Support NeoGAF

[Haunted]

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.

 

[slider]

Haha, some high emotions in here.

 

[mrklaw]

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:

1. Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
2. 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.

from the sound of it, its already resolved. Just us talking about it now. This thread probably has more anger it in than the entire court case did. It was probably

'hey, you shouldn't do game stuff, we had you on contract'
'but its a tire ad'
'yes but it has a wii in it'
'hmm, not sure I agree but we'll remove my part in it just in case'
'ok thx bye'

 

[phosphor112]

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...

 

[DrForester]

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. I mean, the guy was bald and everything!

 

[Radec]

Jerry Lambert will always be Kevin Butler.man.

 

[omonimo]

So I imagine no more Jerry Lambert spot with sony. Who could be the next?

 

[phosphor112]

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.)

 

[DrForester]

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.

 

[phosphor112]

I was making a joke that many actors are known for one role.

Internet sarcasm is a bitch. =]

 

[TrutaS]

I believe Sony is morally right. Acting is not the same as modeling. Acting for advirtising follows the principles of modeling, where image means identity. If we look at Lambert and think of Sony, the next day we see him associated with Nintendo, I believe the damage is quite apparent.

He should have waited a lot longer to start being paid to play other consoles, it is sneaky and wrong. He seems like a nice guy, and I don't wish him to pay Sony anything, but it was wrong of him to do this..

Have no idea if American law contemplates this at all though.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

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?

 

[phosphor112]

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?

Probably. I'm just stating that it IS confusing, especially since he's not known for his (much) smaller roles previously played.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

As was Bayonetta, until Nintendo brought it back with a bang...

they steal our actors too

 

[wildfire]

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.

 

[Nekofrog]

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.

good thing you have a crystal ball and know exactly what the casting directors were thinking when they cast the commercial right

 

[Mr_Zombie]

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.

There's a tiny detail you missed there. Lambert appeared in Bridgestone's ads way long before the Nintendo promotion - see the Super Bowl commercial posted in the OP

 

[slider]

good thing you have a crystal ball and know exactly what the casting directors were thinking when they cast the commercial right

Does anyone know how, and to what extent, "intent" figures in (rare?) cases like this?

EDIT: Not that I understand the case!

 

[Flakster99]

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.

Yeah, this post expresses my thoughts also. Either he or the folks @ Bridgestone should have known better to include a promotion for Wii products, the very least looked into such matters, I've been seeing him in plenty of non-Sony commercials for years and his shtick has stayed the same throughout, at least from my perspective, so Sony suing Bridgestone due to their usage of Kevin Butler's character, likeness, and appearance speaks our sour grapes and is very lame.

Or perhaps Bridgestone knew they would receive some attention for correlating the Wii promotion and Sony's ex commercial marketing guru in-turn gaining more press. Press is press and this law suit won't hurt their products or getting the message out in any way shape or form.

Either way, this is fucking lame from all accounts.

EDIT: It has already been resolved? Moving on....

 

[DrForester]

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.

Except he was hired by Bridgestone long before this promotion...

 

[Squirrel Killer]

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).

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,

1. did "Kevin Butler" ever appear in a lab coat?
2. 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.

 

[wildfire]

Except he was hired by Bridgestone long before this promotion...

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?

 

[Cat Party]

Except he was hired by Bridgestone long before this promotion...

I love how this still has to be said on every page.

 

[phosphor112]

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,

1. did "Kevin Butler" ever appear in a lab coat?
2. 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.

Someone can always inc or llc themselves. It's not hard... at all.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Someone can always inc or llc themselves. It's not hard... at all.

Exactly.

 

[Littlegator]

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?

He's been running Bridgestone commercials for months or years.

You're wrong.

 

[DrForester]

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?

You mean an actors past works might help him to get future jobs?

 

[Balphon]

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.

 

[Linkhero1]

Actors getting sued for acting. Didn't know Sony had him held down with the old ball and chain.

 

[slider]

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.

Thanks dude. And I'm glad you explained it in terms even I could understand.

Now to hear what Sony's proposed/supposed action will be.

 

[Syriel]

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?

There has been absolutely -zero- information posted (aside from a speculative Kotaku news piece) which claimed the legal issue was settled. If that's what you're relying on as a source, you might want to look elsewhere.

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.

No, it's nothing of the sort. Rather, it's smart defense. In a trademark claim, one of the differences in damages is willful infringement. If you're hedging your bets against a protracted case, making a minor, digital change to an existing ad protects you from extra liability. Even if you are 100% correct, if you have less money than your opponent, it is the smart thing to do.

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.

If it is "clearly" a Nintendo ad, then why was Nintendo not named? Not to mention, the ad doesn't exactly portray the Wii in the best light. It gives the damn thing a value of $70.

As for the complaint, it doesn't matter what a spokesperson said. The key is what was filed in the legal documents. Until someone spends the few bucks it costs to pull the legal documents from PACER, we're not going to know exactly what Sony claimed in the filing.

As for now, the only public claim is a Federal claim of trademark infringement.

 

[mjc]

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.

 

[Linkhero1]

Its baffling. I can't understand it even after reading most of this thread. Sony is gonna get laughed right out of court.

Sony's defense in court

Regardless of whether a Wii was in the commercial, the actual product being advertised were tires. If his contract did indeed say he couldn't be a part of a competitors ad, then that's understandable. The problem is, this isn't a competitors ad, but rather an ad that featured a competitors product.

 

[Syriel]

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.

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.

 

[Zoe]

Its baffling. I can't understand it even after reading most of this thread. Sony is gonna get laughed right out of 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).

 

[HoodWinked]

sony lawsuits solve everything. if only it were possible to sue everything.

 

[Haunted]

sony lawsuits solve everything.

never forget

 

[Balphon]

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.

I didn't think bringing up possible issues of choice of law and supplemental jurisdiction would be helpful to answering his question. You're right, though; the relevant state law will likely depend on factors I have no knowledge of.

EDIT: Though I don't understand why you think state law is irrelevant simply because a case is filed in federal court.

 

[Linkhero1]

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).

Well, it didn't seem like he was barred from appearing in commercials for any other product. Only when the Wii appeared in the commercial, it became an issue. I'm not sure what he contract stated, but the ad he appeared in was not Sony's competitors ad but an ad that ended up featuring a competing console.

 

[Lovegooder]

[T]he 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.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

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:

1. Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
2. 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.

Do we know Lambert has a "leaky contract" or is that speculation? I highly doubt Sony would just go to court with the trademark crap, because that angle is stupid as hell imho.

 

[Htown]

Requote so people see how spokespersons are very important in brand image

People make Batman jokes regarding any movie Christian Bale stars in. Does that mean Warner Brothers should sue him for appearing in other movies?

 

[cakefoo]

Sorry, DP.

 

[cakefoo]

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!

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.

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.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Kevin Butler... who else? I mean, if it happens all the time, then you must have a long list.

Did I wrote anywhere that it happens all the time? Even if that's just this case it still prove that those people are dumb. 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.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

never forget

STOP POSTING THIS >_<

 

[Chuck Norris]

People make Batman jokes regarding any movie Christian Bale stars in. Does that mean Warner Brothers should sue him for appearing in other movies?

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 him

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

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.

You mean I'm not the only one that doesn't work for? I feel SO relieved

 

[staticneuron]

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:

1. Feel that they have a poor chance of winning if they go after Butler for contract breach, which is understandable.
2. 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.

It's funny, it wasn't until I talked to a friend about a legal issue with marvel did I realize that the legal departments of some of these companies act on their own. The may do something that may make the company they represent look bad, but just as everyone is talking about Butler trying to do his job, the individuals in the legal departments are doing tier jobs as well.

never forget

They deserved it iirc.

 

[Deguello]

Anybody care to watch the last two seasons of Tyler Perry's House of Payne or Tyler Perry's For Better or Worse to see if Bobb'e J. Thompson (a.k.a. Marcus Rivers) ever acts like Marcus Rivers, a Streetwise, Sassy, Young African-American Kid With Attitude And Badditude (© Sony), and if he ever has a video game in his hand that isn't Sony-approved at the same time?