Support NeoGAF

[Zoe]

I'd imagine an argument for infringement is Kevin Butler character has been diluted so any future ad campaigns would no longer be effective.

Edit: or to put it more eloquently:

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.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Nice cheerleaders on the first page lol

 

[Kurod]

I dunno, all of the betrayal-ton attention will probably work in their favor. The community immediately identifies the guy with Kevin Butler when it comes to video games.

That's what I was thinking. When the commercials first aired there were articles popping up all over the gaming industry about "Kevin Butler switches to the Wii". Forum posts, comments, tweets, etc too. All could be used in support of their case over damages to their brand/efforts in marketing as a result of bridgestone using a man recognized as their mascot in the promotion of a competitors product.

 

[Rubius]

Here the passage of the law:
"§1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)

Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act."
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html

So yeah, it seems that since he worked to promote a product from a direct competitor, he could get sued since he's under contract with Sony.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

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.

I understand the legal-side of it, but I don't personally see how this lawsuit is worth the crap Sony will recieve from this whole debacle. As you can see already from this thread, most are going to side with Lambert here. Sony can explain the contracts and clauses all they want to, but they are going to come out of this looking like a bad guy. Does Sony really need even more bad publicity?

 

[Graphics Horse]

but if Sony intended to continue making Kevin Butler ads, this was a huge slight from Lambert. It's no laughing matter.

I don't think it matters what Sony's intention was unless they had a contract with him about it. They could hire a new actor to play Butler if they really wanted to, which raises the question could they have sued an unrelated guy who looks similar to Lambert for appearing in the Bridgestone ad?
And it is absolutely a laughing matter.

 

[antonz]

Im surprised they never sued Marcus for playing the DS and shit on TV. Though maybe they want to forget Marcus ever existed

 

[Corto]

The legal merit of the suit it's pretty much confirmed by Bridgestone "deleting" the actor from subsequent version of the ad. I would even not be surprised that Sony "needs" to sue Bridgestone and the actor because of some weird intellectual property legal ramification. But ultimately this will hurt Sony as a brand even further.

 

[Gnub]

"and when they said kevin butler is theirs

I said"

Needs a blue shell chasing the car.

 

[P90]

Here the passage of the law:
"§1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)

Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act."
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html

So yeah, it seems that since he worked to promote a product from a direct competitor, he could get sued since he's under contract with Sony.

How do you know that he is still under contract with Sony?

So, I guess Mike Illitch should sue Tony the Tiger? Or Marlboro should sue the Denver Broncos and the Dallas Cowboys? All because of similarities of the likenesses of symbols? Sony would be better off spending that money on being more competitive in the handheld arena.

 

[Zoe]

How do you know that he is still under contract with Sony?

Even if he's not under a current contract, it's not as if it's unheard of for companies to use commercials for years. Hell, Discount Tire brought back the disgruntled old lady from like 20 years ago.

And I find it very unlikely the contract wouldn't protect Sony for future work.

 

[CyclopsRock]

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.

Well for a long time Sony lost money on selling their consoles. The razors-and-blades model relies on selling enough blades to pay for the cost of the razor. You need a balance between selling more consoles and encouraging those with a console already to buy more games.

 

[Rubius]

Even if he's not under a current contract, it's not as if it's unheard of for companies to use commercials for years. Hell, Discount Tire brought back the disgruntled old lady from like 20 years ago.

And I find it very unlikely the contract wouldn't protect Sony for future work.

Yep pretty much this. He could still be under some clause of the contracts that do not allow him to act in any commercial for a video game console or Electronic device other than Sony products. Its far from unheard off. Hell, there is some Video game company that make contracts on the devs so that they cannot work for an another company for at least 5 years after the end of employment.

 

[kittens]

I never really watch TV, and for years I thought Kevin Butler was an actual Sony exec. Next you're gonna tell me there's no Santa Claus.

 

[Eric C]

So, this is the last we'll see of Kevin Butler?

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Man that's embarrassing.

 

[HawksWinStanley]

If I were in Sony's position financially I'd probably scrape the bottom of the barrel for cash too.

 

[Shaheed79]

I think it's pretty obvious that Sony vp's read the neogaf topic about it, and became extraordinarily pissed off. Gaf earns its reputation as instigators of the game industry once again.

 

[Schobeleth]

Jesus christ this has gotten crazy. I mean, he was an awesome persona but the commercials started to get a bit hammy, like that Resistance 3 one. Maybe it's better that they should have just parted ways, but still...

Thinking about it now it doesn't make sense that they're suing him for just being in a commercial for a Wii or w/e. I'm upset that he was promoting a Wii, and not the PS triple, but eh he's an actor.

 

[Graphics Horse]

So, this is the last we'll see of Kevin Butler?

If Sony wins its argument, then yes, this was indeed Kevin Butler, Sony's VP of blah promoting the Wii.
If Sony loses, it was just a random Bridgestone lab worker promoting the Wii.

Sony obviously would rather people think that it was Kevin Butler betraying Playstation and promoting the Wii.

 

[Wario64]

I think it's pretty obvious that Sony vp's read the neogaf topic about it, and became extraordinarily pissed off. Gaf earns its reputation as instigators of the game industry once again.

Who?

 

[Xarudace]

Here the passage of the law:
"§1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)

Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act."
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html

So yeah, it seems that since he worked to promote a product from a direct competitor, he could get sued since he's under contract with Sony.

Yeah actually that's not what that says at all. I can't see anything he did to violate this law. What word, term, name, symbol, or device did he use/say in the commercial which misrepresents the nature of Sony's goods, services, or commercial activities?

You can't trademark a person. You can trademark the character of Kevin Butler, but he obviously wasn't using that character here. They're going to lose. The reason they're doing this is because they want a settlement so that Bridgestone and the advertisers don't have to worry about spending time and money in court.

 

[corn_fest]

I'm upset that he was promoting a Wii, and not the PS triple

why?
do you really take video game advertising this seriously?

 

[apana]

Sony needs to learn how to be cool again. First they do the lame Kevin Butler commercials and then they sue the guy. If they are so eager to sue someone they should sue some of these damn patent trolls.

 

[Meelow]

Lol Sony...

 

[AniHawk]

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?

 

[radioheadrule83]

Stupid. Sony really are horrible. They don't own the guy! They certainly shouldn't anyway. I hope MS or Nintendo slap a big moustache / superficial disguise on the guy and give him even more work.

 

[Gokurakumaru]

I understand the legal-side of it, but I don't personally see how this lawsuit is worth the crap Sony will recieve from this whole debacle. As you can see already from this thread, most are going to side with Lambert here. Sony can explain the contracts and clauses all they want to, but they are going to come out of this looking like a bad guy. Does Sony really need even more bad publicity?

You understand the legal side of it and yet still choose to be a populist and side with the guy who may be in breach of contract? Maybe you should write Sony's lawyers a letter to tell them they need to run their lawsuits through GAF before filing, to make sure it's good PR, not bad PR.

 

[Medalion]

Sony: We own your likeness for life

 

[Traumahound]

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it does seem hypocritical of Sony since they've used Nintendo trademarks in Playstation commercials.

 

[Haunted]

Who?

Kevin Butler, VP of lawsuits.

 

[Stet]

Stupid. Sony really are horrible. They don't own the guy! They certainly shouldn't anyway. I hope MS or Nintendo slap a big moustache / superficial disguise on the guy and give him even more work.

It really depends on his contract. Some spokesperson deals are pretty all-encompassing, but they compensate extremely well for that reason. If he was under a contract that said he could do other commercials, but not video game companies, he should've realized that this might be a conflict of interest.

 

[EatinOlives]

I got sick of the Kevin Butler schtick when the same actor did almost the exact same thing for Geico like 8 years ago. So by the time Kevin Butler came around, I was really fucking sick of it. I hated the commercials.

Sony is stupid in suing him, too. Just a gigantic fucking waste of time when you should be paying more attention to your tanking company and not further tarnishing your awful reputation as of late.

You know Sony as a company can do more than one thing at a time, don't you?

 

[Graphics Horse]

I'm assuming there's no connection between a bunch of SCEA PR people being fired a week after this suit was filed.

 

[Mutanthands]

Oh, Sony. Couldn't find a way to settle this without making an ass of themselves, could they?

So, they pulled Lambert's image out of the ads already. Just fire him and be done with it.

If they absolutely had to sue, they should have had PR out ahead of the story, explaining their side. Oh wait, they fired half of them.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

You understand the legal side of it and yet still choose to be a populist and side with the guy who may be in breach of contract? Maybe you should write Sony's lawyers a letter to tell them they need to run their lawsuits through GAF before filing, to make sure it's good PR, not bad PR.

Ummm... wat? I never sided with either Sony or Lambert here. I stated that most of GAF has sided with Lambert, and I imagine most gamers will as well. This is bad publicity for Sony, and I can't imagine that whatever Sony gains from this lawsuit being worth the bad publicity they will receive.

Sony and its lawyers can do whatever they want, but there is some battles you leave alone, and this is one (IMO).

 

[Lord Error]

Yeah, this is not going to backfire, lol.

Ummm... wat? I never sided with either Sony or Lambert here. I stated that most of GAF has sided with Lambert, and I imagine most gamers will as well. This is bad publicity for Sony, and I can't imagine that whatever Sony gains from this lawsuit being worth the bad publicity they will receive.

Sony and it's lawyers can do whatever they want, but there is some battles you leave alone, and this is one (IMO).

Pretty much this, spot on. This is the sort of thing that could have been dealt with through some behind the doors deal where they'd tell him he's in breach of contract and should stop doing this in future, not sue him blindly.

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.

Consoles are not the thing that they want you to buy and leave to collect dust, or use one game that came with it for the next five years. They want you to feel good about the platform and continue buying games and services regularly. So of course it makes sense to advertise it to the people who already bought the product, it's probably as important as advertising it to people who haven't.

 

[DrForester]

Also think it was a bad move by Sony. With the KB campaign long over, the Bridgestone thing provided games a laugh for a few weeks, and was already on it's way to being forgotten, or at most an amusing anecdote. Now it's front and center for the community, and it's bringing Sony negative exposure.

 

[BurritoBushido]

I don't understand why everyone is freaking out and bashing sony over this. Do they not know what contracts are?

 

[WinFonda]

Poor form from Sony. Didn't seem like that big a deal. Just kinda petty.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Seems very petty of Sony.

 

[Zoe]

Also think it was a bad move by Sony. With the KB campaign long over, the Bridgestone thing provided games a laugh for a few weeks, and was already on it's way to being forgotten, or at most an amusing anecdote. Now it's front and center for the community, and it's bringing Sony negative exposure.

Who's to say it was long over? Are you forgetting about the last gap? I wouldn't be surprised if they had planned to bring him back for the new model over the holidays.

 

[blitzcloud]

Lol@people that are saying that sony is trying to turn his face into a sony product.

It's easy, really. Probably there was a contract where he had a window where he would not be able to advertise entertainment systems. He probably signed that because he felt it was alright. Then bridgestone company acts smug and does a workaround to get the same desired effect of having "kevin butler" persona on the advertisement where an entertainment system is linked.

I consider it a questionable practice on Bridgestones side... Either way, it all depends on contracts we cannot read ourselves say, mostly. So I can't say if Sony has a case or not.

 

[Graphics Horse]

I don't understand why everyone is freaking out and bashing sony over this. Do they not know what contracts are?

He's being sued for a TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. Not a breach of contract.
If you know details of any existing contracts in place between the two parties, please share the details, because we have only been going off guesses here.

 

[Takao]

Also think it was a bad move by Sony. With the KB campaign long over, the Bridgestone thing provided games a laugh for a few weeks, and was already on it's way to being forgotten, or at most an amusing anecdote. Now it's front and center for the community, and it's bringing Sony negative exposure.

Kevin Butler is a preorder bonus for LBP Karting - a game that has yet to launch. Sony's obviously not done with the character.

 

[Rubius]

Yeah actually that's not what that says at all. I can't see anything he did to violate this law. What word, term, name, symbol, or device did he use/say in the commercial which misrepresents the nature of Sony's goods, services, or commercial activities?

You can't trademark a person. You can trademark the character of Kevin Butler, but he obviously wasn't using that character here. They're going to lose. The reason they're doing this is because they want a settlement so that Bridgestone and the advertisers don't have to worry about spending time and money in court.

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.

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--

 

[Gokurakumaru]

This is bad publicity for Sony, and I can't imagine that whatever Sony gains from this lawsuit being worth the bad publicity they will receive.

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.

 

[MaxwellGT2000]

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.

 

[hatchx]

Sony manages to create a recognizable and universally liked ad campaign.

Sony sues said ad campaign spokesman.

Yup, sounds about right.

No.

 

[AgentChris]

This seems so stupid. Let the man do his commercials. He probably didn't know about the promotions before hand. Plus the Wii is dead.