Judge Rules Games Are "Expressive Works" 157
There has been an ongoing legal battle over the past few years about how and when game makers can use the likenesses of football players without their permission. Former college football player Samuel Keller filed a class action suit in May against Electronic Arts for the publisher's use of NCAA players' information — including things like jersey number, height, weight, skin tone and hair style, but not names — to recreate actual teams within sports games. An earlier suit filed by NFL Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown brought up the fact that video games weren't even a consideration when contracts and licensing rights were negotiated in the '50s and '60s, yet many football players from that era (including Brown) are represented in the occasional sports game whether they like it or not. A ruling came down from a district court judge last Wednesday stating that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment," and are thus protected under the First Amendment. Brown and fellow Hall-of-Famer Herb Adderley are now seeking to throw their support behind Keller's lawsuit.
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a player, you don't own your own image (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
What huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
The video game company is trading on the likeness of a person. This isn't a painting in a gallery, it is software sold by the millions around the globe, with millions in profit involved.
Personally, I think the obvious ruling here is that you can't put someone's likeness in a game without their consent.
That said, I don't NECESSARILY agree that stats and a hairstyle constitute a likeness.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I would have counted video games as a commercial medium, the same as gift cards for example.
Which is pretty much how Andy Warhol approached art. Business and art are not (necessarily) distinct from each other. Production line art can be just as entertaining, beautiful or thought provoking as something drawn in a scenic mountainside retreat.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As a player, you don't own your own image (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Awesome... (Score:3, Interesting)
So I guess this means Charles Barkley RPG is totally 100% legal? Actually, it probably was before this ruling, because of its price. (Free)
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/22/fan-made-charles-barkley-rpg-sees-full-release/ [joystiq.com]
I wouldn't mind seeing that on the app store. :P
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:2, Interesting)
Taken from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:3, Interesting)
In these games, they have nameless players, that just happen to look a lot like, play a lot like, and wear the same number as a real former/current player for that same team. This allows the hypocritical NCAA to license the game without breaking their own rules that players can't be used to endorse products.
Re:No shit sherlock (Score:3, Interesting)