Upstream | September 29, 2009 | 3 comments

Do video game companies own you?

source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hViG_GyZwZxBURi1dTQVaQcKX8eQD9B0HFMG4

Image
AndrewH13
Should video games be protected under the first amendment?
If so. How protected should they be?
Should they be able to use your identity without permission?

These are the questions whose "answers" we are now learning via the legendary Jim Brown in a recent federal ruling on his lawsuit against Electronic Arts, publisher of the wildly popular Madden NFL football franchise.

[AP via Kotaku.com]
"On Wednesday, a federal district court in Los Angeles dismissed Brown's claim against Electronic Arts for the use of his image in its Madden NFL series. Judge Florence Marie-Cooper essentially found that video games are "expressive works, akin to an expressive painting that depicts celebrity athletes of past and present in a realistic sporting environment." Such works are protected by the First Amendment.

This would cover the use of Jim Brown's likeness - that of a living person, remember - in a commercial work. Lawyers for Sam Keller, the NCAA footballer who sued over the use of his likeness in EA Sports' NCAA football franchise, say that this ruling has no bearing on their suit. Indeed, it's at the federal district level and may be appealed. But a judge interpreting the First Amendment to protect video games in this way is certainly noteworthy."


Should a company be able to make money off your likeness without asking you?
Should this be considered "protected" under the first amendment?
Do all our identity are belong to them?

-AH
  1. groups:
    Community,   Upstream,   Games
  2. tags:
    Video Games,  Legal,  Free Speech,  First Amendment,  1 more
  3.     
    |

3 comments // Do video game companies own you?

  • remanns
  • bengiles89
    • 0
      bengiles89  

    • I agree with the judge, and really I think this is just a modern iteration of an ancient problem. Slander is an offense, but satire is a right. Both are often vitriolic and damaging.

      I think EA is a lazy and complacent titan of the gaming industry, but despite my personal disdain for the company in question, a Madden character is only an abstraction of a real athlete. Bush couldn't sue Mad Magazine, so I don't see why Jim Brown should be able to prevent EA from distributing a game featuring his likeness.

    • 2 years ago
  • AndrewH13
    • 0
      AndrewH13  
    • bengiles89:

      I agree with you almost completely. But I don't see this as either a satirical nor a slanderous case. They are not making any sort of comment on him, due mainly to the fact that these "simulations" are not an expressive art form. They are simply manipulating his likeness in whatever way aligns with the greater profit margin, without any sort of consultation with Mr. Brown himself.

      Juxtapose this next to the more recent cases of No Doubt and the estate of Kurt Cobain suing Activision over their usage as avatars in Band Hero and Guitar Hero: 5, respectively.

    • 2 years ago
more from Upstream:
from the community

top videos