Support NeoGAF

[Mxrz]

IP infringement is likely what it'd boil down to in this case. Sony owns the KB persona. This ad, by their claim, was KB advertising a Wii promo. All the "LOL Betrayal!" stuff seems a good indication that people were seeing this as KB thing. So there's something to it. Dunno how a judge will see it. But I'd guess they'll all settle. Maybe Sony employees will get some free tires.

I think I'm more disappointed we won't get any more KB ads. Those were fun.

 

[Carl]

Yeah Sony. How dare this actor do some acting for another company? Sigh.

 

[Kyou]

Its just sad really, but he really should have expected some repercussion for doing an ad for a direct competitor.

Bridgestone Tires?

 

[alfredofroylan]

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.

I didn't know that Sony make tires now? Because he made the ad for Bridgestone, the Wii thing is just a promotion fot that company.

 

[iLLmAtlc]

I'm not a lawyer but I did take a business law class.

The clause in the contract that prevents someone from working for a competitor is called a restrictive covenant. Sony is suing not for a breach of contract but something intellectual property related which probably means the lawsuit is about them owning the likeness of Kevin butler and the actor appearing similarly in that commercial.

California is pretty much the capital of IP too thanks to the lobbying film, music and maybre game companies have been doing so they probably have a better chance off winning than they should.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

Are they even still running any ads with Kevin Butler? When was the last one?

 

[iammeiam]

So if I'm following the timeline properly, Sony initially filed suit in mid-September, which would be well after the internet started laughing at it, and shortly before the edited version showed up? Which would indicate Bridgestone probably edited the ad specifically in reaction to the suit, possibly to avoid the whole issue of Sony possibly seeking an injunction to block the campaign?

I am really interested to see how this case pans out.

 

[Raoh]

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.

Both possible.

A third possibility. The commercial has to run for people to get paid. Remove him so the ad can run until a court has decided.

Bridgestone/creek win? Put him back in.

Birdgeston/creek loses? No biggie, they complied and removed him.


And it is serious. Business is serious .............business. If it wasn't people would not have made a thread called "VP of Bretrayal". They did it because when it comes to games, Lampert is recognized as a Sony Spokesperson. If he wasn't, the original thread on here would not have been made.

 

[Haunted]

Fantastic story.

 

[CaptainZombie]

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.

Maybe he new the sinking ship "SONY" was actually sinking and didn't want to be a part of their ads anymore. LOL! Seriously, this does suck as he was so awesome in those commercials. I haven't really seen any Sony PS3/Vita commercials in months which sucks considering we are going into the holiday season.

 

[Ocaso]

I didn't know that Sony make tires now? Because he made the ad for Bridgestone, the Wii thing is just a promotion fot that company.

Yes, it's a Bridgestone ad, but one that features a competitor's product very, very prominently and may easily be seen as a cross promotion. I agree that it's odd that Sony would sue for trademark infringement, but again, given that Lambert was erased from the ads, it's clear this isn't a black and white issue.

 

[Htown]

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.

He's an actor. Unless he signed a non-compete clause or something saying he wouldn't act in any more commercials, Sony is just being dumb.

Unless he appeared in the commercial AS Kevin Butler, VP of something-or-other, Sony has nothing.

Besides, he was in a series of Holiday Inn ads before he ever got a job at Sony. Should Holiday Inn have sued Sony for using him?

 

[brochiller]

Maybe he new the sinking ship "SONY" was actually sinking and didn't want to be a part of their ads anymore. LOL! Seriously, this does suck as he was so awesome in those commercials. I haven't really seen any Sony PS3/Vita commercials in months which sucks considering we are going into the holiday season.

I wouldn't count on that one.

 

[Derrick01]

It's good to see SCEA is awake for something since they don't seem to be too worried about finding good PS+ content or advertising their products at all.

 

[alr1ght]

It may seem petty, but you have to know what your contract states and which companies you're able to work with. Maybe he has no idea what sector Playstation operates in.

Either way, this is definitely the end of the But. RIP.

 

[Takao]

 

[CadetMahoney]

I hope Sony get laughed out of court........

Oh Sony Sony Sony.

LOL. I was watching this clip on utube and was thinking of making a gif of that scene. . . but I gave up thinking it would never be effective.

 

[funkystudent]

This is dumb.

 

[Malvingt2]

wut? lolol

 

[RukusProvider]

This is dumb.

This is Sony.

 

[Incendiary]

So Kevin Butler is now Kevin Butler and only Kevin Butler for the rest of his life if Sony wins this? That sucks.

 

[cuyahoga]

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

Commercial actors with prominent placement almost always have to sign contracts with a conflict cause that prohibits them from appearing in any ads for competing products for a given amount of time. In some cases, actors who are the center of an ad campaign—like the "Can you hear me now?" Verizon guy—can't appear in any other advertisements per the contract they sign, but they get extremely good compensation in these cases (more than $15 million in the Verizon guy's case). In both instances, these clauses are so that companies can minimize confusion from a representative of their brand appearing to endorse another product.

I imagine what happened here is that the Lambert—or his representation (agent/manager)—didn't realize that the Bridgestone campaign focused on games, and just assumed it was tire-related. But it is still on them to ensure they aren't in violation of contract.

 

[Jintor]

And it is serious. Business is serious .............business. If it wasn't people would not have made a thread called "VP of Bretrayal". They did it because when it comes to games, Lampert is recognized as a Sony Spokesperson. If he wasn't, the original thread on here would not have been made.

Yeah, but a reasonable person would also recognise that the dude's an actor. Merely because he played a known role doesn't mean his features are now intertwined (legally speaking) with that role forever.

 

[Canis lupus]

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.

He was advertising PS3 games to PS3 gamers.

 

[Kokonoe]

This wouldn't be the first time Sony made a strange lawsuit.

 

[RukusProvider]

So Kevin Butler is now Kevin Butler and only Kevin Butler for the rest of his life if Sony wins this? That sucks.

Sony has a better of Vita hitting shipment forecast than winning this.

 

[HocusPocus]

Man Sony this desperate for some cash. *pew* *pew* *pow* *pow*

 

[MikeE21286]

Haha I must know who runs this account

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

when does sony sue third parties for not making vita games

 

[Metalmurphy]

He's getting lazy.

Commercial actors with prominent placement almost always have to sign contracts with a conflict cause that prohibits them from appearing in any ads for competing products for a given amount of time. In some cases, actors who are the center of an ad campaign—like the "Can you hear me now?" Verizon guy—can't appear in any other advertisements per the contract they sign, but they get extremely good compensation in these cases (more than $15 million in the Verizon guy's case). In both instances, these clauses are so that companies can minimize confusion from a representative of their brand appearing to endorse

I imagine what happened here is that the Lambert—or his representation (agent/manager)—didn't realize that the Bridgestone campaign focused on games, and just assumed it was tire-related. But it is still on them to ensure they aren't in violation of contract.

Yep, this is what I think happened too. They probably thought being a Bridgestone ad wouldn't breach the contract (and maybe it doesn't, but Sony clearly thinks it does) and just did it anyway.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

Great OP Takao.

Isn't Sony aware that this is not only got to put more attention towards Kevin Butler's actor being in a commercial with a Wii, but also make Sony themselves look even worse then they already did in this situation? The money they may get from this will in no way compensate for the bad publicity they will receive from this.

 

[Osietra]

Thank Christ for lawyers!

 

[Phaethon0017]

Why didn't Sony just continue running Kevin Butler ads? I haven't seen one in months. In fact I thought they even dropped him.

 

[RukusProvider]

Great OP Takao.

Isn't Sony aware that this is not only got to put more attention towards Kevin Butler's actor being in a commercial with a Wii, but also make Sony themselves look even worse then they already did in this situation? The money they may get from this will in no way compensate for the bad publicity they will receive from this.

Their PR department will step in deflect it.

 

[Ocaso]

Great OP Takao.

Isn't Sony aware that this is not only got to put more attention towards Kevin Butler's actor being in a commercial with a Wii, but also make Sony themselves look even worse then they already did in this situation? The money they may get from this will in no way compensate for the bad publicity they will receive from this.

If the lawsuit has merit, which it may, there's no need for bad publicity. Sony has every right to act against someone who they believe has breached their contracts or infringed their trademarks.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

I'm not a lawyer but I did take a business law class.

The clause in the contract that prevents someone from working for a competitor is called a restrictive covenant. Sony is suing not for a breach of contract but something intellectual property related which probably means the lawsuit is about them owning the likeness of Kevin butler and the actor appearing similarly in that commercial.

California is pretty much the capital of IP too thanks to the lobbying film, music and maybre game companies have been doing so they probably have a better chance off winning than they should.

Makes sense. Thank you.

 

[Corto]

Fuck SCEA. Just giving more media exposition to this in the form of a suit it's just incredibly stupid. What are they thinking they'll gain with this?

 

[B1gg_Randall]

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.

From which season?

 

[Skiesofwonder]

Their PR department will step in deflect it.

Good luck with turning this into anything but a laughing stock.

If the lawsuit has merit, which it may, there's no need for bad publicity. Sony has every right to act against someone who they believe has breached their contracts or infringed their trademarks.

The average hardcore gamer isn't going to know or care that Sony has merit to sue Lambert. All they are going to see is that Sony is suing the face of their gaming department for the previous three or so years. Sony is suing THIS GUY.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Non-compete clause is the only possible way they might be able to have anything even close to resembling an argument. You can't copyright and actor's physical likeness, so either the claim raised in the OP is wrong or SCEA really has reached ludicrous levels of desperation.

 

[MikeE21286]

Good luck with turning this into anything but a laughing stock.

Compared to commenting on Vita sales, this is a cakewalk.

 

[Metalmurphy]

From which season?

1

 

[Kusagari]

Maybe there was something saying he couldn't appear in ads featuring video games?

 

[Zoe]

Non-compete clause is the only possible way they might be able to have anything even close to resembling an argument. You can't copyright and actor's physical likeness, so either the claim raised in the OP is wrong or SCEA really has reached ludicrous levels of desperation.

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.

 

[Mlatador]

I want to see the charakter Kevin Butler in a real Nintendo add (playing the 3DS or Wii U) or even one in which they actually pick this story up a little to mock Sony, while he's playing some of their stuff of course - maaan, that would be soooo awesome!

 

[noobasuar]

yeah can't really see what Sony is hoping to gain from this other than reinforcing there image of being a complete laughingstock.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Well, Sony's gotta find a way to earn some money some how.

 

[The Mana Legend]

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.

 

[Takao]

I want to see the charakter Kevin Butler in a real Nintendo add (playing the 3DS or Wii U) or even one in which they actually pick this story up a little to mock Sony, while he's playing some of their stuff of course - maaan, that would be soooo awesome!

It would be awesome for Sony to sue Nintendo?

 

[Ocaso]

Good luck with turning this into anything but a laughing stock.



The average hardcore gamer isn't going to know or care that Sony has merit to sue Lambert. All they are going to see is that Sony is suing the face of their gaming department for the previous three or so years. Sony is suing THIS GUY.

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.