surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
6:45 PM on 10.05.2012
I am so confused now! I must buy tons of Nintendo products, Sony clearly endorses the wii and jumped ship.
Sounds like a lose- lose situation for Lambert and Sony. I doubt we'll see much more of Kevin Butler in the future!
wow they have like no case he is an actor, he will play other roles,is he supposed to change his face every time he isn't hocking Sony products?
Oh snap son they just trademarked yo face. This happens in wrestling sometimes. "You're not allowed to play this character outside of our company." "What character? That's me lol"
because he was playstation's spokesmen in all those kevin butler commercials. sony probably has a contract with him saying he can't appear in a commercial featuring another competitors product. and if they do, there within there legal right to take action.
Actually, as an actor, when you audition for commercial work you are supposed to present a list of past advertising conflicts specifically to keep this sort of thing from happening. Within the industry a performer is not supposed to be used to promote two competing products. Now Jerry probably thought he was okay since the commercial was for Bridgestone and not Nintendo but if they're giving away Wiis then Sony could very well have a case and is well within its rights to sue.
all I can find is the Sony statement above but they only say the Kevin butler character not Jerry Lambert can't appear in competitors commercials, they never said that was Kevin butler in the bridge-stone commercial just some lab guy and since Jerry Lambert can't change his face they can't stop him from appearing in commercials as long as its some random dude and not the character they have secured.
Funny thing is, right after they showed the commercial the first time, Bridgstone edited him out of the commercial. Visuals only though, you still hear his voice.
Jonathon, you cannot possibly claim, with a straight face, that the similarities between that Bridgestone ad and Sony's ones are purely coincidental. There was clearly a purposeful attempt to use the success of the Kevin Butler character here, and that is against the law.
This is open and shit here - Bridgestone and Lampbert are clearly in the wrong.
This is open and shit here - Bridgestone and Lampbert are clearly in the wrong.
@eurohunk2
They can absolutely stop him from appearing in a competitor's commercial. Imagine if, when he was doing the mac/PC commercials, Microsoft had hired John Hodgman to advertise for them against Apple. This stuff is written in to every advertising contract an actor signs. If Sony can prove that the promotion Bridgestone is running is using one of their corporate icons to push a direct competitor's product then Sony will get damages.
They can absolutely stop him from appearing in a competitor's commercial. Imagine if, when he was doing the mac/PC commercials, Microsoft had hired John Hodgman to advertise for them against Apple. This stuff is written in to every advertising contract an actor signs. If Sony can prove that the promotion Bridgestone is running is using one of their corporate icons to push a direct competitor's product then Sony will get damages.
Yep. Can't have an actor representing anything remotely similar to anything else and can't have products with barely similar geometric shapes no matter how common.
Seriously. Think about what they are suing over. The right to be seen in specific situations? If Jerry was.caught playing a 3ds in public would Sony sue him then?
Seriously. Think about what they are suing over. The right to be seen in specific situations? If Jerry was.caught playing a 3ds in public would Sony sue him then?
@Ronin - Thank you for restating Sony's position as some kind of bizarre illogical absolute. Good thing thats not what they're talking about.
@Indigo Dingo
Except you don't know any of that at all. You have no idea whether or not Bridgestone intended to infringe on Sony's intellectual property at all, and no idea whether or not anyone is in the wrong. You can't, in good conscience, make any of the arguments you've made whatsoever.
Frankly, it is lawsuits like this that reaffirm why contemporary copyright law is sickening, and why non-compete clauses are often misused. Sony made a push to create a character that was indistinguishable from the actor that played him, and they achieved this. You made your bed, sleep in it.
Except you don't know any of that at all. You have no idea whether or not Bridgestone intended to infringe on Sony's intellectual property at all, and no idea whether or not anyone is in the wrong. You can't, in good conscience, make any of the arguments you've made whatsoever.
Frankly, it is lawsuits like this that reaffirm why contemporary copyright law is sickening, and why non-compete clauses are often misused. Sony made a push to create a character that was indistinguishable from the actor that played him, and they achieved this. You made your bed, sleep in it.
so an actor can only do 1 role and is also not allowed to enjoy other kinds of video games? Is Sont hurting for money or something? He never said he was Kevin butler in the commercial... So I dont get how they think they have a case.If his character said "im kevin butler and mario kart wii is amazing" then perhaps, but he didnt. Man this is dumb.
Way to go Sony! Fucking over the guy who was in your only decent marketing campaign in the last decade! That'll surely get you back on top and please the fans too!
The sarcasm in the article and the people claiming the suit is bullshit are just silly.
Is it pretty lame? Yes of course, but thinking this is ANYTHING but intentional and that he was hired and this filmed in good faith is going to be easily proven nonsense.
Learn2business
Is it pretty lame? Yes of course, but thinking this is ANYTHING but intentional and that he was hired and this filmed in good faith is going to be easily proven nonsense.
Learn2business
@Alan Argentina
Whether or not the character of Kevin Butler is a "character" that is different from the personality of Jerry Lambert is actually immaterial. I am an actor myself and it is understood, when you sign a no compete clause, that your likeness is what is being sold. Not you as a person. Not the character you have created. Your likeness is being used to sell a product. A company cannot hire you to sell a competing product without violating that agreement.
This comes down to whether the promotion of a Wii giveaway is enough to constitute an advertisement of a competing product, not whether or not Jerry appearing in a commercial as a character other than Kevin Butler constitutes a violation of his contract with Sony. If Jerry Lambert allows his likeness to be used to sell a competing product he is in violation of his contract with Sony. Period.
Whether or not the character of Kevin Butler is a "character" that is different from the personality of Jerry Lambert is actually immaterial. I am an actor myself and it is understood, when you sign a no compete clause, that your likeness is what is being sold. Not you as a person. Not the character you have created. Your likeness is being used to sell a product. A company cannot hire you to sell a competing product without violating that agreement.
This comes down to whether the promotion of a Wii giveaway is enough to constitute an advertisement of a competing product, not whether or not Jerry appearing in a commercial as a character other than Kevin Butler constitutes a violation of his contract with Sony. If Jerry Lambert allows his likeness to be used to sell a competing product he is in violation of his contract with Sony. Period.
You can't really know who's in the wrong unless you specifically know the contents of the contract between Lambert and Sony.
@mojoscosco
It's not as immaterial as you think, regardless of whether or not it would stand in court. Jerry Lambert has been playing a very specific type of character for years, his likeness in the case of Kevin Butler was simply Jerry Lambert, and very much so by design. He played a character that not only was indistinguishable from the actor himself, but indistinguishable from many of the characters that actor is well known for playing.
Legal departments be damned, it should boggle minds that Jerry Lambert should be held accountable for something like this when he was essentially the character's only defining trait. He did not play the Kevin Butler character in the Bridgestone spot, he played some guy. But because the Kevin Butler character was, by design, just the same old shit Jerry Lambert has always played, Jerry Lambert holding a Wii wheel for a few seconds must constitute an infringement on Sony's character. The character they designed to be identified as the actor playing him, himself.
If he violated a non-compete clause in his Sony contract, then he'll pay for it. That's whatever. The fact that a non-compete clause can be implemented in a situation like this, however, is so laughably sad that it should eclipse the rest of the story in its entirety.
It's not as immaterial as you think, regardless of whether or not it would stand in court. Jerry Lambert has been playing a very specific type of character for years, his likeness in the case of Kevin Butler was simply Jerry Lambert, and very much so by design. He played a character that not only was indistinguishable from the actor himself, but indistinguishable from many of the characters that actor is well known for playing.
Legal departments be damned, it should boggle minds that Jerry Lambert should be held accountable for something like this when he was essentially the character's only defining trait. He did not play the Kevin Butler character in the Bridgestone spot, he played some guy. But because the Kevin Butler character was, by design, just the same old shit Jerry Lambert has always played, Jerry Lambert holding a Wii wheel for a few seconds must constitute an infringement on Sony's character. The character they designed to be identified as the actor playing him, himself.
If he violated a non-compete clause in his Sony contract, then he'll pay for it. That's whatever. The fact that a non-compete clause can be implemented in a situation like this, however, is so laughably sad that it should eclipse the rest of the story in its entirety.
"...should be held accountable" was a terrible way of putting it. What I mean is that painting him as some kind of bad guy, or even someone that egregiously violated some kind of golden absolute, is corny.
At the end of the day, Sony will have garnered much more bad press from this than they ever could have from that Bridgestone spot, which was edited soon after it was released.
At the end of the day, Sony will have garnered much more bad press from this than they ever could have from that Bridgestone spot, which was edited soon after it was released.
Typecast in a commercial... ouch!
Typecast and sued because of said commercials... ouch.2!
I wonder what would have happened if Harrison Ford Were ever in a Star Trek Movie, or someone from In Living Color or MadTV appearing in Saturday Night Li-oh yeah, that happened and nobody was sued.
At least people can stop thinking America's the only place for idiotic gaming lawsuits.
Typecast and sued because of said commercials... ouch.2!
I wonder what would have happened if Harrison Ford Were ever in a Star Trek Movie, or someone from In Living Color or MadTV appearing in Saturday Night Li-oh yeah, that happened and nobody was sued.
At least people can stop thinking America's the only place for idiotic gaming lawsuits.
That stupid man, doesn't he know he should never act in another commercial ever again? So what if he has to feed his family. Sony are just like apple. Shit.
So Kevin Butler was not really the VP of Epic Footage?!? He actually wasn't real? OMG I'm so confused, I was going to buy a PS3, but now I have to get Mario Kart Wii and winter tires! -_-
"Sony might make a profit on something for once.
If you were expecting everybody to reply to you with "ouch"; sorry we're not ign, we don't highlight spam.
If you were expecting everybody to reply to you with "ouch"; sorry we're not ign, we don't highlight spam.
@Indigo
Really? Last I checked this was Jerry playing an nameless extra, NOT "kevin Butler" Last I checked it was in a Tire companies commercial, Not an electronics or entertainment commercial.
So my description stands: He can't appear as himself near anything remotely game related unless it is Sony? That's what I'm saying. Any contract itself is ridiculous, but I don't think one would even apply here in the first place.
Really? Last I checked this was Jerry playing an nameless extra, NOT "kevin Butler" Last I checked it was in a Tire companies commercial, Not an electronics or entertainment commercial.
So my description stands: He can't appear as himself near anything remotely game related unless it is Sony? That's what I'm saying. Any contract itself is ridiculous, but I don't think one would even apply here in the first place.
follow
