetta, until Nintendo brought it back with a bang...
He wasn't promoting a competitors system, he was working with Bridgestone, it was juts one ad about a promotion they had. It's funny how you guys are trying so hard to tie all those lousy events just to go out and say that Sony are the good guys here. :lol
Yes he (actually it's Bridgestone) is promoting Nintendo. Bridgestone deliberately chose the Wii as an incentive to market and sell their own product because they believe it is the best console to grab attention of people who aren't conscious of car tire brands. They can only believe this if they see the Wii as a more desirable product than the others.
Hiring Butler was Bridgestone's attempt at killing two birds with one stone because he is the most visible face of Sony and a well regarded media personality in gaming circles.
Bridgestone's commercial was deliberately designed to attract new customers who specifically were gamers but not enthusiastic car nerds. Sony is right for calling out foul on this because of the way the commerical works the commercial face of Sony is having a lot of fun with the Wii when they have been building him up as someone who is proud of and enjoys using the Playstation.
Hiring Butler was Bridgestone's attempt at killing two birds with one stone because he is the most visible face of Sony and a well regarded media personality in gaming circles.
good thing you have a crystal ball and know exactly what the casting directors were thinking when they cast the commercial right
It's stupid for them to sue him, I hope to hell someone at Sony called him and talked to him about it before they made that decision. But I do think that when he was making that add and saw that they were doing a Wii promotion he should have contacted Sony and Spoken to Bridgestone. It would have been very foolish for him to appear in any add using non-sony game related items without speaking to them.
Anyways the whole situation is a shame. Such a great relationship to ruin over something so stupid.
Hiring Butler was Bridgestone's attempt at killing two birds with one stone because he is the most visible face of Sony and a well regarded media personality in gaming circles.
Once again, Wildcat Creek, Inc. is highly unlikely to be an actual ad agency. It has no Googlable web site presence, it's not listed in various databases as an ad agency in Sherman Oaks CA, doesn't show up in D&B's database at all, its address is a 1,500 sq/ft 3 bed/2 bath single family house in a residential neighborhood and is zoned R1 One-Family, and there's no signage to be seen from Google StreetView. From limited personal experience, I've never seen a president/CEO of an agency act in one of their ads, they're too busy running the agency and when I've been involved in paying professional talent, the checks were made out to a "company" that was pretty much just the talent themselves.The posts here and elsewhere made it seem like Bridgestone used an ad agency run by Lambert, which would in theory conceive of the idea for the spot / promotion and cast him in it. That's what seemed shady about it (ie, Lambert's own ad agency conceiving / pitching / creating a gaming co-promotional spot that included him in a role).
Except he was hired by Bridgestone long before this promotion...
Except he was hired by Bridgestone long before this promotion...
Once again, Wildcat Creek, Inc. is highly unlikely to be an actual ad agency. It has no Googlable web site presence, it's not listed in various databases as an ad agency in Sherman Oaks CA, doesn't show up in D&B's database at all, its address is a 1,500 sq/ft 3 bed/2 bath single family house in a residential neighborhood and is zoned R1 One-Family, and there's no signage to be seen from Google StreetView. From limited personal experience, I've never seen a president/CEO of an agency act in one of their ads, they're too busy running the agency and when I've been involved in paying professional talent, the checks were made out to a "company" that was pretty much just the talent themselves.
Also, a couple of quick questions on the trademark issue because I don't follow video game marketing campaigns very much,
- did "Kevin Butler" ever appear in a lab coat?
- would a "moron in a hurry" (specifically not people who closely follow video game marketing campaigns) confuse Bridgestone's Lambert-portrayed lab tech with Sony's Lambert-portrayed VP of Everything?
Finally, I don't know how anyone can comment definitely either way on the breach of contract issue since the contract hasn't been released publicly.
Exactly.Someone can always inc or llc themselves. It's not hard... at all.
So what? Yes he was hired by Bridgestone beforehand. You still don't think they knew what they were doing when they constructed the promotional ad and what potential customers they can touch by using Butler as well as the Wii?
So what? Yes he was hired by Bridgestone beforehand. You still don't think they knew what they were doing when they constructed the promotional ad and what potential customers they can touch by using Butler as well as the Wii?
Does anyone know how, and to what extent, "intent" figures in (rare?) cases like this?
EDIT: Not that I understand the case!
It'll depend to an extent on California law (which I'm not familiar with), but intent/bad faith is generally necessary to a claim of tortious interference, relevant but not necessary to a claim of trademark infringement, and irrelevant to a claim of breach of contract.
I honestly cannot believe this thread. Like, this is one of the stupidest things ever.
Given the situation, given how bad this looks on Lambert's part, given that there probably are contractual elements (see Venture Beat piece) - given that Lambert already settled.
How is Sony the bad guy here? Especially after all they invested in the Kevin Butler series of ads?
That could be viewed as an admission of liability.
Bottom line is that as an actor Lambert really should have done something to differentiate himself from the Kevin Butler persona. A wig, facial hair, glasses, any simple device to disassociate with the PS-brand character when in such proximity to a direct competitor's product.
As I wrote earlier, he really should've known better. Its just bad business for him, its certainly not going to help him get more advertising gigs.
It's not irrelevant. The ad is clearly a cross promotion with Nintendo for the Wii. Who pays for the ad makes little difference to the person watching at home wondering why the guy they've known as PlayStation's "Kevin Butler" for years is suddenly playing Wii on TV.
Breach of contract is absolutely a component of their complaint, according to the official statement Sony have given. Furthermore, Bridgestone doesn't have a contract with Sony, so they have to use the Lanham act if they want to compel them to pull or alter the ad. Sony doesn't own Jerry Lambert's likeness, but they have a pretty good claim to someone who looks just like him in a corporate setting playing a videogame in an ad on TV.
Actors getting sued for acting. Didn't know Sony had him held down with the old ball and chain.
Its baffling. I can't understand it even after reading most of this thread. Sony is gonna get laughed right out of court.
It'll depend to an extent on California law (which I'm not familiar with), but intent/bad faith is generally necessary to a claim of tortious interference, relevant but not necessary to a claim of trademark infringement, and irrelevant to a claim of breach of contract.
Its baffling. I can't understand it even after reading most of this thread. Sony is gonna get laughed right out of court.
No, it won't. Not in this case.
As was said before, this is a federal court case. California law has nothing to do with it.
Incidentally, breach of contract suits are typically filed in state court, not federal court.
Being a spokesperson is a big deal. Actors have been sued before for saying "I'll never do..." And it's already been mentioned in this thread, but the Verizon guy wasn't allowed to appear in any commercial (don't think he was allowed to discuss his personal life either).
That is not to the public's detriment.[T]he Verizon guy wasn't allowed to appear in any commercial (don't think he was allowed to discuss his personal life either).
He probably thought that it would fly because his contract with Sony didn't cover this situation.
He's a jobbing actor, he has to eat. So he took the job.
Now Sony are pissed at him (and probably at their own legal dept too) for exploiting the leaky contract.
Sony probably know they have little chance of winning on breach of contract with Lambert because of the holes in his contract. So have decided to play the Kevin Butler IP infringement angle instead.
This could be because Sony:
- Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
- The IP infringement option is most likely to cause Lambert/Bridgestone to fold and do their bidding.
A long protracted IP infringement case will time/resource consuming and costly for all parties involved. The smaller party even if they are in the right will usually fold in situations like this. The small fish will have little chance of meeting their legal costs to see the case to it's conclusion against a behemoth like Sony and it frightens the shit out of them. So typically the smaller party just folds before it even begins.
This type of bullying tactic is used all the time by larger companies.
No matter how this pans out, I think it will kill off the Kevin Butler character.
Sony and Lambert will both feel slighted by this and I doubt there will be any working relationship in the future once current obligations have been fulfilled.
Requote so people see how spokespersons are very important in brand image
Movies are different than commercials. Commercial spokespersons establish trust and advise viewers what to buy. Nobody's gonna believe Kevin Butler now that he's been spotted playing a Wii.Paramount should have sued Fox after they got Captain Picard to lay someone in their Xmen movie. I mean, the guy was bald and everything!
Kevin Butler... who else? I mean, if it happens all the time, then you must have a long list.Dumb people believe characters they see in ads are real.
Kevin Butler... who else? I mean, if it happens all the time, then you must have a long list.
never forget
If his contract stipulated he is not to appear in any other super hero role, and he was suddenly playing Wolverine in the next Xmen movie then Warner Bros could sue himPeople make Batman jokes regarding any movie Christian Bale stars in. Does that mean Warner Brothers should sue him for appearing in other movies?
Ads aren't real. People who star in them aren't real. If you're an adult and dob't understand that then shame on you. Next thing you will tell me that actors advertising certain things really use them, that various pills can cure flu over one night and that if you spray yourself with Axe all women will want to have sex with you.
He probably thought that it would fly because his contract with Sony didn't cover this situation.
He's a jobbing actor, he has to eat. So he took the job.
Now Sony are pissed at him (and probably at their own legal dept too) for exploiting the leaky contract.
Sony probably know they have little chance of winning on breach of contract with Lambert because of the holes in his contract. So have decided to play the Kevin Butler IP infringement angle instead.
This could be because Sony:
- Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
- The IP infringement option is most likely to cause Lambert/Bridgestone to fold and do their bidding.
A long protracted IP infringement case will time/resource consuming and costly for all parties involved. The smaller party even if they are in the right will usually fold in situations like this. The small fish will have little chance of meeting their legal costs to see the case to it's conclusion against a behemoth like Sony and it frightens the shit out of them. So typically the smaller party just folds before it even begins.
This type of bullying tactic is used all the time by larger companies.
No matter how this pans out, I think it will kill off the Kevin Butler character.
Sony and Lambert will both feel slighted by this and I doubt there will be any working relationship in the future once current obligations have been fulfilled.
never forget