Support NeoGAF

[Beelzeboss]

so Kevin Butler is gone for good now I guess?

I don't remember them using him for a long time anyway, what is the point of suing?

 

[DrForester]

so Kevin Butler is gone for good now I guess?

I don't remember them using him for a long time anyway, what is the point of suing?

Sony probably took it as a massive slight that for a week, people online were getting a quick laugh over the commercial then moving on with their lives.

 

[Acquiescence]

Oh Sony Sony Sony.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

awesome job giving everybody credit, Takao!

 

[zroid]

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Trademark

Wait, so does this mean SCEA is claiming Jerry Lambert's likeness is their intellectual property?

lol

EDIT:

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.

ahahahaha

 

[DrForester]

no existing gif is sufficient for this

Wait, so does this mean SCEA is claiming Jerry Lambert's likeness is their intellectual property?

lol

It's entirely possible that there may have been a Non-compete clause. That's the only possible leg Sony might have to stand on though that I can think of.

 

[CronoShot]

 

[Kyou]

Wait, so does this mean SCEA is claiming Jerry Lambert's likeness is their intellectual property?

lol

Any time Lambert touches a game controller of any kind he is playing Kevin Butler.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

No one believed that.

They just loved the character.

He's awesome.

I know at least two people (from another forum) that were surprised when they learned that "Kevin Butler" is just a character played by an actor. :lol

 

[TimeEffect]

Well, on the plus side, no more awful Kevin Butler ads

 

[Canis lupus]

I find the Kevin Butler campaign annoying. It doesn't seem like it's very effective at getting people on-board with Sony. It's like it's designed to make PS3 owners excited about their PS3s.

It did a good job at that.

 

[CartridgeBlower]

Do people not realize that sometimes in actor's contracts it says you cannot do ads for direct competitors? Maybe that was the case here. If so, yeah Sony has a case here.

Again, it can be worded in several different ways, but it's surely not unheard of. Especially when you become the face of a brand for a two year period. It would make sense for Sony to have him tied up as much as possible. If the actor broke that, then that's on him.

 

[TGO]

I can see why they sued them, the ad was very Kevin Butler ad'ish and even featured him
Jerry should have known better,

 

[Buckethead]

If he was in breach of contract, it's on him, although I find this doubtful.

But if not, disgusting of Sony and everyone supporting their actions.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Good! Go Sony, Go!

Corporate cheerleading is just the worst.

 

[Wario64]

Do people not realize that sometimes in actor's contracts it says you cannot do ads for direct competitors? Maybe that was the case here. Who knows.

Again, it can be worded in several different ways, but it's surely not unheard of. Especially when you become the face of a brand for a two year period.

This isn't the first time Lambert has done commercials for Bridgestone. The Wii promo is probably the tip off here

 

[hym]

This suddenly makes a whole lot more sense:

https://twitter.com/TheKevinButler/status/225273723626860546

Fans: thanks for suggesting me as the final boss in #PSAllStarsBattleRoyale. But research shows you like a game you can actually beat.

 

[zroid]

Yes there is =3

You done good

 

[kitchenmotors]

Corporate cheerleading is just the worst.

I think he was being sarcastic, TurkishEmperor on the other hand...

 

[Cipherr]

Do people not realize that sometimes in actor's contracts it says you cannot do ads for direct competitors? Maybe that was the case here. Who knows.

Again, it can be worded in several different ways, but it's surely not unheard of. Especially when you become the face of a brand for a two year period.

Its a Bridgestone commercial for crying out loud. Whining about Bridgestone doing a promotion with some Wiis seems ridiculous. I mean seriously.... They are suing Bridgestone here too.... Bridgestone, the hell?

Im sure there is more that we don't know, but it just feels petty as hell.

 

[zroid]

It's entirely possible that there may have been a Non-compete clause. That's the only possible leg Sony might have to stand on though that I can think of.

I'd have to imagine that's the case. Otherwise, what the fuck.

 

[Fox Mulder]

of course they aren't suing because he's acting in other commercials, unless he broke some kind of contract. It was always odd how he's in a campaign that promotes a Nintendo product while he's a prominent face of Sony marketing.

Sony would have to be dumb as shit to not have something in their contracts stopping that.

 

[UberTag]

So in the past month Sony has fired The Tester, let go most of their PR staff and are now suing Kevin Butler? Have I got all of that straight?

Clearly everything is going swimmingly for Sony right now.

Ah well, back to playing my Vita.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Why would they sue him? Hes an actor that has to feed his family.

I heard on Bloomberg that these actors - and they specifically gave examples like Flo the Progressive Girl and The Most Interesting Man In The World - really don't make that much on these commercials. Forgot what it was but it wasn't much and once the ads stop and they don't have a need for them, they have to find work elsewhere or be sure to save that money they made on those commercials to begin with.

 

[Sho Nuff]

They MIGHT have a case for this based on the lawsuit between AT&T and MCI back in the 80's, where MCI employed the same actors and same "look" to create a followup parody ad of an AT&T ad. I can't find any mention of this with my Google-fu though.

 

[marc^o^]

Having him removed from the ad wasn't enough.

You don't mess with the Sony.

 

[MikeE21286]

Wow.

I work for a division in Bridgestone. Wonder if I can find out any more info on this...

 

[Zero-Crescent]

It's entirely possible that there may have been a Non-compete clause. That's the only possible leg Sony might have to stand on though that I can think of.

It's possible. Then again, this is shaping up to be one of those sticky situations that has no clear answer, unless someone can dig up a precedent. After all, it's highly doubtful that anyone would consider Bridgestone anywhere near a direct competitor to Sony.

It'll probably be up to the judge, unless his non-compete clause forbade him from appearing within 100 feet of another game console on camera.

 

[nofi]

It's possible. Then again, this is shaping up to be one of those sticky situations that has no clear answer, unless someone can dig up a precedent. After all, it's highly doubtful that anyone would consider Bridgestone anywhere near a direct competitor to Sony.

It'll probably be up to the judge, unless his non-compete clause forbade him from appearing within 100 feet of another game console on camera.

How long was that non-compete for, anyway, if there was one? He's not been in a Sony ad for ages.

 

[Ocaso]

This isn't the first time Lambert has done commercials for Bridgestone. The Wii promo is probably the tip off here

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?

 

[Zero-Crescent]

They MIGHT have a case for this based on the lawsuit between AT&T and MCI back in the 80's, where MCI employed the same actors and same "look" to create a followup parody ad of an AT&T ad. I can't find any mention of this with my Google-fu though.

Except, from what you've described, the key differences there are that the two companies were direct competitors, and the parody ad was directly cribbing from the original.

 

[Majmun]

The Kevin Butler commercials were pretty terrible. But suing him goes a bit too far.

 

[BigPickZel]

It did a good job at that.

That's brilliant, then. Advertise to people who've already bought your product. Since they're already on-board, they're more likely to buy another one.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

It's possible. Then again, this is shaping up to be one of those sticky situations that has no clear answer, unless someone can dig up a precedent. After all, it's highly doubtful that anyone would consider Bridgestone anywhere near a direct competitor to Sony.

It'll probably be up to the judge, unless his non-compete clause forbade him from appearing within 100 feet of another game console on camera.

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

 

[Seda]

That's brilliant, then. Advertise to people who've already bought your product. Since they're already on-board, they're more likely to buy another one.

I thought the commercials were fun and humorous. I don't really care if they were successful or not.

 

[CartridgeBlower]

Its a Bridgestone commercial for crying out loud. Whining about Bridgestone doing a promotion with some Wiis seems ridiculous. I mean seriously.... They are suing Bridgestone here too.... Bridgestone, the hell?

Im sure there is more that we don't know, but it just feels petty as hell.

Why does it seem ridiculous? He is promoting a Nintendo property, and in a very "Kevin Butler-ish" way. If Sony owns the character, and also has the actor signed to a non-compete clause, then that's pretty cut and dry. Bridgestone's liability could be interesting, though. That could be less sturdy.

 

[CartridgeBlower]

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

Bottom line is it's pretty stupid of the actor not to at least run the concept of the commercial by his lawyer before he showed up to shoot it. He screwed his golden goose. Maybe he was already let go by Sony at the time of shooting this commercial, but it still doesn't seem too smart.

 

[- J - D -]

One of the dumber lawsuits I've seen in a while.

 

[Sho Nuff]

Except, from what you've described, the key differences there are that the two companies were direct competitors, and the parody ad was directly cribbing from the original.

Yeah, and they won based on the grounds that the average person could be confused because the ads were so similar. I can't see that being the case here.

 

[MikeE21286]

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

Not necessarily.

Bridgestone is pretty risk averse overall as a company. The belief was probably that Lambert didn't add too much to the commercial, and removing him was just easier.

 

[Sarquiss_]

This is just crazy. Also I don't think this is about a non-compete clause in his contract. It appears Sony is suing for intellectual property infringement not breach of contract.

This is going to be interesting. I hope Sony get laughed out of court........

 

[Jintor]

Trademark Infringement is a crazy tack to take. :|

 

[sn00zer]

So no more Kevin Butler ads

 

[Burning Justice]

It's entirely possible that there may have been a Non-compete clause. That's the only possible leg Sony might have to stand on though that I can think of.

If that's the case, though, then why is the lawsuit for trademark infringement instead of breach of contract? And why are they suing Bridgestone?

 

[Boss Man]

Bravo SCEA marketing. You did one good thing this entire generation hiring this dude, better burn that bridge down nice and quick before anyone thinks you're competent.

 

[RichardAM]

Watching with interest how this plays out. disgunbegud.gif etc

 

[Ocaso]

Bottom line is it's pretty stupid of the actor not to at least run the concept of the commercial by his lawyer before he showed up to shoot it. He screwed his golden goose. Maybe he was already let go by Sony at the time of shooting this commercial, but it still doesn't seem too smart.

Particularly since, in this case, said actor is also president of the advertising agency that produced the ad.

 

[ZealousD]

Do people not realize that sometimes in actor's contracts it says you cannot do ads for direct competitors? Maybe that was the case here. If so, yeah Sony has a case here.

But it doesn't appear that they're suing Lambert because of breech of contract. The documents state that they're suing Bridgestone under the Lanham Act, which deals with intellectual property and trademarks.

I think they're suing Bridgestone because they're claming that Lambert's likeness is property of SCEA.

 

[jediyoshi]

Lambert is the head of Wildcat Creek? What a twisted web wove.

 

[sn00zer]

Its just sad really, but he really should have expected some repercussion for doing an ad for a direct competitor. Actually i think he would have been fine had he not also been in the ad.