Psychotext
Member
Ridiculous. I'm frankly astonished that anyone thought this would be a good idea.
So embarrassing.
So embarrassing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SCEA sues Bridgestone and Jerry Lambert (Kevin Butler actor) over Game On promotion
- Thread starter Takao
- Start date
Phife Dawg
Member
It seems you and I have different definitions for "substantial" in this context. But laugh and point all you will if it makes you (and Sony) feel better. Devoting time, attention, different units and a law firm on something like this is indeed a laughable cause.
Ban Puncher
Member
Should of stuck with creepy baby dolls and racist squirrels.
Brad Grenz
Member
Multinational corporations have lawyers on retainer to deal with shit like this at all times. They get paid whether they are pursuing legal action or not. This particular situation is unlikely to have even registered as a blip in terms of billable hours, and as far as every involved party is probably concerned right now, the matter has been closed for weeks. All that's left is a lot of pointless wankery and schadenfreude from people who don't know what they're talking about on forums like NeoGAF.
not_so_special
Banned
wow at luke plunkett,that is disgusting
Canis lupus
Member
I don't think thats allowed.
Phife Dawg
Member
Funnily enough I'm a lawyer. Maybe it's something unique to the US but I haven't come across these kind of retainer deals. It wouldn't make any sense, why pay third parties alongside your own legal department when they are not pursuing legal action?
Or maybe there is some kind of language/cultural barrier here? In Germany you usually contract law firms to take over in court since an in-house attorney (Syndikus) may not represent their employer before court as an attorney and there is a statutory requirement to be represented by an attorney before district courts for civil action for instance (claim > 5000 EUR). And you will pay them on a case-by-case basis (baring any framework contracts).
I guess you work as a lawyer as well? How it is done in the US? You just have a service contract with a law firm with a flat payment plus billable hours? Sounds like a recipe for ripping-off companies.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
As others have already pointed out or hinted at, there is one remaining angle to this story that seems worth pursuing, and that is who came up with the idea for this promotion in the first place?
If there's a chance Nintendo was the one who approached Bridgestone, just imagine the hilarious ways that could be interpreted
For example, Nintendo being pissed about PSABR comes up with the promotion knowing full well Lambert is currently part of Bridgestone's campaign, and basically sets the whole thing up just to have Lambert promoting the Wii on national television! Why it would be a new record in corporate trolling
The conspiracy theory practically writes itself!
If there's a chance Nintendo was the one who approached Bridgestone, just imagine the hilarious ways that could be interpreted
For example, Nintendo being pissed about PSABR comes up with the promotion knowing full well Lambert is currently part of Bridgestone's campaign, and basically sets the whole thing up just to have Lambert promoting the Wii on national television! Why it would be a new record in corporate trolling
The conspiracy theory practically writes itself!
SirIgbyCeaser
Banned
I don't think sony would be doing this lawsuit if they didn't know they could win.
They probably have lambert's contract as a simple reason for cease and desist, and they will ban him from future console ads
They probably have lambert's contract as a simple reason for cease and desist, and they will ban him from future console ads
GarthVaderUK
Banned
Yeah, all right Kaz. lol
grimshawish
Banned
In all this I only feel bad for Jerry Lambert - hes quite good at what he does and Sony are shitting on him by pretending to own him.
Kevin Butler was never the kind of ads SCEA needed to put out; they were fun for the 'in the know' but didn't really have mass appeal built in. People liked the character and so suing the man playing him seems like a really silly idea.
Sony should just move on and SCEA should read up on marketing.
Its weird that I would not put this past Reggie - it sounds like something he'd do!
Kevin Butler was never the kind of ads SCEA needed to put out; they were fun for the 'in the know' but didn't really have mass appeal built in. People liked the character and so suing the man playing him seems like a really silly idea.
Sony should just move on and SCEA should read up on marketing.
As others have already pointed out or hinted at, there is one remaining angle to this story that seems worth pursuing, and that is who came up with the idea for this promotion in the first place?
If there's a chance Nintendo was the one who approached Bridgestone, just imagine the hilarious ways that could be interpreted
For example, Nintendo being pissed about PSABR comes up with the promotion knowing full well Lambert is currently part of the Bridgestone's campaign, and basically sets the whole thing up just to have Lambert promoting the Wii on national television! Why it would be a new record in corporate trolling
Its weird that I would not put this past Reggie - it sounds like something he'd do!
This has bad optics written all over it.
It would be like Nintendo suing Charles Martinet, the very voice of Super Mario himself, for doing voice work for other games from their competitors, which he has done frequently and as recently as last year, because they think they have a "trademark" on his vocal chords.
Even if they have a legal right to do it, they still shouldn't. Maybe somebody ought to send Sony a copy of The Merchant of Venice.
It would be like Nintendo suing Charles Martinet, the very voice of Super Mario himself, for doing voice work for other games from their competitors, which he has done frequently and as recently as last year, because they think they have a "trademark" on his vocal chords.
Even if they have a legal right to do it, they still shouldn't. Maybe somebody ought to send Sony a copy of The Merchant of Venice.
GarthVaderUK
Banned
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I doubt Nintendo had much to do with the ad, other than giving it their OK from a brand perspective. Heck, The ad company probably signed with Bridgestone before the Wii promotion, and Bridgestone showed up one day to say, "we need a Wii commercial"
CadetMahoney
Member
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Sony doing stupid shit? Surely you jest.
Mama Robotnik
Member
I go away for a weekend when all is quiet. I discover the moment I get back that Sony's legal department have once again gone fucking batshit rabid.
From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.
From subpoenaing YouTube viewer IP addresses, demanding account information for Slashdot users, threatening to sue into oblivion any of their customers that posted the short series of letters and numbers that composed the PS3 security key - even after they tweeted it themselves, and the crushing of Lik Sang, Sony's legal department taints the brand. It makes the company come across as the most petty, incompetent, bullying and venomously litigious corporation in the entire games industry.
It's interesting that they are so trigger happy to sue actors and their own customers - easy targets of course, rather than someone who really deserves it such as Bethesda for releasing a faulty game, conspiring to mislead Sony's customers by providing only 360 code to reviewers, and genuinely tainting the PS3 brand. Bethesda is not such an easy target I imagine though - considering their own legal department is nearly as batshit insane rabid and threatened Notch with legal destruction of he didn't pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for his wonton use of the word "Scrolls" without Bethesda's explicit consent.
I know that's a tangent, but it certainly shows how Sony's legal rottweilers like their easy targets.
eighty(one)
Member
I follow you -The guy is just an actor. He's taking roles because that is his livelihood and his means if an income. I don't care if he's hawking tires, Wii or PS3. I don't give a shit enough to care about commercial stuff. This whole thing is....does Sony really care THAT much?
It's like if Nolan North voiced a (hypothetical) upcoming role as Captain Falcon in Fzero, would Sony be up in arms because he was the voice of Uncharted?
- also it seems he hasn't don't any new adverts for Sony in 2 years?!? That's forever in his field. Let the guy do whatever, Sony.
-- I personally found the Michael ads to be the best for PS3 appeal (I don't own a PS3, but those commercials made it appealing)
lol why would they even try to sue Bethesda? they wont have any grounds in it.
jeez.. try harder.
Melchiah
Member
It's beyond me why many seem to overlook that Sony most probably filed the suit because of the inclusion of Nintendo/Wii, their direct competitor, in the ad. After all, they did nothing when the previous Bridgestone ad was aired. Of course the accused party should have known better. But hey, it's another opportunity to smite Sony, so let's willfully dismiss that part completely, and try to make it seem like Sony is suing those involved for nothing.
So based on the recent responses I'm going to assume that no one read the update? It seems Sony and those involved have already settled, and based on the timeline it may have just been Bridgestone editing Jerry out of the ad.
2 years? No. There were also a bunch of web shorts released late last year as well. Sony was also using the character as a preorder bonus for LBP Karting.
Is this a joke post?
2 years? No. There were also a bunch of web shorts released late last year as well. Sony was also using the character as a preorder bonus for LBP Karting.
Is this a joke post?
GuessMyUserName
Member
Nobody's ignoring this - they just consider it a non-issue. Even if this WAS a non-compete lawsuit it's still an ad for Bridgestone, not the Wii. It's not some clear answer that you can say "Sony's right" at this time.
Secondly, whether or not they're in the right to sue, it's an incredibly laughable situation that Sony is bothering to sue their own spokesman. For a tiny little ad which nobody cared about, and they're just giving MORE attention to it and going "HEY YEAH THAT WAS KEVIN BUTLER HOLDING A WII COTROLLER IN THAT COMMERCIAL" when the whole promotion is already done now. Sony threw themselves into the ring for everyone to mock here.
And in any case they are suing for trademark infringement, not breach-of-contract. And as someone already pointed out (and it was pointed out again even!), the state of California invalidates non-compete clauses.
Melchiah
Member
I can definitely see why some might consider it a non-issue, as it suits whatever agenda they might have better.
So, if there was a contract and he broke it, they should just let him get away with it?
Well I felt betrayed by this Kevin Butler person, or whatever his real name is. I traded in my Wii for a PS3 after his E3 speech. Then I go and see him whoring with Mario Kart, like he doesn't even care. I hope SCEA wins this case, maybe it'll stop people from lying, I don't know, but its a start
Did John Koller state this?
They're going to use Youtube comments as examples aren't they?
Screens via Andrefvps
Wyndstryker
Member
Did John Koller state this?
They're going to use Youtube comments as examples aren't they?
Screens via Andrefvps
Watch them start using NeoGAF quotes as well
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
The problem is the assumption a contract was broken when there's zero evidence to that. When facts have to be completely fabricated on one end, I'd be more careful about crying "agenda".
Damn, I'm finding it harder and harder to differentiate between someone posting in a sarcastic way to make fun of them, and the actual Sony faithfuls that keep jumping into every thread that talks about some random shitty decision their favourite company makes.
Phife Dawg
Member
Well they have to when they're going for trademark infringement.
Did John Koller state this?
They're going to use Youtube comments as examples aren't they?
Screens via Andrefvps
I dunno, that guy is from Venturebeat. I clicked the link to the story and I didn't see anything updated. The whole story is ripped from this thread too lol
OldJadedGamer
Banned
No one is looking at the plus side. By Sony suing the actor he isn't going to want to work with them anymore which means the Kevin Butler ad campaign is basically over.
IsntChrisL
Member
Actors often have to sign contracts stating they wont do commercials for the competition for a certain amount of time.
The fact that Sony is making it out to be about the Kevin Butler character is stupid though. That's the guy's face and voice, Sony didn't make that. On top of that, Nintendo didn't hire him.
The fact that Sony is making it out to be about the Kevin Butler character is stupid though. That's the guy's face and voice, Sony didn't make that. On top of that, Nintendo didn't hire him.
Sickboy007
Member
What a ridiculous case.
So... they really believe it's "Kevin Butler" in that ad and not a "random Bridgestone lab worker" that happens to be played by the same actor? Wow, they really think "Kevin Butler" is that important that other companies want to use him too?
Haunted
Member
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
So apparently everyone thinks that Sony would be far far better off letting the face of the Kevin Butler campaign appear on TV and promote the Wii then they would be if they sued to take it down. Its apparently extremely stupid now to not just let what the public sees as Kevin Butler go on TV and promote Mario Kart and the Wii.
Are you guys insane? You can call Sony stupid about whatever you want, but doing it in this situation is just making you guys look stupid.
Are you guys insane? You can call Sony stupid about whatever you want, but doing it in this situation is just making you guys look stupid.
staticneuron
Member
My problem is the amount of people here who seriously believed that Sony wouldn't have something of that nature in their contracts. If you ever read one of their legal documents they try to cover all possible bases. They try really hard.
Average consumer, that is intelligent enough to understand that Kevin Butler was just a character and not a real person, and that the actor behind him just have to work, probably doesn't give a shit.
It reminds me of my friend who was mad at Ace Ventura when he was having sex with Courteney Cox in "Pet Detective" because "she's Chandler's girlfriend". But she was 10yo back then. If you're an adult and you really believe that characters in ads and movies are real, then you have some serious problems.
Acquiescence
Member
Similar threads
- Locked